what is global citizen essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

Editor's note:  This article was originally published in August 2021, and has been updated to reflect our latest impact. 

We’re often told that the world’s problems are intractable, that hunger is just a fact of life, that climate change is unavoidable, that extreme poverty will always exist.

But Global Citizens are clear-eyed in our optimism about the change we can bring about.

We know that world hunger can be defeated — the current amount of food produced right now is enough to fill every belly globally, yet a third of it goes to waste. We know that the answer to the climate crisis — rapidly phasing out fossil fuels — just needs the right political will, commitment, and funding. We know that poverty, as the great Nelson Mandela said , is manmade, and that it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. 

At Global Citizen, we talk a lot about the power of Global Citizens all around the world taking action to put pressure on decision-makers to do more and do better in the mission to defeat poverty and defend the planet, in a way that’s equitable for all. 

You might well be wondering though, what does it actually mean to be a Global Citizen?

What do Global Citizens believe in? 

At its core, being a Global Citizen means believing that extreme poverty can be eliminated, and that the resources to end it can be mobilized if enough people take action. It means learning about the systemic inequalities that fuel poverty — racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, and economic inequalities — and joining us in taking action to overcome these in a way that’s sustainable.

Most importantly, it means realizing that when we use our voices together, we are powerful and we can ensure lasting change in the mission to defeat poverty, demand equity, and defend the planet.

Global Citizens recognize the power of advocacy, of shining a light on overlooked issues to rally people worldwide and mobilize ongoing support from those that can drive real change — governments, the private sector, philanthropists, and everyday citizens. 

We recognize advocacy as a tool that complements the vital work of on-the-ground organizations to ensure access to food and water, education, health care, and more, for the communities most in need. And we also recognize advocacy as a vital part of the mission not only to respond to humanitarian crises, but to help prevent them in a way that’s long-term and sustainable.

Global Citizens believe in racial justice, gender equity, and climate justice. We believe that an injustice anywhere — be that police violence in the US and Nigeria , the global gender pay gap , climate displacement in sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific Islands, and more — is an injustice to all of us.

Global Citizens believe that we’re all connected — a fact starkly illustrated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic , which threatens all of us until it threatens none of us — and that it’s on us all to call for a just transition away from the status quo of rampant inequality and environmental degradation, toward a future of shared prosperity and environmental regeneration. 

Who are Global Citizens and how can I join the movement? 

Global Citizens have worked to stop child marriage in Tanzania , boosted investments in women-owned businesses globally, and secured funding for childhood nutrition in Zambia. 

They've advocated for equitable access to water and sanitation in India , called on Canada to donate COVID-19 vaccines to low-income countries , and joined Rihanna to call for the education of millions of girls around the world .

They’ve fought plastic pollution in oceans , improved menstrual health in South Africa , and pushed for expanded access to reproductive rights . 

This may make it seem like Global Citizens are super activists. And while some of them are, most are regular folks who want to do their bit to help solve the world’s biggest problems — balancing their activism with their love of music and entertainment, community and culture.

Joining the movement and becoming a Global Citizen yourself is easy — all you have to do is download the Global Citizen app or head to our website, sign up as a Global Citizen , and you can start taking action with us right away to defeat poverty, demand equity, and defend the planet, and to learn more about the issues facing the world right now and how we can all play a part in solving them. 

What does Global Citizen campaign for and how does it work? 

Global Citizen's overarching vision is to end extreme poverty by 2030. Extreme poverty is defined as a person living on less than US $2.15 a day . 

But since the consequences and causes of poverty far exceed daily finances, Global Citizen campaigns to improve all of the conditions that determine a person’s welfare and well-being — as laid out by the United Nations (UN) Global Goals — such as access to quality water, food, and education, as well as eliminating those systemic inequalities that drive poverty, and combating climate change.

People are able to learn about these pressing global issues on our website and our social media channels, as well as through the Global Citizen app — and can then use these platforms to take action with us, including sending tweets and emails to world leaders, corporations, and philanthropists; sharing images and videos of themselves standing up for the causes they believe in; signing petitions; and more. 

You can learn more about how to take action with Global Citizen, as well as more about our model and our impact, here . And if you’d like to learn even more about how we use advocacy to democratize activism and drive change, you can find our in-depth explainer here . 

What’s Global Citizen’s impact been like? 

Since the Global Citizen movement began, Global Citizens have helped ensure the disbursement of more than US $43.6 billion in commitments from governments, corporations, and philanthropists to address a broad range of issues and support organizations and programs working around the world. These commitments have impacted the lives of more than 1.29 billion people to date.

We're confident in these numbers because our team rigorously assesses all financial and policy announcements. The Global Citizen team monitors each commitment over time, cross-checks all the numbers, and follows through to measure its on-the-ground impact. 

You can find out more here about the impact Global Citizens have achieved , read our impact reports, and see how ongoing financial commitments are tracking towards completion.

Global Citizen Explains

Demand Equity

What Exactly Does It Mean to Be a 'Global Citizen'?

July 6, 2022

What is global citizenship?

Global citizenship is about shared values and shared responsibility. Image:  REUTERS/NASA/Tim Peake

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} April Rinne

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Human Rights is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, human rights.

First, let’s set the stage: the world is becoming more global and interconnected every day. From multinational corporations to climate change to social and political movements, humanity’s fate is increasingly intertwined.

Moreover, we are in the early stages of an historic shift of identity — increasingly less tied to any particular location — which will have far-reaching implications for business, government and society alike.

Against this backdrop, debates about globalization are taking place at an unprecedented level. And yet, we seem to have almost forgotten about the role of global citizenship. It is imperative that we turn these tides.

There are two kinds of global citizens: individuals, who share a set of values and responsibilities; and corporations, who have focused on globalization and seem to have left global citizenship behind. I am focused on being a role model for individuals, helping corporations become better global citizens, and highlighting the importance and voices of global citizens everywhere.

'The shared human experience'

Global citizenship is about the shared human experience. It acknowledges and celebrates that, wherever we come from and wherever we live, we are here together. Our well-being and success are ultimately interdependent. We have more to learn from one another than to fear about our future.

Global citizenship is also about shared values and shared responsibility. Global citizens understand that local events are significantly shaped and affected by global and remote events, and vice-versa. They champion fundamental human rights above any national law or identity, and social contracts that preserve elements of equality among all people.

Diversity, interdependence, empathy and perspective are essential values of global citizenship. Global citizens harness these values and are uniquely positioned to contribute in multiple contexts — locally, nationally and internationally — without harming one community to benefit another. They foster and promote international understanding.

Global citizens include individuals, corporations, global nomads, “glocals,” young and old, big and small, for-profit and non-profit, public and private, introverts and extroverts, men and women and children and anyone in between. Global citizenship and long-term, visionary leadership go hand-in-hand: Individual leaders who espouse shared values, and corporate citizens whose governance, ethics, business model and investment strategy create — not only extract — value in each and every place they touch.

Global citizenship is not the same as globalization. Globalization — the process by which organizations develop international influence or operate on an international scale — is driven by economics, business and money. It’s about the flow of products, capital, people and information. Global citizenship, on the other hand, is driven by identity and values. Global citizens build bridges, mitigate risk and safeguard humanity. While globalization is under hot debate today, we have never needed global citizens more than now.

Why does global citizenship matter?

Global citizens are not born; they are created. Children do not have an innate understanding of their shared humanity; they learn this over time. The importance of education and enabling global perspectives cannot be understated.

Historically, global citizenship was rooted in a common desire to prevent war. Common reasoning was that the more we knew about each other, the more likely we would ensure peace, progress and prosperity. More recently, the Human Genome Project has shown us — for the first time in human history — that scientifically, we are all one. New technologies also enable us to connect with more people in more ways than ever before, allowing us to discover our similarities and differences, better understand our interdependencies, and expand our worldviews.

Yet many people don’t feel this way or have not had such experiences. Around the world, we see people who lack a sense of belonging: they do not feel a deeper connection to other places, people or cultures. Often they do not feel as though they even belong at home. Moreover, especially in developing countries, people who have been unable to participate in the “digital revolution” have also been left out of these conversations. Connectedness is not universal.

In the corporate realm, all too often in recent decades we have seen companies that have put corporate interests above those of individuals, communities and the environment. We read about unethical behavior, corruption, rent-seeking, egregious labor practices, environmental degradation, and worse. These activities represent the antithesis of what the world needs.

Global citizenship helps bridge these gaps and rectify these realities, and global citizens are its ambassadors. Doing this is not only about mindset; it is about actions, lifestyles and building greater connections over time.

Why now? What’s different about today?

Despite the fact that we’ve been living in an increasingly global world for centuries, debates about globalization today are raging unlike almost ever before. From Brexit to the U.S. presidential election, rising nationalism and refugee crises, we see backlash and misunderstandings across-the-board. Global citizenship has always been important. But it is now urgent to highlight its importance to society, business, and the world at large.

We are in the early stages of an historic shift of identity. Increasingly, we are less tied to any particular location, social structure, or nation-state. This is a massive shift, which we (read: people and organizations everywhere) are broadly not aware of or prepared for. It requires a re-grinding of our frames of reference and lenses on change. It also has a wide range of implications. Here are some of the most important:

Technology: The internet is borderless and globalization has gone digital. Smartphones and other mobile devices give us an unprecedented level of global interconnectedness. New technologies have an incredible democratizing power, for those who can access them. If we couple this interconnectedness with global citizenship values, then the world opens up — and gives voice and opportunity — to far more people.

Leadership: Globalization and global citizenship are not the same. Globalization has brought unprecedented benefits to many, but not all. Successful leaders are global citizens, whether they are CEOs, prime ministers, community leaders or children. Whether and how we build a truly inclusive, sustainable future will depend on our ability to help new generations of leaders to become global.

Business: Global businesses, in particular multi-national corporations (MNCs) are bearing the brunt of today’s globalization debates. And they should. For decades, and even centuries, MNCs have extracted more than they have contributed. They have benefited a few (typically executives and shareholders) at the expense of others (often those without a voice: workers, communities and the environment).

Nonetheless, globalization has added immense value to the global economy (to the tune of 10% of global GDP). More interconnected countries and emerging markets have benefited most from this trend, in terms of economic growth. So it is not that globalization itself is bad, nor that it is going away anytime soon.

This is where global citizens are crucial, because they understand both global and local contexts. For example, while globalization has narrowed inequality among countries, it has exacerbated it within them. Hence the solutions are more about targeted domestic policy changes than closing borders or deregulation. In terms of business, it’s time to revise MNCs’ strategies to ensure they generate global prosperity, engage society and contribute to a greater good.

Politics: Many politicians see globalism as a disease, and nationalism as the cure. But this is a false dichotomy. “Deglobalizing” will not achieve the goals of peace, progress and prosperity. Rather, we must look to global citizenship’s shared values for lasting answers.

Youth, education and workforce mobility: New technologies break down barriers for learning, development and earning income. Today’s youth tend to see the world — and themselves — as more global, borderless and fluid. And one in every seven people in the world today is already an immigrant.

Yet these themes are full of unknowns ahead, from the automation of jobs to the “youth bulge” in many emerging markets. High-skilled workers may be less tied to any particular location or profession, while low-skilled workers may have ever-fewer options. Global citizens who understand the layers of implications will be key to developing responsible solutions.

Environment and climate change: There is probably no other issue that more clearly underscores our interconnectedness than climate change. The earth depends on collective stewardship that transcends any geopolitical border or economy. One of the many essential roles that global citizens play is to protect and enforce global compacts. The health of the planet, and society, hinges on global citizens leading this charge.

Cities and urbanization: We are living in the urban millennium. By 2100, more people will live in cities than exist in the world today. Cities are the engines of global growth. They are full of opportunities as well as challenges. They present a classic case of “glocalism”: the most successful cities are both connected globally and able to address local needs… in other words, in perfect alignment with the values of global citizenship.

Global citizenship is not a one-size-fits-all concept, nor is it a panacea. But it is an extremely powerful tool in our 21st century toolbox for building a more sustainable, resilient and compassionate world. Everyone can play an important part. The world is waiting for you.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Civil Society .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

How The Gambia offers a roadmap for enhancing diaspora engagement

Gibril Faal and Adrian Kitimbo

May 2, 2024

International Workers' Day: 3 ways trade unions are driving social progress

Giannis Moschos

May 1, 2024

Is climate inaction a human rights violation?

John Letzing and Minji Sung

April 9, 2024

A ‘post-human rights’ era is emerging. Here’s what it means for migrants – and how to stop it

Marie McAuliffe

April 8, 2024

Here's why the Homeless World Cup inspired a Netflix film

March 29, 2024

This is why the number of refugees could double in the next decade, according to the head of UNHCR

Liam Coleman

March 7, 2024

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Global citizenship.

• April R. Biccum April R. Biccum School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.556
• Published online: 19 November 2020

The concept of “Global Citizenship” is enjoying increased currency in the public and academic domains. Conventionally associated with cosmopolitan political theory, it has moved into the public domain, marshaled by elite actors, international institutions, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, and ordinary people. At the same time, scholarship on Global Citizenship has increased in volume in several domains (International Law, Political Theory, Citizenship Studies, Education, and Global Business), with the most substantial growth areas in Education and Political Science, specifically in International Relations and Political Theory. The public use of the concept is significant in light of what many scholars regard as a breakdown and reconfiguration of national citizenship in both theory and practice. The rise in its use is indicative of a more general change in the discourse on citizenship. It has become commonplace to offer globalization as a cause for these changes, citing increases in regular and irregular migration, economic and political dispossession owing to insertion in the global economy, the ceding of sovereignty to global governance, the pressure on policy caused by financial flows, and cross-border information-sharing and political mobilization made possible by information communications technologies (ICTs), insecurities caused by environmental degradation, political fragmentation, and inequality as key drivers of change. Global Citizenship is thus one among a string of adjectives attempting to characterize and conceptualize a transformative connection between globalization, political subjectivity, and affiliation. It is endorsed by elite global actors and the subject of an educational reform movement. Some scholarship observes empirical evidence of Global Citizenship, understood as active, socially and globally responsible political participation which contributes to global democracy, within global institutions, elites, and the marginalized themselves. Arguments for or against a cosmopolitan sensibility in political theory have been superseded by both the technological capability to make global personal legal recognition a possibility, and by the widespread endorsement of Global Citizenship among the Global Education Policy regime. In educational scholarship Global Citizenship is regarded as a form of contemporary political being that needs to be socially engineered to facilitate the spread of global democracy or the emergence of new political arrangements. Its increasing currency among a diverse range of actors has prompted a variety of attempts either to codify or to study the variety of usages in situ. As such the use of Global Citizenship speaks to a central methodological problem in the social sciences: how to fix key conceptual variables when the same concepts are a key aspect of the behavior of the actors being studied? As a concept, Global Citizenship is also intimately associated with other concepts and theoretical traditions, and is among the variety of terms used in recent years to try to reconceptualize changes it the international system. Theoretically it has complex connections to cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and republicanism; empirically it is the object of descriptive and normative scholarship. In the latter domain, two central cleavages repeat: the first is between those who see Global Citizenship as the redress for global injustices and the extension of global democracy, and those who see it as irredeemably capitalist and imperial; the second is between those who see evidence for Global Citizenship in the actions and behavior of a wide range of actors, and those who seek to socially engineer Global Citizenship through educational reform.

• globalization
• global governance
• cosmopolitanism
• citizenship
• global civil society

What is Global Citizenship?

Global Citizenship (hereafter GC) as a concept is enjoying some currency in the public and academic domains. The theory and study of GC has been a growth industry especially in philosophy, international relations, and education, and it has been adopted as a central educational reform under the Sustainable Development Goals and endorsed by major international organizations, think tanks, and the expanded regime of Global Education Policy (Mundy, 2016 ). What is meant by GC varies between political actors and academics. The academic literature on GC divides into two branches. The normative theoretical branch has a number of overlaps and engagements with cosmopolitan, liberal, and republican political theory. The empirical scholarship, meanwhile, observes GC’s existence in individual behavior and the structures of transnational organization; in the case of education, empirical scholarship offers ways and means of producing GC through a reform of pedagogy, curriculum, and educational design. It is commonplace to begin any discussion of GC with an account of cosmopolitan political theory dating back to the ancients. The problem with this account is that these theoretical arguments for and against GC have been superseded both by its increasingly widespread use among political actors and by the technological capability to make it something of an institutional reality. GC is no longer simply a theoretical or philosophical discussion but is increasingly also a diversified field of empirical study. The problem with the study of GC empirically is that it is one of those conceptual variables that cuts across scholarship and public use. It is a concept, according to Reinhart Koselleck’s understanding of that term, in that it is an inherently contestable carrier of signification with multiple meanings (Koselleck, 2002 ).

What is true of GC is equally true of citizenship. Both are used by political actors and institutions, and also by academics, to inform empirical study; they are equally both concepts that inform normative political theory about the ordering foundations of society. They thus straddle the distance near (ordinary usage), distance far (academic and technocratic usage), and the normative theoretical of both political actors and academics (other conceptual variables with a similar bifurcation are democracy and the state) (Ferguson & Mansbach, 2010 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). This entanglement speaks to methodological problems at the heart of all social science endeavor: the use of the same concepts by political actors, institutions, and academics; and the problem of trying to fix those concepts for the purposes of advancing knowledge, or equally, trying to elaborate them philosophically for the purposes of creating social change. In the case of both citizenship and GC, the attempt to use various methodological techniques to fix their meaning and tie them to concrete empirical phenomena (Sartori, 1984 ) is unproductive because all these concepts are quintessential examples of the fact that political actors are themselves also self-conscious conceptualizers. Moreover, the way GC is conceptualized by certain political actors is currently having concrete political outcomes (Biccum, 2018b , 2020 ). Trying to improve its study by using Sartori’s ladder of abstraction to parse it into conceptual precision will not do when conceptualization is itself an integral part of its political impact and institutionalization. Moreover, there is increasing overlap between academic scholarship and the concept’s political operationalization, particularly in education.

Interpretive social science offers a way of grappling with this complexity by recognizing what a concept is (i.e., the function in language that allows for multiplicity of meaning and abstraction) (Koselleck, 2002 ), the ubiquity of the use of concepts for all language users (Geertz, 1973 ), and methodological techniques that are consistent with the properties of language and its study in use (Fairclough, 1989 ; Schaffer, 2016 ). The interpretivist approach is more appropriate for fleshing out the complexity of defining GC by recognizing that the rise in its use both academically and politically is in response to changing circumstances, but also and concurrently that its take up is an attempt to by actors to change political circumstances. The interpretivist approach equips scholars with a sensitivity for assessing how and why GC’s use is significant. GC is one among a variety of adjectival variations on citizenship, but it is one that has taken greater hold than any of its rivals and, depending on who uses it and how, has implications for a shift in identity and allegiance from the national to the global. Therefore, its increased use by elites and operationalization in policy to affect change should be recognized as politically significant. Interpretive social science provides the analytical and methodological tools to ground, locate, and elucidate the various meanings of GC in theory and in practice (Schaffer, 2016 ).

Citizenship, as a concept, is also both a variably applied political institution and a contested theoretical concept. It emerged as a body of study in its own right in the 20th century only to be problematized toward the end of the century with a variety of qualifying adjectives, including postnational citizenship (Rose, 1996 ), the denationalization of citizenship (Soysal, 1994 ), extrastatal citizenship (Lee, 2014 ), cultural citizenship (Richardson, 1998 ), minority citizenship (Yuval-Davis, 1997 ), ecological citizenship (van Steenbergen, 1994 ), cosmopolitan citizenship (Held, 1995 ), consumer citizenship (Stevenson, 1997 ), and mobility citizenship (Urry, 1990 ). The meaning and theorization of citizenship itself in the context of globalization have undergone some considerable contestation. In the late 1990s, sociologist John Urry noted the contradiction that just as everyone is seeking to be a citizen of an existing national society, globalization is changing what it means to be a citizen (Urry, 1999 ). For some theorists of citizenship, it has normative dimensions. Brian Turner in particular made a distinction between a conservative view of citizenship as passive and private, and a more revolutionary idea of citizenship as active and public (Bowden, 2003 ; Turner, 1990 ). For theorists of citizenship it is a mode of political membership that has as a performative nature, even by those who are not officially recognized. Understood this way, it is a quintessentially democratic political subjectivity, where agency is expressed in struggles for rights and inclusion for the benefit of self and others.

Historicized as an actually existing political institution, citizenship can be shown to be a mechanism of differentiation through rights allocation, inclusion, and exclusion that is unavoidably connected to state and imperial violence, interest, and power. For critical scholars, it is gendered, racialized, and colonial and has been a mechanism not for the expansion of civil, political, and social rights (as canonized in Marshall’s 1949 account) but as a means of conferring those rights on the few (Isin & Nyers, 2014b ; Marshall, 1949 ). Editors of the Routledge Handbook of GC Studies survey the various ways in which national citizenship has been conceptualized and how Citizenship Studies must be revised in light of globalization (Isin & Nyers, 2014b ; Lee, 2014 ). A work in “critical Citizenship Studies,” this volume notes that citizenship has been defined as membership, status, practice, or performance, with each definition harboring presumptions about politics and agency. To overcome these shortcomings, the editors offer a minimal definition which contains conceptual complexity. For Isin and Nyers, citizenship is “an institution, mediating rights between the subjects of politics and the polity” (Isin & Nyers, 2014a , p. 1). The word “polity” enables a conceptualization of diverse political entities and overlapping governance configurations. “Rights mediation” recognizes that citizenship is inclusive and exclusive simultaneously and that it is most often expanded through political struggle. Finally, the “Subject” is a way of understanding political behavior on the part of people with no formal institutional recognition. The volume aims to address the fact that Citizenship Studies is globalizing because people around the world are articulating their struggles through the political institution of citizenship, and they see this struggle as the performative dimension or enactment of citizenship in political behavior that makes claims upon states and governing institutions. This is why scholars are engaged in “a competition to invent new names to describe the political subjects that are enacting political agency today. Whether it is the Activist or the Actant, the Militant or the Multitude” (Isin & Nyers, 2014a , p. 5). Contributors to this volume are highly skeptical of the concept of GC, but this is precisely the kind of active enactment of rights and responsibilities that scholars of GC see as evidence of its existence, or endorsement for its contribution to the globalization of democracy. Thus, the emergence of GC is part and parcel of the very contestation over citizenship that contributors to this volume see as evidence for grassroots political agency and democratic political change.

As a concept, GC is often linked with the body of cosmopolitan political thought dating back to antiquity (Heater, 1996 ), but this association needs to be qualified. Its increased usage in the early 21st century among scholars, philosophers, policymakers, global institutions, and educators has been prolific, leading to several attempts in the literature to codify its various meanings (Fanghanel & Cousin, 2012 ; Hicks, 2003 ; Sant, Davies, Pashby, & Shultz, 2018 ), or to study its variation in use empirically (Gaudelli, 2009 ). Some have argued that its conceptual heterogeneity is strategically advantageous for those who are using it in practice, and political actors particularly in education have devoted a substantial amount of time to conceptualizing it for the purposes of its articulation in policy (Biccum, 2018b ; Hartmeyer, 2015 ). In the education space, an agreed-upon meaning organized around attitudes, aptitudes, and behavior is now being utilized by international organizations (specifically the United Nations, United Nations Education Science and Culture Organisation, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), which are disseminating their preferred definitions through the expanded global education community via declarations, policy advice, research, information portals, and international conferences. Attempts to codify the different meanings of GC in the academic scholarship have used different metatheoretical concepts to understand the systematic organization of meaning, among them heuristics (Gaudelli, 2009 ), discourse (Karlberg, 2008 ; Parmenter, 2011 ; Schattle, 2015 ; Shukla, 2009 ), ideology (Pais & Costa, 2017 ; Schattle, 2008 ), and typology (Andreotti, 2014 ; Oxley & Morris, 2013 ). For all this definitional and metatheoretical categorization, what cuts across all are the notions that a global citizen is a type of person (endowed with a certain kind of knowledge, values, attitudes, and aptitudes) and that GC is expressed in behavior (always active). Oxley and Morris’s ( 2013 ) codification is often cited in educational scholarship that is working to provide the pedagogical and theoretical foundations for producing Global Citizens (Bosio & Torres, 2019 ) or critically contesting existing practices and theoretical models of GC education in order to make them live up to what both scholarly factions regard as its emancipatory potential (Andreotti, 2014 ).

The various attempts to codify the use of GC in situ tend to make a distinction between hegemonic use and attempts by both scholars and political actors to expand its meaning for political purposes. In this context Oxley and Morris ( 2013 ) make a distinction between “cosmopolitan based” GC Education, which is further nuanced by political, moral, economic, and cultural considerations; and “advocacy based,” which is inflected by social, critical, environmental, and spiritual features. This distinction effectively codifies the differences between official uses of GC by elite actors, and the contestations from critical practitioners and scholars who seek to expand its official meaning (a) to include the grassroots activity of activists; and (b) in educational policy and practice, to include knowledge of global capital and European colonial history, a normative attitude against the inequalities and injustices these have produced, and the aptitude to hold elite actors to account (Andreotti & Souza, 2011 ). Gaudelli ( 2009 ) and Schattle ( 2008 ) based their discursive and ideological codifications on methodologically informed definitions of discourse and ideology and an empirical focus on the use of the concept in multiple sites. Gaudelli identifies five different discursive framings (neoliberal, nationalist, Marxist, world justice and governance, and cosmopolitan), and Schattle ( 2008 ) deploys an ideological analysis to determine whether the discourse of GC in education constitutes a new “globalist” ideology. He finds that in fact it remains inflected by varieties of liberal ideology, even its critical variants, because of its emphasis on human rights, equality, and social justice.

Despite contestations over meaning and use, there are those in the literature who regard GC as the conceptual iteration that underpins a hegemonic ordering of a global governance to further globalize the market by creating market-ready “neoliberal subjectivities” (Chapman, Ruiz-Chapman, & Eglin, 2018 ), or who argue that the proselytizing gesture of its proponents and its rootedness in Western liberal democratic culture make it inescapably imperial (Andreotti & Souza, 2011 ). A common accusation is that GC is an attempt to put a progressive veneer on the global market. In addition, definitions of GC that link it to worldly cosmopolitan values, high-tech skills, and enough cross-cultural knowledge to enable flexibility and adaptability map neatly onto the kinds of subjectivities one will find among the world’s most privileged and highly mobile workers. For critics, there is evidence for this critique in the individualizing and entrepreneurial programs which make elites responsible for limited social change that won’t disrupt market relations. Conversely, the neorepublican and neoliberal response to this critique is that citizenship is inseparable from market-based participation in society because it is the market’s tendency to untether people from social, political, and economic constraints and to diversify the economy that creates free rational agents capable of participating democratically (Lovett & Pettit, 2009 ). From this perspective, chauvinism, discrimination, and communitarianism are bad for global markets, ergo the promotion of the progressive social values of GC is good for the global economy. The critics of GC are quite right in that it is being articulated and reframed to fit the particular ideological commitments of promarket actors in certain sites (Chapman et al., 2018 ; Pais & Costa, 2017 ). However, paying close empirical attention to how conceptualization works, what should be emphasized is that GC’s heterogeneity, fluidity, and contested meaning ensure that it cannot be dismissed as essentially one thing and serving a single purpose (Biccum, 2020 ). Instead, close empirical attention needs to be paid to who is using it, how, and for what purpose.

The Theory of GC

It is commonplace to want to tell the story of GC as the next step in the genealogy of the cosmopolitan tradition. But the picture is more complex than that, because while both cosmopolitanism and GC have close family ties with liberal political theory, it is a mistake to collapse them because there are articulations of liberalism which reject cosmopolitanism, such as the work of John Rawls. Equally, in GC’s associations with antiquity there are concrete connections also with republican political thought (Pagden, 2000 ). In fact, republicanism has equally enjoyed a revival since the 1990s (Costa, 2009 ; Dagger, 2006 ; Lovett & Pettit, 2009 ) and, when examined in detail, the approach to the market found in elite articulations of GC do bear a closer affinity with neorepublicanism than, as critics maintain, neoliberalism (Biccum, 2020 ). The work of Luis Cabrera argues for maintaining a distinction between cosmopolitanism and GC while understanding their connections (Cabrera, 2008 ). Succinct political theories of GC have emerged (Carter, 2001 ; Dower, 2000 ; Tully, 2014 ), some of which try to counter this tradition and some of which marshal GC as a suitable replacement for aggressive American militarism (Arneil, 2007 ; Hunter, 1992 ), arguing that it will allow the United States to pass an “Augustan Threshold.” However articulated theoretically, GC is intimately tied up with questions of human nature, political subjectivity, and appropriate political arrangements, such as polis, state, republic, global governance, world state or empire, with a characteristic omission of political arrangements deemed less formal or “modern.”

The commonplace narrative that places GC within the history of the repetitive revival of cosmopolitan thought is best expressed by April Carter ( 2001 ) and Derek Heater ( 1996 ), whose histories observe a cycle of periodic revival in which the structural contradictions of imperial formations follow a pattern of critique and externalization. Heater begins with Aristotle’s view of the polis as a form of political organization that is congruent with the nature of man. 1 This is an intellectual gesture that naturalizes the polis, making it an expression of the final and perfect condition of human development, and provides legitimacy for its transplantation elsewhere (similar to Hegel’s view of the state). These ideas were put under sustained pressure from circumstances that bear a remarkable similarity to patterns coded by contemporary scholars as “globalization,” including territorial expansion, extensions of governance, migration, and the privatization of the military. Cosmopolitan ideas, Heater argues, arise out of the failure of the polis to live up to claims that it is the expression of human nature. This led to the exploration of two other ideas: the true nature of human beings should be sought either in solitary individualism, or in the essential oneness of the human race. These were first articulated by figures who were critical of existing political arrangements such as Diogenes, Cicero, and Zeno. According to Heater, the periodic revival of cosmopolitan ideas since ancient times is caused by a sense of external threat, whether it be war or environmental catastrophe. Each articulation differs in emphasis over the role of the state, the role of the individual, the role of global institutions, and the desirability of a world state. Similarly, historian Anthony Pagden offers a genealogy of cosmopolitan thought which sees it as indelibly rooted in imperial structures but finds its culmination in the global republicanism of Immanuel Kant, in which Pagden finds there are also critiques of imperialism (Pagden, 2000 ). Thus, an analytical distinction must be maintained between concrete political projects for the realization of global democracy or a world state, and cosmopolitan political philosophy, although they certainly intersect. So, for example, the early cosmopolitans did not devise plans for constitutions and governance, and early- 20th-century advocates for a world state (such as H. G. Wells) were not philosophers (Heater, 1996 ). The International Relations (IR) scholarship which sees the eventuation of a world state deriving from structural conditions is not necessarily engaging normatively with the concept of GC (Ruggie, 2002 ; Wendt, 2003 ), and some scholarship on GC sees its democratic potential in the fact that it is a set of citizen claims, attitudes, and behaviors in the absence of a world state (Dower, 2000 ; Dower & Williams, 2002 ; Falk, 2002 ).

Understanding GC as the culmination in the genealogy of cosmopolitan thought also conflicts with the cosmopolitan revival in IR, although these scholars repeat the formulation described by Heater: namely, the contradictions of globalization demonstrate the flaws in the Hegelian understanding that the nation state is the perfect reflection of human rationality and the only political arrangement that will enable the full flowering of human development. The turn to cosmopolitanism in IR is also occasioned by the end of the Cold War and the disillusionment with Marx in the context of a recognition of diverse identities and non-class-based modes of social, political, and economic exclusion and the new social movements that sprang up as a redress. The cosmopolitan vision for the extension of democracy through reformed institutions is articulated by Richard Linklater ( 1998 ), Daniele Archibugi ( 1993 ), and David Held ( 1995 ) as a redress for these structural conditions. The sovereign state cannot continue to claim to be the only relevant moral community when the opportunities and incidences of transnational harm rise alongside increasing interdependence (Doyle, 2007 ). Similar to their ancient counterparts, Linklater, Archibugi, and Held offer cosmopolitan democracy as both a critique of the Hegelian theory of the state as the highest expression human rationality and a method of expanding democracy transnationally. Both Archibugi and Linklater offer the possibility of direct citizen participation in global institutions as the mechanism that would make for a robust global democracy. Global or world citizenship is implicated in this project, but these scholars do not offer a political theory of GC as such.

The cosmopolitan revival in political theory does, however, theorize GC as a way of reconfiguring ethical foundations of the individual connection to state and world (Appiah, 2007 ; Nussbaum, 1996 ; Parekh, 2003 ). The cosmopolitanism of these scholars is organized around the premise that, in the context of “complex interdependence,” individuals in advanced economies have ethical obligations to the rest of the human race which can override their obligations to fellow citizens. Contained within many arguments in favor of GC is a latent criticism of the nation state and transnational capital. For Thomas Pogge ( 1992 ) this amounts to recognition of the insertion of the citizens of advanced economies into global value and production chains; for Bhiku Parekh this amounts to recognition of the political and economic debt gained through European colonization, and he calls for a globally oriented national citizenship (Parekh, 2003 ). 2

The central cleavage is the relevance and role of the state. Critics of GC argue that GC’s rootless sense of obligation from nowhere undermines Aristotelian notions of civic virtue, and that the nation state is the only community where active citizenship can be practiced (Carter, 2001 ; Miller, 1999 ; Walzer, 1994 ). Others offer GC as a way of being that does not devalue, erode, or supersede the nation state. Nigel Dower, for example, argued in 2000 that a world state is not needed for GC (Dower, 2000 ). Here he is responding to critics who argued at the time that GC cannot exist, because of a lack of common identity and institutions. Some scholars offer “rooted cosmopolitanism” as an affinity to the global that is grounded in individual biography and location (Kymlicka & Walker, 2012 ). Similarly, Martha Nussbaum sparked a debate among prominent political, social, legal, and literary theorists over the competing merits of national versus cosmopolitan affinity, and offered concentric circles of affinity from the individual to the global because the state as nothing more than a “morally arbitrary boundary” (Nussbaum, 1996 , p. 14). Nussbaum later revised this position to articulate a “globally sensitive patriotism,” arguing that the sentiments that underpin patriotism can be used to rescue the concept from its chauvinistic variants, allowing it then to play a role in creating a “decent world culture” (Nussbaum, 2008 , p. 81). But for most of these scholars the state is the starting point for either advocacy or critique of GC.

There are other scholars in the analytic tradition attaching to GC a notion of cosmopolitan right, meaning the restriction of individual freedom so that it harmonizes with the freedom of everyone else. For Luis Cabrera ( 2008 ) this is an important step toward developing an overarching conception of cosmopolitanism, one that details appropriate courses of action and reform in relation to individuals and institutions in the current global system. The collapsing of GC and cosmopolitanism as synonymous is for Cabrera a mistake. There are clear differences between them, as well as different conceptual inflections within them. Within cosmopolitanism, Cabrera details the institutional cosmopolitanism of Archibugi and Linklater, which is concerned with the creation of a comprehensive network of global governing institutions to achieve just global distributive outcomes; and moral cosmopolitanism, which as we see in Appiah, Pogge, and Parekh is concerned not with institution-building but with assessing the justice of institutions according to how individuals fare in relation to them. Cabrera’s claim is that individual cosmopolitanism should be understood as GC. GC for Cabrera is a moral orientation toward and a claim to membership of the whole of the human community and a theory of citizenship that is fundamentally concerned with appropriate individual action. In other words, Cabrera is offering a theoretical framework for the operationalization of GC which offers guidelines of “right action” for the global human community. “Right action” can be objectively known for Cabrera following the analytical tradition and particularly the liberal thought of John Rawls. On the question of the world state Cabrera equivocates. He argues that GC is the ethical orientation guiding individual action in a global human community and not preparation for a world state, but he nevertheless advocates for a world state because of the biases against cosmopolitan distributive justice inherent in the sovereign state system. For Cabrera GC identifies the very specific duties incumbent on all humankind to promote the creation of an actual global political community up to and including the creation of a world state.

The question of empire is conspicuously absent among these scholars, while other scholars fully implicate Western imperial history in their account of GC. James Tully ( 2014 ) is the only political theorist of GC to pay close attention the role of European empire in constructing, globalizing, and making modular civil citizenship. With a focus on language and meaning as the sites of political contestation, Tully sees GC as articulating a locus of struggle, noting that because of empire, most of the enduring struggles in the history of politics have taken place in and over the language of citizenship and the activities and institutions into which it is woven. GC for Tully is neither fixed nor determinable, as it is for Cabrera; it contains no calculus or universal rule for its application in particular cases. Rather it is a conjunction of “global” and “citizenship” that can be regarded as the linguistic artifact of the innovative tendency of citizens and noncitizens to contest and create something new in the practice of citizenship. Basing his account of “public philosophy” on a philosophy of language drawn from Wittgenstein, Skinner, and Foucault, in which language is constitutive of human social and political relations, Tully regards freedom and democracy as practiced through language. Language is inseparable from cognition, and in practices of meaning-making human beings continually (re)negotiate their circumstances, and in so doing have the capacity to change the language, and in changing the language, change the game. Tully offers a political theory of GC that builds on the open-endedness indicated by Linklater and Falk, and sees in the multitudinous expressions of transnational political activism the possibility of different, more democratic political arrangements. This is consistent with decolonial scholarship in IR, postcolonial scholarship in education, and critical scholarship on sustainability, which argue that the modernistic, dualist language of science is part of the problem in that it hinders the ability of scholars and citizens to conceptualize life differently. To change social reality, they argue, we have to change our language (Shallcross & Robinson, 2006 ), and for many critical scholars GC is part of this conceptual shift.

The Study of GC

Research on the practice of GC can be roughly divided between the normative theoretical and the phenomenological empirical and contains a tension between GC as actually existing and needing to be produced. Scholarship has expanded substantially since the 1990s and moved away from an association with cosmopolitanism toward a direct engagement with GC as a concept and field of study in its own right. Contributions to the field have appeared in Media and Cultural Studies (Khatib, 2003 ; Nash, 2009 ), International Law (Hunter, 1992 ; Torre, 2005 ), Psychology (Reysen & Hackett, 2017 ; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013 ), and Citizenship Studies (Arneil, 2007 ; Bowden, 2003 ; Soguk, 2014 ), but the bulk of the scholarship appears in International Relations (IR) (residing in roughly the subfields of Globalization, Global Governance, Social Movements, and Global Civil Society) and in educational scholarship (residing in pedagogical scholarship but also emerging interdisciplinary fields where educational scholarship is overlapping with International Political Economy, IR, and International Political Sociology) (Armstrong, 2006 ; Ball, 2012 ; Dale, 2000 ; Desforges, 2004 ). Methodologically, most of the scholarship has been qualitative and interpretive or critical, with a handful of quantitative approaches just emerging in Psychology seeking to measure global citizen attributes, and one study providing a quantitative aggregate account of the appearance of “GC” in textbooks (Buckner & Russell, 2013 ; Katzarska-Miller & Reysen, 2018 ; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013 ). Debates across much of the scholarship follow an optimistic–pessimistic or normative–critical dichotomy.

Sociological scholarship on globalization going back to the 1990s describes a growing global awareness that can be causally attributed to information communications technologies (ICTs). ICTs play a central role in all accounts of “observable” GC, even if operating in the background as the necessary sufficient conditions for transnational cooperation and mobilization. This sociological approach sees in the massification of communications technology a distribution of symbolic resources that inform how people see themselves and their knowledge of others in time and space. This is in keeping with 20th-century scholarship in the fields of nationalism, communication, and the histories of knowledge which have posited the constitutive nature of communications technology and identity (Anderson, 1983 ; Foucault, 1982 , 2000 ; Lule, 2015 ; Martin, Manns, & Bowe, 2004 ; Norris, 2009 ). For Urry, Pippa Norris, and others, just as national broadcasting can be causally credited with the development of national citizenship, so can ICTs be credited with the rise in global affinities, cosmopolitan worldviews, and self-identification as a global citizen. In addition to transforming the possibilities for transnational interaction, mobilization, and governance and the market across terrestrial space, ICTs enable visibility, the spread of knowledge and shared experiences, the perception of threat, and a sense of the world as a whole. For this approach there is a historical connection between ICTs and democracy dating back to the social upheaval in Europe that went with the introduction of the printing press. When ICTs are global, they enable more political transparency through the identification and exposing of wrongdoing. Harmful backstage behavior can be revealed, put on display, and represented over and over again. This has been done to states and corporations over their environmental and human-rights transgressions and has fuelled the activities of new social movements. Such revelations contribute to the knowledge base of those claiming to be global citizens, and of those being so characterized in the scholarship.

Communications technology is one of the structural factors making it possible to uncouple citizenship from the territorial state. Advances in ICTs have also created the technical capacity to make GC an institutional reality. The volume Debating Transformations of National Citizenship devotes a section to debating the possibilities inherent in blockchain technology to confer a grant of citizenship to all humanity through a universal digital identity. Blockchain technology provides the technological capability, international law provides the global juridical framework (Article 25(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), according to which every citizen should have the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs), and the Sustainable Development Goals articulate a political will and policy framework (goal 16.9 aims to provide a legal identity for all, including birth registration by 2030 ). For optimists, blockchain technology would provide universal recognition of personhood; enhance individual freedom by allowing people to create self-sovereign identities with control over their personal data; mitigate against the increased politicization of citizenship; and could have the benefit of protecting human rights and stateless persons, assisting in the fight against human trafficking, and even mitigate the tendency of states to monetize naturalization (De Filippi, 2018 ). In addition, it contains the possibility for emancipatory movements to mobilize across territorial borders. The creation of multiple cloud communities would allow for experimentation with democratic utopias and would enable a direct global democracy by creating the possibility of a one-person-one-vote participation in global governance (Orgad, 2018 ). By extending decision-making power to individuals and communities that are currently excluded, it contains the potential for the realization of cosmopolitan democracy as envisaged by Linklater and Archibugi. For pessimists, this would require a globalization of communications technology that is not environmentally sustainable and would centralize power in the hands of states and corporations.

Moving beyond technological determinism, a common refrain in the study of GC is that it is organically expressed, manifested and spread by the globalizing of civil society and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) (Armstrong, 2006 ; Carter, 2001 ; Desforges, 2004 ; Meutzelfeldt & Smith, 2002 ). Here, the attribute of causality is not necessarily with the individual, but with the variety of political arrangements that have emerged to address transnational issues. According to April Carter, “amnesty as an organisation can be seen as a collective global citizen” (Carter, 2001 , p. 83). While not all the groups that fall within the designation Global Civil Society (GCS) can be associated with GC, it is the groups which are engaged in political lobbying, policy work, volunteering, campaigning, fundraising, and protest on social justice issues to do with poverty, inequality, and human rights that are regarded as sites for the study of GC because they are ostensibly motivated by identification with the whole of humanity, cosmopolitan values, a concern about injustice, a willingness to act collaboratively and cooperatively. Moreover, their activities are undergirded by and contribute to the operationalization of a universal system of human rights. They assist local populations in making claims against state governments and they make claims against global institutions for redress of problems. Participants in these networks are transnationally mobile through associations which facilitate the production of knowledge, the formation of “epistemic communities,” and consensus therefore around the policy response to the transnational issues around which they are organized (Haas, 1989 , 1992 ).

A circular logic is at play here. Activists who care about social justice issues comprise the personnel of groups which create networks for the purposes of making change. These networks in turn are new forms of association wherein participation engenders the sorts of values and attributes which can be assigned to the global citizen (Pallas, 2012 ). This logic of learning through participation is a common refrain across political theory, constructivist IR, social movements, and education scholarship (Finnemore, 1993 ). These developments in transnational collective action underpin the claim that changing patterns of global governance create new consequences for citizenship. Much of the scholarship regards this as a democratic trend because many of the groups which inhabit these networks are (semi)autonomous from states and governance structures; use knowledge gathered from grassroots and professional experience to highlight global issues to shape public opinion in such a way as to put pressure on states and corporations responsible for abuses; or push global public policy around health, education, and development in the direction of a more equitable distribution and access and inclusion. Even when the policy preferences of TANs make it onto the global agenda (such as happened with educational access and inclusion and GC education via the Sustainable Development Goals), these groups can continue to apply pressure by also monitoring the operation of UN agencies or national compliance with particular international agreements: the Global Education Monitoring Reports and a special issue of Global Policy (volume 10, supplement 1, September 2019 ) are good examples of this. TANs are regarded as strengthening international society and linkages between states (mitigating the structural condition of anarchy initially posed by IR). For scholars, these spaces of activity embody GC by promoting a world order based not on state interests but on human rights, and acting as a vehicle for strengthening the legitimacy of global institutions and international law (Jelin, 2010 ; Shallcross & Robinson, 2006 ). The interaction they create between the bottom-up and top-down in an expanded architecture of global governance divided by policy specialism is evidence of Alexander Wendt’s claim that a world state is inevitable (Wendt, 2003 ).

However, civil-society groups and TANs are not the only nonstate actors laying claim to the label “global citizen.” Corporations and their representative organizations (e.g., the World Economic Forum) are also adopting the label, and the literature on Global Corporate Citizenship cites the same set of circumstances regarding the pressure that globalization has put upon state capacity. In the circumstance of a “global regulatory deficit” that has been created by financing conditions that required the shrinkage of the state, corporations have a choice between exploiting that deficit for gain, or exhibiting “enlightened self-interest” by recognizing that they have social responsibilities as well as rights. Corporations act as global citizens, according to this literature, by assuming responsibilities of a state, such as the provision of public-health programs, education, and protection of human rights through working conditions while operating in countries with repressive regimes. Global corporate citizens engage in self-regulation to ensure the peace and stability required for continued realization of profits (Henderson, 2000 ; Schwab, 2008 ; Sherer & Palazzo, 2008 ). Considering that much of the activism of social movements against neoliberal globalization has been directed against corporations and the global institutions promoting their preferred policy agendas, this raises a question in need of further exploration. How can the site of the trouble provide ostensibly the solution? Should observers be relieved by the corporate recognition of social justice issues when economic nationalism is on the rise, or should it be regarded as an instrumental attempt at co-opting?

Here lies a central cleavage animating both the endorsement and the critiques of GC. Does capitalism underwrite democracy through economic growth, or does it erode democracy by facilitating monopolies which put power and wealth in the hands of a few? For many commentators, the expanded networks of global governance are not democratic, because they are inhabited by powerful actors with asymmetric bargaining power and the ability to ensure that whatever compromises are made do not trouble the logic of the existing system (El Bouhali, 2015 ; Caballero, 2019 ). The spaces inhabited by global citizens are not in fact spaces of negotiation open to all, and particularly as they are formalized and professionalized, they create an elite (Pallas, 2012 ) of what are effectively bureaucratic functionaries of global governance. Moreover, these elites are primarily from the Global North and are criticized for pursuing an elite-led advanced economy agenda for the international system. Structural imbalances are often cited between Southern and Northern participants because participation requires resources and this creates a Western bias (Gaventa & Tandon, 2010 ). Rather than seeing these actors as representing and advocating on behalf of voiceless constituents, Pallas ( 2012 ) sees a moral hazard and a lack of accountability in “global citizens” who propose policy solutions for which they may not bear the costs by intervening in problems that do not affect them directly. Participants may mistake as “global connectedness” what is in effect identity-sharing among elites. In addition, it is the institutional structure and the funding models of GCS, which have long been subjects of critique, that limit the ability of these groups to entreat the public to behave as global citizens (Desforges, 2004 ).

Richard Falk’s 1993 essay “The Making of Global Citizenship” describes the global citizen as “a type of global reformer: an individual who intellectually perceives a better way of organizing the political life of the planet” (Falk, 1993 , p. 41). This brings us to the assumption of causality which individualizes the emergence of GC in a quintessentially modern gesture which sees GC born of individuals who think critically and do not accept the organization of political life as they find it, but instead ask foundational questions and engage in utopian visions. Falk describes GC as “thinking, feeling and acting for the sake of the human species” (Falk, 1993 , p. 20). GC is thus an orientation toward the collective which begins in the individual with a specific kind of attitude, aptitude, and knowledge. Something peculiar is happening with the consolidation of GC discourse and scholarship. With its uniform emphasis on activism, the global-citizen discourse, whether it occurs in international organisations, corporations, global civil society, individuals or scholarship, has the effect of normalizing and shifting the normative orientation around political activism. This is a significant development given the context of the proliferation of political activisms since the 1960s and the wide variety of political mobilizations occurring on both the right and left of the spectrum in the 21st century . Moreover, the global-citizen discourse has the effect of legitimating the transnational agendas of certain activists (Pallas, 2012 ), and has resulted in a significant normative shift within global institutions in favor of the issues first brought to attention by antiglobalization activists of the 1980s and 1990s. This could be regarded with considerable skepticism as a form of co-opting, or with some relief as a welcome salve to chauvinisms of all varieties. Under the rubric of “GC,” the notion that globalizing capital might have any causal connection to political instability, environmental and health catastrophes, and growing inequality is seldom entertained, even as GC’s insertion into the Sustainable Development Goals sees the production of global citizens as the solution to global problems through the production of global “change makers.” Either way, there is a marked tension between two areas of scholarship in education and political science, where one sees in transnational advocacy the existence of global citizens, and the other sees in the globalization of education policy a strategy for their production.

The conceptualization of GC informs how it is studied. Optimistic scholarship observes what it considers to be organic expressions of GC in social movements, transnational advocacy networks, global governance, and among elite actors. Pessimistic scholarship observes the promotion of GC by elites and through private and governance institutions as a hegemonic strategy to contain and displace social movements; to institutionalize an epistemic paradigm which forecloses on critical thinking and non-Western, particularly indigenous knowledges; and to create a political subject which is amenable to globalizing capital (Bowden, 2003 ; Chapman, 2018 ). Across all this scholarship there are differing accounts of causality which traverse assumptions around human agency, social structure, technological change, and social engineering (Wendt, 1987 ). Technological determinant accounts attribute change to communications technology, top-down accounts attribute change to institutions and governance, and bottom-up accounts attribute change to individual and group agency. The latter two are complicated by the now very large field of GC Education, which has emerged from a combination of elite-led and social movement approaches to education in the 20th century . What is common to all is a characterization of GC as a change in the political subject. Despite the variety in conceptualization and definition of GC, the active, collective, and public element is consistent throughout. Across all the scholarship and debate there appear to be two central issues which require more systematic engagement. The first is the assumption that all forms of political activism are politically “progressive” (that is, in favor of human rights, political freedom, democracy, and equality); and the second is the assumption that GC is inherently neoliberal and therefore also inherently imperial.

A continuing blind spot in much of this scholarship is the concurrent rise of the right-wing political mobilization in various locations. This issue is debated in a volume in dialogue with Tully’s essay “On Global Citizenship” (Tully, 2014 ), and forms a substantive limitation in Tully’s account. Tully is overly optimistic that all forms of nonviolent contestation of civil citizenship are aimed at democracy, freedom, human rights, peace, and equality. He does not consider that alongside more “progressive” globally networked forms of activism are equally regressive forms of negotiation for more conservative and chauvinistic aims, sometimes enacted through violent means (Comas, Shrivastava, & Martin, 2015 ). Duncan Bell makes this criticism as well as raising the question of subject formation, which Tully leaves unaddressed (Bell, 2014 ). This is a notable absence in a time when the social engineering of GC is an active multilateral project. Part of this multilateral project is also an attempt to recapture youth mobilization away from the mobilizing tactics of various far-right or terrorist groups (Bersaglio et al., 2015 ; OECD, 2018 ; Sukarieh & Tannock, 2018 ). In the production of the “global citizen,” then, is also a contestation over what counts as politics, and Tully and other global citizen optimists fail to account for the potential weaponization of the political orientation and allegiance of young people.

Equally, Tully’s engagement in favor of GC is in tension with critical scholarship which sees in GC the continuance of an imperial project. Tully’s understanding of empire is reduced to Western European empire (as is it for most scholars critical of the Western tradition, including both postcolonial and decolonial). This is both one-sided and ahistorical and fails to consider the world historical development of empires in the plural and the fact that what Europe colonized at its periphery was, in many cases, other empires (Burbank & Cooper, 2010 ). There is a growing body of scholarship in International Relations (IR) which attempts to grapple in various ways, some more successful than others, with the peculiar absence of the history of empire from the discipline (Barkawi, 2010 ; Blanken, 2012 ; Colas, 2010 ; Dillon Savage, 2010 ; Go, 2011 ; Nexon & Wright, 2007 ; Spruyt, 2016 ); a growing body of scholarship which is calling for disciplinary decolonization (Abdi et al., 2015 ; Apffel-Marglin, 2004 ; Go, 2013 ; Gutierrez et al., 2010 ; Hudson, 2016 ; Taylor, 2012 ); and a growing body of historical scholarship which takes a comparative approach both to empires and to their role in constructing the international system (Burbank & Cooper, 2010 ; Darwin, 2007 ; Alcock et. al., 2001 ). The problem with the GC-is-imperial critique is that it has been made without a systematic engagement with the theoretical and methodological problem that empire poses for the social sciences. Equally, scholarship within IR that has begun to broach this question has done so without contending seriously with what postcolonial scholarship has done to further such an endeavor, or with how the reintroduction of empire poses serious problems for the very foundations of the discipline of political science (Biccum, 2018a ; Barkawi, 2010 ; Barkawi & Laffey, 2002 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). The recognition of empire and state co-constitution, which is made legible by the scholars who (in both history and historical IR) have begun to make empire an inescapable foundation of inquiry, necessitates a denaturalization of the state. Once the nation state is properly historically contextualized as embedded in imperial politics, the cosmopolitan debate over whether individual allegiance and identity is owed to state or humanity becomes remarkably hollow.

But equally, the state is as much a conceptual variable as GC, and a common critique of the methodological nationalism of much Western political thought and of the social sciences is that it has contributed to a normalization and naturalization of the state which is not consistent with the historical facts of the international system (Ferguson & Mansbach, 2010 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). Once this foundational problem that empire poses for how the social sciences have traditionally understood the state is properly engaged, scholars who value democracy, human rights, and justice have no choice but to normatively endorse GC, or perhaps, following Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy (Shiva, 2005 ). In addition, scholars need to be careful about continuing to brandish critiques of GC under the rubric of “neoliberalism” in an age of hegemonic decline (Biccum, 2020 ). If GC is indeed imperial, this claim must be made with a very robust understanding of what is meant by empire, which is among many other things, after all, also a concept (Biccum, 2018a ). Scholarship on GC needs to continue, as it has begun to do, to empirically map its usage, operationalization, and institutionalization, with a particular focus on how concepts do political work. The field, practice, and use of the concept is growing. Future scholarship should be paying close empirical attention to how, by whom, and to what purposes it is being used while engaging robustly with questions of norms, methods, and the politics of knowledge. Scholars across the different fields and different normative, theoretical, and empirical divides need to begin to speak to one another. Most importantly, scholars need to keep as the focal point of their inquiry how the concept of GC itself raises important foundational questions about how we should live.

• Abdi, A. A. , Shultz, L. , Pillay, T. (Eds.). (2015). Decolonising global citizenship education . Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers.
• Alcock, S. E. , D’altroy, T. , Morrison, D. , Sinopoli, C.M. (Eds.). (2001). Empires; perspectives from archaeology and history . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism . London, UK: Verso.
• Andreotti, V. , & Souza, L. M. (Eds.), (2011). Post-colonial perspectives on Global Citizenship Education . New York, NY, Routledge.
• Andreotti, V. (2014). Soft versus critical GC education. In S. McCloskey (Ed.), Development education in policy and practice (pp. 21–31). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Apffel-Marglin, F. , & Marglin, S. A. (Eds.), (2004). Decolonising Knowledge: From Development to Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
• Appiah, K. A. (2007). Global Citizenship. Fordham Law Review , 75 (5), 2375–2392.
• Archibugi, D. (1993). The reform of the UN and cosmopolitan democracy: A critical review. Journal of Peace Research , 30 (3), 301–315.
• Armstrong, C. (2006). Global civil society and the question of GC. Voluntas , 17 , 349–357.
• Arneil, B. (2007). Global Citizenship and empire. Citizenship Studies , 11 (3), 301–328.
• Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Barkawi, T. , & Laffey, M. (2002). "Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations." Millenium - Journal of International Studies , 31 (1), 109–127.
• Barkawi, T. (2010). Empire and order in international relations and security studies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
• Bell, D. (2014). To act otherwise: Agonistic republicanism and GC. In J. Tully (Ed.), On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue (pp. 181–205). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
• Biccum, A. (2018a). What is an empire? Assessing the postcolonial contribution to the American empire debate. Interventions: Journal of Post-Colonial Studies , 20 (5), 697–716.
• Biccum, A. (2018b). Editorial: Global Citizenship and the politics of conceptualisation. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning , 10 (2), 119–124.
• Biccum, A. (2020). Global Citizenship and neo-republicanism? Problematising the “neoliberal subjectivities” critique. In P. Eglin , T. Ruiz-Chapman , & D. D. Chapman (Eds.), Going global? Critical studies on GC (pp. 129–152). London, NY: Routledge.
• Bersaglio, B. , Ennis, C. , Kepe, T. (2015). Youth under construction: The United Nations’ representations of youth in the global conversation on the post-2015 development agenda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies , 36 (1), 57–71.
• Blanken, L. J. (2012). Rational empires: Institutional incentives and imperial expansion . Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
• Bosio, E. , & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education , 17 (6), 745–760.
• El Bouhali, C. (2015). The OECD neoliberal governance: Policies of international testing and their impact on global education systems. In A. A. Abdi , L. Shultz , & T. Pillay (Eds.), Decolonising global citizenship education (pp. 119–130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
• Bowden, B. (2003). The perils of Global Citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 7 (3), 349–362.
• Buckner, E. , & Russell, S. G. (2013). Portraying the global: Cross-national trends in textbooks’ portrayal of globalization and Global Citizenship. International Studies Quarterly , 57 , 738–750.
• Burbank, J. , & Cooper, F. (2010). Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Caballero, P. (2019). The SDGs: Changing how development is understood. Global Policy , 10 (1), 138–140.
• Cabrera, L. (2008). Global citizenship as the completion of cosmopolitanism. Journal of International Political Theory , 4 (1), 84–104.
• Carter, A. (2001). The political theory of Global Citizenship . London, UK: Verso.
• Chapman, D. D. , Ruiz-Chapman, T. , & Eglin, P. (2018). Global Citizenship267 as neoliberal propaganda: A political economic and postcolonial critique. Alternate Routes , 29 , 142–166.
• Clark, I. (1999). Globalisation and international relations theory . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Colas, A. (2010). The international political sociology of Empire. Oxford Research Encyclopedia International Studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
• Comas, J. , Shrivastava, P. , & Martin, E. (2015). Terrorism as formal organization, network, and social movement. Journal of Management Inquiry , 24 (1), 47–60.
• Costa, V. (2009). Neo-republicanism, freedom as non-domination and civizen virtue. Politics, Philosophy and Economics , 8 (4), 401–419.
• Dagger, R. (2006). Neo-republicanism and the civic economy. Politics, Philosophy and Economics , 5 (2), 151–173.
• Dale, R. (2000). "Globalisation and Education: demonstrating a 'common world educational culture' or locating a 'globally structured educational agenda'?" Educational Theory , 50 (4), 427–448.
• Darwin, J. (2007). * After Tamerlane: The global history of empire since 1405 . London: Allen Lane.
• De Filippi, P. (2018). Citizenship in the era of blockchain-based virtual nations. In R. Baubock (Ed.), Debating transformations of national citizenship (pp. 267–278). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Desforges, L. (2004). The formation of Global Citizenship: International non-governmental organisations in Britain. Political Geography , 23 (5), 549–569.
• Dillon Savage, J. (2010). The stability and breakdown of empire: European informal empire in China, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt. European Journal of International Relations , 17 (2), 161–185.
• Dower, N. (2000). The idea of Global Citizenship—A sympathetic assessment. Global Society , 14 (4), 553–567.
• Dower, N. , & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2002). Global Citizenship: A critical introduction . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Doyle, M. (2007). The liberal peace, democratic accountability and the challenge of globalisation. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), Globalisation theory: Approaches and controversies (pp. 190–206). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Falk, R. (1993). The making of Global Citizenship. In J. Brecher , J. B. Childs , & J. Cutler (Eds.), Global visions: Beyond the new world order (pp. 39–50). Boston, MA: South End Press.
• Falk, R. (2002). An emergent matrix of citizenship: Complex, uneven, fluid. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Eds.), Global Citizenship: A critical reader (pp. 15–29). London, UK: Routledge.
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.
• Fanghanel, J. , & Cousin, G. (2012). “Worldly” pedagogy: A way of conceptualising teaching towards Global Citizenship. Teaching in Higher Education , 17 (1), 39–50.
• Finnemore, M. (1993). International organisations as teachers of norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and science policy. International Organisation , 47 (4), 565–597.
• Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry , 8 (4), 777–795.
• Foucault, M. (2000). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language . New York, NY: Vintage Books.
• The original edition was published in French by Gallimard in 1969. The first English translation appeared in 1972.
• Ferguson, Y. H. , & Mansbach, R. W. (2010). The sociology of the state: The state as conceptual variable. In Oxford research encyclopedia of internatioanl studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
• Gaventa, J. , & Tandon, R. (Eds.). (2010). Globalising citizens: New dynamics of inclusion and exclusion . Claiming Citizenship. London: Zed Books.
• Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of Global Citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorising , 25 (1), 68–85.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
• Go, J. (2011). Patterns of empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the present . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Go, J. (2013). Decolonising Bourdieu: Colonial and postcolonial theory in Bourdieu's early work. Sociological Theory , 31 (1), 49–74.
• Gutierrez, R. , Encarnacion, M.B. , Costa, S. (Eds.). (2010). Decolonising European sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches . Farnham, England: Ashgate.
• Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regime matter? Epistemic communities and mediterranean pollution control. International Organisation , 43 (3), 377–403.
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organisation , 46 (1), 1–35.
• Hartmeyer, H. (2015). The state of global education in Europe: A GENE report . Dublin, Ireland: European Union.
• Heater, D. (1996). World citizenship and government: Cosmopolitan ideas in the history of Western political thought . Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
• Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Henderson, H. (2000). Transnational corporations and Global Citizenship. American Behavioural Scientist , 43 (8), 1231–1261.
• Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review , 55 (3), 265–275.
• Hudson, H. (2016). Decolonising gender and peacebuilding: Feminist frontiers and border thinking in Africa. Peacebuilding , 4 (2), 194–209.
• Hunter, D. B. (1992). Toward Global Citizenship in international environmental law. Willamette Law Review , 28 (3), 547–564.
• Isin, E. F. , & Nyers, P. (2014a). Introduction: Globalising citizenship studies. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Global Citizenship studies (pp. 1–11). London, UK: Routledge.
• Isin, E. F. , & Nyers, P. (Eds.). (2014b). Routledge handbook of Global Citizenship studies . London, UK: Routledge.
• Jelin, E. (2010). Towards a global environmental citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 4 (1), 47–63.
• Karlberg, M. (2008). Discourse, identity and Global Citizenship. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice , 20 (3), 310–320.
• Katzarska-Miller, I. , & Reysen, S. (2018). The psychology of Global Citizenship: A review of theory and research . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Khatib, L. (2003). Communicating Islamic fundamentalism as Global Citizenship. Journal of Communication Inquiry , 27 (4), 389–409.
• Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts . Stanford, California: Standford University Press.
• Kymlicka, W. , & Walker, K. (Eds.). (2012). Rooted cosmopolitanism: Canada and the world . Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
• Lee, C. (2014). Decolonising Global Citizenship. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of GC studies (pp. 75–85). London, UK: Routledge.
• Linklater, A. (1998). Cosmopolitan citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 2 (1), 23–41.
• Lovett, F. , & Pettit, P. (2009). Neorepublicanism: A normative and institutional research program. The Annual Review of Political Science , 12 , 11–29.
• Lule, J. (2015). Globalisation and media: Global village of Babel . London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Marshall, T. H. (1949). In T. B. Bottomore (Ed.), Citizenship and social class . Pluto Perspectives. London, UK: Pluto Press.
• Martin, K. , Manns, H. , & Bowe, H. (2004). Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Meutzelfeldt, M. , & Smith, G. (2002). Civil society and global governance: The possibilities for Global Citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 6 (1), 55–75.
• Miller, D. (1999). Bounded citizenship. In K. Hutchings & R. Dannreuther (Eds.), Cosmopolitan citizenship (pp. 60–82). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
• Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. The American Political Science Review , 85 (1), 77–96.
• Mundy, K. , Green, A. , Lingard, B. , Verger, A. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of global education policy . West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
• Nash, K. (2009). Global citizens as show business: The cultural politics of make poverty history. Media, Culture and Society , 30 (2), 167–181.
• Nexon, D. H. , & Wright, T. (2007). What's at stake in the American Empire debate. American Political Science Review , 101 (2), 253–271.
• Norris, P. (2009). Cosmopolitan communications: Cultural diversity in a globalised world . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In M. Nussbaum & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of country (pp. 3–20). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2008). Toward a globally sensitive patriotism. Daedalus , 137 (3), 78–93.
• OECD . (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris: OECD Directorate for Education and Skills.
• Orgad, L. (2018). Cloud communities: The dawn of Global Citizenship? In R. Baubock (Ed.), Debating transformations of national citizenship (pp. 251-26). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Oxley, L. , & Morris, P. (2013). GC: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Education Studies , 61 (3), 301–325.
• Pagden, A. (2000). Stoicism, cosmopolitanism and the legacy of European imperialism. Constellations , 7 (1), 3–22.
• Pallas, C. L. (2012). Identity, individualism and activism beyond the state: Examining the impacts of Global Citienship. Global Society , 26 (2), 169–189.
• Pais, A. , & Costa, M. (2017). An ideology critique of Global Citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education , 61 (1), 1–16.
• Pallas, C. L. (2012). Identity, individualism and activism beyond the state: Examining the impacts of global citizenship. Global Society , 26 (2), 169–189.
• Parekh, B. (2003). Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship. Review of International Studies , 29 , 3–17.
• Parmenter, L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of Global Citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education , 9 (3–4), 367–380.
• Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics , 103 (1), 48–75.
• Reysen, S. , & Hackett, J. (2017). Activism as a pathway to Global Citizenship. The Social Science Journal , 54 , 132–138.
• Reysen, S. , & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology , 48 (5), 858–870.
• Richardson, D. (1998). Sexuality and citizenship. Sociology , 32 , 83–100.
• Rose, N. (1996). Refiguring the territory of government. Economy and Society , 25 , 227–256.
• Ruggie, J. (2002). Constructing the world polity: Essays on international institutionalisation . London, UK: Routledge.
• Sant, E. , Davies, I. , Pashby, K. , & Shultz, L. (2018). Global Citizenship education: A critical introduction to key concepts and debates . London, UK: Bloomsbury.
• Sartori, G. (Ed.). (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Schaffer, F. C. (2016). Elucidating social science concepts: An interpretivist guide . London & New York: Routledge.
• Schattle, H. (2008). Education for Global Citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies , 13 (1), 73–94.
• Schattle, H. (2015). Global Citizenship as a national discourse: The evolution of segye shimin in South Korean public discourse. Citizenship Studies , 19 (1), 53–68.
• Schwab, K. (2008). Global corporate citizenship: Working with governments and civil society. Council on Foreign Relations , 87 (1), 107–118.
• Shallcross, T. , & Robinson, J. (Eds.). (2006). Global Citizenship and environmental justice . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
• Sherer, A. G. , & Palazzo, G. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Shiva, V. (2005). Earth democracy: Justice sustainability and peace . London: Zed Books.
• Shukla, N. (2009). Power, discourse and learning Global Citizenship: A case study of international NGOs and a grassroots movement in the Narmada Valley, India. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 4 (2), 133–147.
• Soguk, N. (2014). Global Citizenship in an insurrectional era. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of GC studies (pp. 49–61). London, UK: Routledge.
• Soysal, Y. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Spruyt, H. (2016). Empires, past and present: The relevance of empire as an analytic concept . N. Parker. New York: Routledge.
• Stevenson, N. (1997). Globalisation, national cultures and cultural citizenship. The Sociological Quarterly , 38 , 41–66.
• Sukarieh, M. , & Tannock, S. (2018). The global securitisation of youth. Third World Quarterly , 39 (5), 854–870.
• Taylor, L. (2012). Decolonising international relations: Perspectives from Latin America. International Studies Review , 14 (3), 386–400.
• Torre, M. la. (2005). Global Citizenship? Political rights under imperial conditions. Ratio Juris , 18 (2), 236–257.
• Tully, J. (2014). On Global Citizenship: James Tully in dialogue . Critical Powers. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
• Turner, B. S. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology , 24 (2), 189–217.
• Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze . London, UK: SAGE.
• Urry, J. (1999). Globalisation and citizenship. Journal of World Systems Research , 5 (2), 311–324.
• van Steenbergen, B. (1994). Towards a global ecological citizenship. In B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 141–152). London, UK: SAGE.
• Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral arguments at home and abroad . London, UK: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organisation , 41 (3), 335–370.
• Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations , 9 (4), 491–542.
• Yuval-Davis, N. (1997, Month). National spaces and collective identities: Border, boundaries, citizenship and gender relations . Inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Greenwich, London, UK.

1. Derek Heater acknowledges that similar themes advocating world community and government can be found in the Indian, Chinese, and Japanese intellectual traditions (Heater, 1996 ).

2. This view has been problematized by scholarship occurring at the same time which examines the ways in which globalization has changed the state through the very same transnational governance structures that contemporary scholarship regards as empirical evidence for the existence of GC. For an account of globalization and the state see Clark ( 1999 ).

Related Articles

• Global Distributive Justice
• Cooperative Learning in International Relations
• Global Democracy
• Globalization and Globality
• Globalization and Human Rights
• Globalization through Feminist Lenses
• The International Political Sociology of Empire

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

Character limit 500 /500

Essay on Global Citizenship

Students are often asked to write an essay on Global Citizenship in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

What is global citizenship.

Global citizenship means seeing yourself as a part of the whole world, not just your country. It’s about caring for people and the planet, no matter where they are. Global citizens work together to solve big problems like poverty and climate change.

Responsibilities of Global Citizens

Being a global citizen means you have duties. You should learn about different cultures, respect the environment, and help others. It’s about making good choices that don’t hurt others around the world.

Benefits of Global Citizenship

When we act as global citizens, we make the world better. We get to understand different people and can work on making peace. It also helps us to solve big problems that affect everyone, like keeping the earth clean and safe.

250 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Global citizenship is the idea that everyone on our planet is part of a big community. It’s like thinking of the whole world as one big neighborhood. People who believe in global citizenship care about issues that affect everyone, no matter where they live.

Caring for the Earth

One part of being a global citizen is looking after our planet. This means doing things to protect the environment, like recycling or turning off lights to save energy. It’s about keeping the Earth clean and safe for all of us and the animals too.

Helping Each Other

Global citizens also think it’s important to help people in need. This could be by giving money to charities that work all over the world or by learning about different cultures and understanding people who are different from us.

Another big idea in global citizenship is fairness. This means making sure that people everywhere have what they need, like food, water, and a chance to go to school. It’s not fair if some people have too much while others have too little.

Working Together

Finally, global citizenship is about countries and people working together to solve big problems. This can be anything from fighting diseases that spread across countries to making sure everyone has a good place to live.

In short, being a global citizen means caring for our world and the people in it. It’s about learning, sharing, and working together to make the world a better place for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Imagine a big school that has students from every part of the world. These students learn together, play together, and help each other. This is a bit like what global citizenship is. Global citizenship means thinking of yourself as a part of one big world community. Instead of just looking after the people in your own town or country, you care about everyone on Earth.

Why is Global Citizenship Important?

Our world is connected in many ways. What happens in one country can affect many others. For example, if the air gets polluted in one place, it can travel to other places and make the air dirty there too. By being global citizens, we can work together to solve big problems like pollution, poverty, and sickness that can touch people everywhere.

Respecting Cultures and People

Global citizens respect and learn about different cultures and people. Every culture has its own special stories, food, and ways of living. When you are a global citizen, you are curious about these differences and you understand that every person is important, no matter where they come from.

Taking Care of the Planet

Our Earth is the only home we have. Global citizens take care of it by doing things like recycling, saving water, and planting trees. We all share the same air, water, and land, so it’s everyone’s job to look after them.

Helping Others

Global citizens try to help people who need it. This can be by giving money to charities that work all over the world or by being kind to someone from another country who moves to your town. When we help each other, the whole world becomes a better place.

Learning and Sharing Knowledge

Being a global citizen also means learning about the world and sharing what you know. You can read books, watch films, or talk to people from different places. Then, you can share what you learn with your friends and family.

Being Active in Your Community

Even though global citizenship is about the whole world, it starts in your own community. You can join groups that clean up parks, help people who are sick, or raise money for good causes. By doing small things where you live, you are being a part of something much bigger.

Global citizenship is like being a friend to the entire world. It means learning, sharing, and caring for others and our planet. Even if you are just one person, you can make a big difference. When we all work together as global citizens, we make the world a happier, healthier, and more peaceful place.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Indian Tourism
• Essay on Everyday Life
• Essay on Everyone Deserves A Second Chance

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Apprenticeships
• South Africa
• Tuition & Aid
• Eligibility Quiz
• Request Info
• Alumni Stories
• Community Hub
• News & Press
• For Educators

What is Global Citizenship?

Connection across cultures is a crucial component in fostering empathy on a global scale. As such, broadening one’s horizons and stepping out of your own experience is essential in order to develop empathy for others.

One way to achieve this goal is by diving head first into global citizenship. But what is global citizenship? What is a global citizen? And how do you become a global citizen? Let’s look into the answers to these questions, as well as some of the ways in which you can expand your global citizenship education.

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Global citizenship: what is it and how to become one.

Global Citizenship Definition

While it may mean different things to different people, the most common global citizenship definition is the idea that all people have civic responsibilities to the world as a whole, rather than just their local communities or countries. So, by expanding one’s personal horizons through global learning, you are able to effect change in a more meaningful sense on both a small and larger scale.

What does it mean to be a global citizen and how do you become one?

Global citizenship is more than a title — it’s a mindset. In the emerging digital world, the international community is getting closer and closer, yet if one chooses not to act, it’s easy to stay in a bubble. Ask yourself — what communities am I a part of? Your answers could include your home, school, work, or literal neighborhood — expanding that into the world community strengthens your global citizenship. In these “small” communities, you might exchange ideas with a friend or help out a coworker with a problem. Being a global citizen simply means having a willingness to do this with people from different nations and cultural backgrounds.

You may feel like you don’t have enough to offer. It’s tempting to think you have to travel to a new country every month or fight for social justice to define yourself as a “global citizen.” This misses the mark. The global citizen definition you should use is more about being connected and garnering an understanding of cultures beyond your own. This looks different for different people. What does it mean to be a global citizen for you? It could start with something as simple as researching a new country or making friends with an immigrant neighbor. It could end with traveling abroad and contributing to community efforts to advance education, health, or environmental conservation. Working to solve our shared global challenges is so important, and this drive to make a positive impact is most effective when it stems from the feeling of global citizenship and being a member of an international community.

How to Become a Global Citizen and Improve Your Global Citizenship Skills

When people make the decision to become global citizens, they have already made a step in the right direction towards expanding their global awareness, but there are some things — both small and large — that you personally can do to create global citizenship in your own life. Here are just a few.

Learn About the World

Even before you hop into international travel, there are ways in which you can learn about the world and become a global citizen. The internet is a wonderful resource that can help you do this.

One way to become more globally aware is by reading about different cultures and experiences. By reading blogs, articles, and books from people who live in other parts of the world, you can gain a deeper understanding of their lives and perspectives.

Another way to improve your global citizenship is by connecting with people from different countries and cultures online. You can seek out social media accounts of people from different countries and start conversations with them. You could also become an online tutor to young international students, helping them to learn your language and culture while learning from theirs.

By doing these things, you can get close to people from different cultural backgrounds and learn about the issues they face regularly. This can help you to explore things outside of your regular purview and become a more informed and compassionate global citizen.

One of the best ways to grow your global citizenship and become a citizen of the world is, naturally, to get out and go see it. Traveling to other countries can provide you with invaluable experience and education through interacting with other cultures. Transformative life lessons are often borne of these kinds of travel experiences, allowing you to learn about topics like global health, interdependence, diversity, social justice, and more through your lived experiences while abroad. That is why at Global Citizen Year, our Take Action Lab program provides an immersive gap semester abroad while learning from experienced human rights advocates advancing social justice.

Learn About Yourself

Being a part of any community involves giving and receiving. As you learn about the world, you should see some mindsets change, and you may discover new interests and causes to explore. Are you passionate about social or political involvement? Do you wish you could alleviate climate change? Do you have the skills to teach English online or help on an organic farm? Knowing what you care about and what you want to offer to the world will help you develop your own global citizenship. You’ll quickly find that you have something to offer — and the potential to make a positive impact.

Become a Leader

Leaders with more diverse life experiences, a global perspective, and greater empathy are desperately needed if we’re going to address issues like climate change, global health, and inequality. By working on cultivating your personal leadership skills, you may be able to contribute more to building a more sustainable, inclusive future. Developing your leadership skills can help you become the most impactful global citizen you can be and empower you to make a difference for the communities and issues you care about.

Benefits of Global Citizenship

Global citizenship has numerous benefits that extend beyond personal growth and development. Here are some of the key benefits:

• Increased cultural understanding : Global citizenship fosters empathy and understanding towards people from different cultures and backgrounds, leading to greater cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity.
• Improved communication skills : Being a global citizen requires effective communication with people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which can help improve one’s communication skills.
• Enhanced problem-solving skills : Global citizenship promotes critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as individuals are exposed to complex global challenges and encouraged to come up with innovative solutions.
• Greater career opportunities : Employers increasingly value employees with global perspectives and intercultural competencies, making global citizenship an asset in the job market.
• Personal growth and development : Engaging with diverse perspectives and cultures can broaden one’s worldview and increase personal growth and development.

WHY GLOBAL CITIZEN YEAR?

Are you looking to connect with motivated young changemakers worldwide to develop the necessary skills for solving global challenges? With Global Citizen Year you have the opportunity to find your people, your purpose, and your power to make an impact.

Work with experienced human rights advocates addressing the global challenges that matter most to you during a gap semester in South Africa with Global Citizen Year’s Take Action Lab. Expand your global perspective and sense of purpose with our apprenticeships, cultural immersion experiences, and dynamic curriculum. Make friends and mentors for life and become part of a network of like-minded changemakers from across the world. Develop the skills, network, and insights to create a fulfilling and impactful future.

Ultimately, the effort you put into growing your global citizenship is something that will benefit both yourself and the people with whom you come into contact. Learn more about Global Citizen Year here .

“To me, a global citizen is someone who seeks to engage with and has great respect for communities that are very different than their own, whether those be actually international communities or even communities within your own — within your own country, that you are not very familiar with. The key components are respect and a willingness and in fact a desire to really engage with those communities, engage those differences, and learn from them and kind of revel in the differences that exist.”

Jordan Lee, Yale University ’17, Global Citizen Year Alumnus ’13

Apply today

More Gap Year Resourcess

EXPERIENCE A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A GLOBAL CITIZEN YEAR FELLOW

Fellow / Ecuador

— Anna del Savio

I work with a group of indigenous artisans that make fair trade jewelry. …

Fellow / Brazil

— Amari Leigh

After my community garden apprenticeship, I like to hang out at the local waterfall with my friends. …

— Basil Wiering

I often hail a rickshaw into various parts of the city to meet friends and practice street photography. …

— Fernanda Tornell

I've developed my public speaking skills and encouraged hundreds of people to take care of our planet. …

Fellow / India

— Luciana Ribeiro da Silva

I apprentice with Teach For India and also volunteer with a non-profit working to end child marriage. …

— Noah Hapke

I co-teach English classes at the school in my community. …

— Sarah Murray

My apprenticeship is at a school for people with disabilities where I help to lead gardening, games, and capoeira. …

— Alana Poole

In the afternoons, I often go on home visits to meet my students' families and understand where they come from. …

REQUEST INFO

For potential applicants, sign up here to learn more. We'll help you decide if Global Citizen Year is right for you! Not a student? Please visit our newsletter form to request info.

What you need to know about global citizenship education

For centuries, common aspirations for mutual respect, peace, and understanding were reflected in traditional concepts across cultures and civilizations – from 'ubuntu' (I am because of who we all are) in African philosophy to 'sumak kawsay' (harmony within communities, ourselves and nature) in Quechua. Although the term "global citizenship education" (GCED) was only coined in 2011, the values it represents have been central to UNESCO's mission since its founding in 1947.

By building peace through education and reminding humanity of our common ties, UNESCO has long championed the ideas now formalized as GCED. As our world grows increasingly interdependent, GCED is more vital than ever for international solidarity and inspiring learners of all ages to positively contribute to their local and global communities. But what exactly does global citizenship education entail, why it matters today, and how UNESCO is driving this movement?

What’s the idea behind global citizenship?

Unlike citizenship – special rights, privileges and responsibilities related to "belonging" to a particular nation/state, the global citizenship concept is based on the idea we are connected not just with one country but with a broader global community. So, by positively contributing to it, we can also influence change on regional, national and local levels. Global citizens don't have a special passport or official title, nor do they need to travel to other countries or speak different languages to become one. It's more about the mindset and actual actions that a person takes daily. A global citizen understands how the world works, values differences in people, and works with others to find solutions to challenges too big for any one nation.

Citizenship and global citizenship do not exclude each other. Instead, these two concepts are mutually reinforcing. 

What is global citizenship education about?

Economically, environmentally, socially and politically, we are linked to other people on the planet as never before. With the transformations that the world has gone through in the past decades – expansion of digital technology, international travel and migration, economic crises, conflicts, and environmental degradation – how we work, teach and learn has to change, too. UNESCO promotes global citizenship education to help learners understand the world around them and work together to fix the big problems that affect everyone, no matter where they're from.

GCED is about teaching and learning to become these global citizens who live together peacefully on one planet. What does it entail?

Adjusting curricula and content of the lessons to provide knowledge about the world and the interconnected nature of contemporary challenges and threats. Among other things, a deep understanding of human rights, geography, the environment, systems of inequalities, and historical events that underpinned current developments;

Nurturing cognitive, social and other skills to put the knowledge into practice and make it relevant to learners' realities. For example, thinking critically and asking questions about what's equitable and just, taking and understanding other perspectives and opinions, resolving conflicts constructively, working in teams, and interacting with people of different backgrounds, origins, cultures and perspectives; 

Instilling values that reflect the vision of the world and provide purpose, such as respect for diversity, empathy, open-mindedness, justice and fairness for everyone;

Adopting behaviours to act on their values and beliefs: participating actively in the society to solve global, national and local challenges and strive for the collective good.

What UNESCO does in global citizenship education

UNESCO works with countries to improve and rewire their education systems so that they support creativity, innovation and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development. 

Provides a big-picture vision for an education that learners of all ages need to survive and thrive in the 21 st century. One key priority is updating the  1974 Recommendation Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , the document underpinning this work.   

Supports the development of curricula and learning materials on global citizenship themes tailored for diverse cultural contexts. Among many examples are the general guidance document on teaching and learning objectives of global citizenship education or recommendations on integrating social and emotional learning principles in the education process.

Studies the positive impact of learning across subjects and builds linkages between sectors and spheres . One of the key focus areas is the Framework on Culture and Arts Education, in which UNESCO highlights the positive impact learning of the arts and through the arts has on academic performance, acquisition of different skills and greater well-being, as well as broadening of the horizons.

Collaborates with partners across UNESCO programmes and the broader UN system to address contemporary threats to human rights and peace and infuse the principles of understanding, non-discrimination and respect for human dignity in education. Among others, UNESCO leads the global education efforts to counter hate speech online and offline, address antisemitism, fight racism, educate about human rights violations and violent pasts.

Monitors how the core values of global citizenship education are reflected in and supported by education policy and the curriculum to deliver it effectively. For example, by collecting global data on this indicator every four years through a survey questionnaire designed for the 1974 Recommendation.

Promotes international collaboration in education through  UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs , and  UNESCO Associated Schools Network , connecting over 12,000 educational institutions worldwide.

Why does UNESCO prioritize global citizenship education?

Quality education is among 17 Sustainable Development Goals put forth by the United Nations, where GCED is mentioned as one of the topic areas that countries must promote. While leading the global efforts to achieve this goal, UNESCO sees education as the main driver of human development that can accelerate progress in bringing about social justice, gender equality, inclusion, and other Goals. 

UNESCO believes that only an education that provides a global outlook with a deep appreciation of local perspectives can address the cross-cutting challenges of today and tomorrow. This vision is reaffirmed in the Incheon Declaration made in 2015 at the World Education Forum and further reflected in UNESCO's Futures of Education report.     

Based on the evidence that UNESCO has accumulated on GCED impact, learners who benefit from such education from early stages become less prone to conflicts and are more open to resolving them peacefully while respecting each other's differences. It has also proven successful in post-conflict transformation. For example, discussing the root causes of human rights violations that occurred in the past helps to detect alarming tendencies and avoid them in the future. 

How is GCED implemented?

GCED is not a single subject with a set curriculum but rather a framework, a prism through which education is seen. It can be delivered as an integral part of existing subjects – from geography to social studies – or independently. UNESCO supports the dissemination of GCED on different levels and in multiple areas of life beyond the classroom.

On a policy level: Governments can develop national strategies and frameworks that recognize the importance of understanding local issues from a broader global perspective and prioritize education programmes that reflect this vision. 

In the classroom: Teachers can incorporate content and materials that build awareness of global issues and intercultural understanding. For instance, in Geography, pupils can learn about climate change and the distribution of resources. In Social Sciences, they find out how environmental degradation impacts children's rights worldwide. In Science, they discover how trees soak up carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and can help tackle climate change. Teachers can also assign students a group project where they will have to devise a campaign to address climate change in their local community.

Out of school: Museums and cultural institutions can design exhibits and educational materials that inspire global citizenship. Exchange programs allow young people to broaden their horizons by visiting other communities and countries.

Related items

• Civic education

Search the United Nations

• UNAI Principles
• Map of UNAI Members
• List of UNAI Members
• Special Series
• Select UN Events
• UNAI Events
• SDGs Best Practices
• SDGs Guidelines
• SDGs Training Sessions
• SDGs Workshops
• The Why Join Guide
• Tools for Researchers
• Bulletin Board
• Submit the 2024 Activity Report
• Become a Millennium Fellow
• UNAI Voices
• Sustainable Development Goals
• UN Agencies
• UN Information Centres
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Stories Archive
• UN Publications
• Internships

Global Citizenship

Global citizenship is the umbrella term for social, political, environmental, and economic actions of globally minded individuals and communities on a worldwide scale. The term can refer to the belief that individuals are members of multiple, diverse, local and non-local networks rather than single actors affecting isolated societies. Promoting global citizenship in sustainable development will allow individuals to embrace their social responsibility to act for the benefit of all societies, not just their own.

The concept of global citizenship is embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals though SDG 4: Insuring Inclusive and Quality Education for All and Promote Life Long Learning, which includes global citizenship as one of its targets. By 2030, the international community has agreed to ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including global citizenship. Universities have a responsibility to promote global citizenship by teaching their students that they are members of a large global community and can use their skills and education to contribute to that community.

About the Hub:   Ana G. Méndez University (UAGM)  is a private non-profit higher education institution founded over seven decades ago in Puerto Rico. UAGM provides quality education and promotes research with a vision of innovation and entrepreneurship. Through its three main campuses (Gurabo, Cupey, and Carolina) and eight off-campus centers located around the island, UAGM offers a variety of academic programs in different modalities and excellent services designed to fulfill the needs and expectations of a diverse student population.  UAGM is the global center of UNAI to promote the exchange of knowledge and information regarding global citizenship. Its activities in this theme solidify its commitment to the development of global citizens by ensuring that its graduates are fully prepared to assume leadership roles and present solutions to humanity's challenges and needs.

Ana G. Mendez University

UNITED NATIONS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

• Lazy Person's Guide
• UN Volunteers
• Youth Engagement
• Past Contests and Scholarships
• Request a Speaker
• Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

• UN News Centre
• Press Releases
• Office of the Spokesperson
• UN in Action
• UN Social Media
• The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

• SDG of the Month
• Observances and Commemorations
• Celebrity Advocates for the UN

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Global Citizen — A Global Citizen and the Benefits of International Citizenship

A Global Citizen and The Benefits of International Citizenship

• Categories: Citizenship Global Citizen Welfare

About this sample

Words: 1313 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1313 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, being a global citizen, the benefits of global citizenship.

• Global Identity: At its core, being a global citizen means identifying first and foremost as a member of the global community. While individuals may have national or cultural affiliations, global citizens recognize that these are just one layer of their identity. They see themselves as part of a larger human family, connected by shared challenges and opportunities.
• Responsibility for the World: Global citizens understand that they have a responsibility not only to their immediate communities but also to the world at large. They acknowledge that their actions and choices can impact people and ecosystems far beyond their borders. This heightened sense of responsibility compels them to engage in efforts to address global issues such as poverty, climate change, and social injustice.
• Cultural Competence: Being a global citizen entails a deep appreciation for cultural diversity. Global citizens are curious about other cultures, eager to learn from them, and respectful of differences. They recognize that cultural diversity enriches our global tapestry and contributes to the richness of human experience.
• Advocacy for Justice: Global citizens are advocates for justice and equality. They recognize that the benefits of globalization should be shared equitably, and they actively work to dismantle systems of oppression and discrimination. Whether it's advocating for gender equality, racial justice, or economic fairness, global citizens champion causes that promote a more just world.
• Environmental Stewardship: Environmental sustainability is a fundamental aspect of global citizenship. Global citizens understand the interconnectedness of environmental issues and the importance of preserving our planet for future generations. They take actions to reduce their ecological footprint and advocate for policies that promote sustainability.
• Engagement and Action: Global citizenship is not a passive state; it requires active engagement and action. Global citizens participate in initiatives, organizations, and movements that address global challenges. They use their voices and resources to effect positive change on a local, national, and global scale.
• Cross-Cultural Communication: Effective communication across cultural boundaries is a key skill of global citizens. They value open dialogue, empathy, and active listening as tools for resolving conflicts, fostering understanding, and building bridges between people from diverse backgrounds.

Building a Global Community

Mobilizing for global change, creating a peaceful, prosperous, and interconnected world.

• Evans, H. (TEDxSydney). (2013). What does it mean to be a citizen of the world? TEDxSydney. https://www.ted.com/tedx
• Sen, A. (2006). Identity and Violence : The Illusion of Destiny. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
• Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870.
• Schattle, H. (2008). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In N. J. McLaughlin & D. R. Dean (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of International Relations (pp. 591-606). Sage Publications.
• Global Citizen. (n.d.). About us. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/about/
• World Economic Forum. (2021). Global citizenship and the future of education: 7 key takeaways. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/education-global-citizenship-future-skills/

• Our work with schools
• What is global citizenship?
• Global citizenship guides
• Support for educators

Tim Fransham/Oxfam

Oxfam education

Ideas, resources and support for active global citizenship in the classroom and beyond.

What is Global Citizenship?

It is about how decisions in one part of the planet can affect people living in a different part of it, and about how we all share a common humanity and are of equal worth.

It means being open to engaging positively with other identities and cultures and being able to recognise and challenge stereotypes.

It is also about how we use and share the earth's resources fairly and uphold the human rights of all.

What does it mean to be a global citizen?

A global citizen is someone who is aware of and understands the wider world – and their place in it. They are a citizen of the world. They take an active role in their community and work with others to make our planet more peaceful, sustainable and fairer.

Examples of global citizenship

Global citizenship involves...

• Exploring local and global connections and our views, values and assumptions
• Exploring issues of social justice locally and globally
• Exploring the complexity of global issues and engaging with multiple perspectives
• Applying learning to real-world issues and contexts
• Opportunities to make informed, reflective action and be heard

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

For Oxfam, global citizenship is all about encouraging young people to develop the knowledge, skills and values they need to engage with the world. And it's about the belief that we can all make a difference.

Education for global citizenship isn't an additional subject – it's a framework for learning, reaching beyond school to the wider community. It can be promoted in class through the existing curriculum or through new initiatives and activities.

BENEFITS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Global citizenship helps young people to:

• Build their own understanding of world events.
• Think about their values and what's important to them.
• Take learning into the real world.
• Challenge ignorance and intolerance.
• Get involved in their local, national and global communities.
• Develop an argument and voice their opinions.
• See that they have power to act and influence the world around them.

What's more, global citizenship inspires and informs teachers and parents, too. But above all, it shows young people that they have a voice. The world may be changing fast, but they can make a positive difference – and help build a fairer, safer and more secure world for everyone.

Jo-Anne Witcombe/ Oxfam

Teaching resources

Ideas, activities and support for developing global learning in the classroom and beyond.

Salahuddin Ahmed

Practical advice and inspiration for embedding global citizenship in the curriculum and across the whole school.

Active global citizenship

Beyond the classroom, we give young people lots of ways to take action for a better world.

Discover More

Home learning activities.

Global learning at home, in the classroom or wherever you are!

Schools Speak Out

Support young people to demonstrate leadership, take part in our latest campaigns and speak out about global poverty.

Also in this section

What it Means to be a Global Citizen

Becoming a global citizen.

At The Global Citizens’ Initiative (TGCI) we define a global citizen as someone who sees himself or herself as being part of an emerging world community and whose actions help define this community’s values and practices.

Historically, human beings have always organized communities based on shared identity. Such identity is forged in response to a variety of human needs and forces– economic, political, religious, and social. As group identities grow stronger, those who share them organize into communities, articulate their shared values, and build governance structures to support their beliefs.

Today the forces of modern information, communications, and transportation technologies are helping people develop global identity.  In increasing ways these technologies are strengthening our ability to connect to the rest of the world; for example through the Internet; through strengthening our ability to participate in the global economic marketplace; through the ways in which we now see the world-wide impact of atmospheric change on our environment; and through the empathy we feel when we see pictures of humanitarian disasters in other countries.

Those of us who see ourselves as global citizens are not abandoning other identities, such as allegiances to our countries, ethnicities, and political beliefs. These traditional identities give meaning to our lives and will continue to help shape us. However, as a result of living in a hyper-connected and interdependent world, as global citizens we have an added layer of global responsibility.  Our responsibilities include the following:

First, the responsibility to understand the ways in which the peoples and countries of the world are inter-connected and interdependent : For example, we need to understand the ways in which the global environment affects us where we live; the ways in which human rights violations in foreign countries can affect our own human rights; how growing income and resource inequalities within and between countries affect the quality of our own lives; how the global tide of immigration affects what goes on in our countries and how our own country’s immigration policies affect other nations.

Second, global citizens have the responsibility to understand global issues :  Global issues are those that cannot be solved by individual nation-states. For example, we need to understand the impact of the growing scarcity of natural resources on all countries; the challenges presented by the current distribution of wealth and power in the world; the roots of conflict within and between countries and requirements of peace-building and peacemaking; and the challenges posed by a growing global population.

Third, global citizens have the responsibility to understand our own perspectives and the perspectives of others on global issues : Almost every global issue has multiple ethnic, social, political, and economic perspectives attached to it. It is the responsibility of global citizens to understand these different perspectives and work to build common ground solutions. A global citizen usually avoids taking sides with one particular point of view, and instead searches for ways to bring all sides together.

Fourth, global citizens have the responsibility to advocate for greater implement ion by our countries of international agreements, conventions, and treaties (ACTs) related to global issues : Global citizens have the responsibility to advocate for having our countries sign outstanding global agreements that they have not signed and for ratifying and complying with those that they have signed. ACTs are one of the building blocks of global collaboration among countries, collaboration that is essential for building a sustainable world community. Country global citizenship is just as important as the global citizenship of individuals. For more on this important topic of country global citizenship please visit TGCI’s Country Global Citizenship Project at  http://www.countryreportcard.org

Fifth global citizens have the responsibility to promote and advocate for greater international cooperation between our countries and other nations : When a global issue arises, it is important for global citizens to speak out on how our countries can work with other nations to address this issue; and how our countries can work more effectively with established international organizations like the United Nations, rather than proceed on a unilateral course of action.

Finally, global citizens have the responsibility to adopt lifestyles and values that reflect our commitment to building a sustainable planet and demonstrate respect for the world’s cultural diversity.  For example, we need to minimize our carbon footprint and protect the environmental resources in our local environment. We need to cultivate values of tolerance, compassion, and empathy for others, and build mutually supportive relationships with people from other cultures and countries.

• Current Edition
• About Kosmos
• Submit a Work
• Join | Donate
• Full Archive
• Your cart is currently empty.

I Am A Global Citizen

A global citizen is someone who respects and feels unity with all creation. We suffer over wars, hunger, environmental destruction, injustice and the power plays that perpetuate those crimes against humanity and the earth. A global activist is someone whose voice is heard or actions taken toward creating a healthier, more equitable world. I am a global citizen because I have dedicated my life to gaining the education and facilitation skills to raise awareness of female injustice worldwide.

As a three-year old white child in Midwestern America, I experienced genital mutilation by a doctor practicing his religion with a scalpel. Some of my post-surgical emotional and physical ramifications are similar to that experienced by female genital cutting (FGC) victims regardless of why or how it was done. I am aware of resistance to Western women attacking other cultures’ practices. However, my history helps put us on equal ground. I shared my story at several international organizations in Geneva, Switzerland in 1981.

Since then, I traveled to Kenya and South Africa and gained appreciation for positive aspects of African cultures as well as better understanding of cultural traditions. I returned to college and now have my doctor in education degree. As a university adjunct professor I recently taught a class called Turning Oppression into Opportunity based on Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Vintage Books, 2009; Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., Conari Press, 2005; and Kosmos: Turning Crisis into Opportunity–Spring/Summer 2010 and People Power/The Global Commons–Fall/Winter 2010.

I connect through phone conferences with women who are working to eradicate FGC. I also financially support organizations educating young girls in areas where these harmful practices take place. Educated girls are more apt to say “No” to FGC and child marriage. My goal is to continue to raise awareness though as many avenues as possible.

yes i am global citizen .i take my responsibility to do these kind of work

Add comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CAPTCHA Code *

Yes, I’d like to join for free to receive the new  Kosmos Journal  and access to the full archive.

Staff and Advisors

The Four Freedoms  

Introduction, the four freedoms and artificial intelligence, the rights of all beings, conversations, ‘the grab’ | conspiring to control the world’s food and water, with four freedoms, four responsibilities, the promise of liberty and the pain of separation, philanthropy as a territory of transition, fear, freedom and the queer world of quantum mechanics, a participant critique of the french mutual aid network, solaris, spotlight on hanne strong, origin | from “the story of gaia”, why beauty matters, mixed media, deep adaptation | a quartet of videos, this feature is self-generated, searching for a more beautiful world, with charles eisenstein, navigating the storm of global change, the sanctity of food, mugwort | plants rule the world, eleanor on 72nd street, exactly this spot | how air is, graffiti on the lee monument | gray, listening to the intelligence of your body, blessed community   the families we make, becoming ‘blessed community’, love, care and community, find the others | start a conscious change collective, are transition towns our key to a more beautiful future, mindful living at morningsun, prisons as monasteries, unitive narrative | a new lens for approaching the sustainable development goals, the art of life | a documentary, what i learned visiting intentional communities, crone wisdom | the soul of community, way of council | speaking and listening from the heart, desert blues | the music moves in circles, return to fixing things | the artist’s posthumous garage sale, sibling beit midrash | jacob’s gift, the rope bridge | monument, the way out | end of the egoic era, envisioning the beloved community, the eco-institute at pickards mountain | my experience as a black participant-turned-leader, a us department of peacebuilding, how to have a community conversation, chinese brush painting: a lesson | conflagration, the bridge to tomorrow is a work-in-progress, the sacred masculine  , masculine/feminine | a non-binary view, in search of the sacred masculine, the great simplification, erasure of indigenous identity, finding ben | mental health, justice, and healing, gender and peace | thoughts on the russian war in ukraine, blueprints for men, climate crisis | a problem of myth, ritual fire and sacred masculinity, trauma and healing for boys and men of color, adrift in the world, lessons from the ancient samurai, a cloud never dies | a film about the life of thích nhất hạnh, baptism of fire, the butterfly man in the house of pain, dusty and me, reflections on outliving my son, awakened life, a contemplation on resilience in ukraine, in the dream, my father reprimanded me for wearing earmuffs indoors | for my son, texas buddha | horse talk, taimu shakuhachi flute | art of emptiness, one final inning in st. louis, our spiritual commons   the inner resources we share, synthesis and the intuitive mind, our spiritual commons, waters of spirit, the soul of nations, global citizenship and universal values, honoring commons-based circuits of value, the value-renewed society, transformative social and emotional learning (sel) as a catalyst for climate action, embodied thinking and embodied feeling, autobiography of a yogi | 75 years on, the atlas of disappearing places, the world of itō jakuchū, the hermetic revival, the moment | alan watts and the eternal now, message from haiti | inspiration between two, lord of the forest | good fences, bum’ma (because i couldn’t say grandma), text | along the willamette, calendula seed | spirit rise, the holomovement, all things are a commons, the indwelling spirit, toward a global wellbeing mindset, the potential of grassroots environmental stewardship, meeting mugwort, joanna macy | climate crisis as spiritual path, seeking “ssshhh”, humble like the earth, are you sure   the cultivation of belief, are you sure, marching orders | covid’s attention war, post-truth politics and collective gaslighting, perceptual intelligence, seeing truth in van gogh, healing wetiko, the mind-virus that plagues our world, red brain, green brain, a quest for truth as a continuous motion to reconsider, the noosphere is here, ‘great turning’ visionaries | part 1, ‘great turning’ visionaries | part 2, earthjustice | working at the brink, deep winter, watching river otters, being brave, searching for what we already know, truth that affirms and regenerates all life, the industry of us | all you cannot see, truth is an orange canary from lisbon, garbage | pedaling my bike past jefferson davis place, let’s see what happens next | mid-20th century salvation, the juniper tree, composer, david crowe, 23 million trees planted, realigning withearth wisdom    , indigenous to life, the wisdom of our ancestors, the big ocean cantata, how to be a soil keeper, to reason with a madman, how not to lose the elephant for all its parts, our animal bodies and the unitive state, the web of meaning, trauma and regeneration, emerging renaissance | the art and wisdom of leigh j mccloskey, hermetic wisdom and the attributes of our time, glacier, elder, teacher, realigning with earth wisdom, the wonder of it all, practicing the art of wonder through radical presence, between prayer mat and smoke hole, reconnecting our children to nature, seeking the honey of life, slant | vernacular, signposts and hedges | visiting my brother’s nebraska farmstead on august 30th at dusk, into the riptide | the best we can imagine together, today you are a river in my hands | once trees grew inside me, inhale exhale, the century of awakening  , century of awakening, awakening to life, global challenges are directing us toward a unity of purpose, vow of 120,000 actions, the descent to soul, gravity and allurement, the two faces of digital spirituality, sacramental conversation, the ecozoans, can we measure culture and consciousness, dismantling the patriarchy within, living communally, reclaiming spiritual wholeness, the unchaining and the unveiling, scaffolding for a thrivable planet, cultivating spiritual intelligence, the age of freedom, the joy of living and learning interconnectedly, remembering nature, prayers in the dark, ‘uncomfortable’, poems for the solar age, butterfly effect, topophilia | thicket, master sha | tao calligraphy, how quickly the light changes | before you set your table, unexpected grace | love poem with accolades, visionary spirit   transition and transformation, the role of the visionary, unlocking a fresh vision for the world, dying into the creative, a global governance paradigm shift | first principles first, what is global education and why does it matter  , vision and change | fermentation as metaphor, thoughtforms | the materialization of sustained ideas, across the creek, looking back | the visionary spirit of resilience, deschooling dialogues: on initiation, trauma and ritual with francis weller, choosing earth | with duane and coleen elgin, reilly dow | art of the scribe, new visions give hope in dire times, rough initiations, “dear darkening ground”, david berkeley | oh quiet world, death and rebirth, birdsong as a compass, the power of pausing, we are all radical, dismantling solid bricks, cinderella story, kitchened | postcard from the mother ghost, it couldn’t be clearer, a poem for my students, ocean breeze, into the morphic | reality ritual, rapids of change   our collective journey, our collective journey, what is solidarity, the tree saviors of chipko andolan | a woman-led movement in india, making the case for a small farm future, what would hagia sophia say, an evolutionary transition is coming—are you ready, what indigenous wisdom can teach us about economics, somatics, healing, and social justice, recovering the divine feminine, oppression, interconnection, and healing, humanity and the microbe: a soul agreement, crazywise | shamanic mysticism and mental wellness, venerating the sacred | art as cultural therapy, we the “peoples” | the un at 75, the sustainable development goals begin with mindset, decolonization matters, five centuries of self-quarantine, living radical impermanence, turning our crises around from the inside out, a universal congress, horizontal governance, salmon migration as earth expression, epiphany | in the know | mapping, power colours memories identity fighting, true wealth  , the evolutionary potential of wealth, true health | what if the virus is the medicine, the treasure of our living, relational commons, soil wealth and a regenerative green new deal, the power of allurement, how we win | divestment and nonviolent direct action, advertising and trading | the markets’ problem twins, vision for a city of hope near auschwitz, bioregions and regeneration | honoring the places where we live, mystical anarchism, a spiritual biography, economic justice and ecological regeneration, wrestling with wealth and class, joy and value of connection to place and community, breakfast table revelation, safe houses | giving refuge, good fortune, two poems by joy mcdowell, two poems by diane kendig, two poems by ellen waterson, love letters from seaweed, in the hands of alchemy, greenplanet-blueplanet | sacred economy and caring, fragile gold, in the labyrinth   pathways to healing, walking the labyrinth, the labyrinth and the black madonna, rebuilding earth’s forest corridors, civility and its discontents, freedom and energy from healing white racism, howling in place, wall street to main street to world street, the science of oneness, covid-19 is a symbol of a much deeper infection, our finest hour, if we choose, hitching for hope, with ruairí mckiernan, gazing into the heart of perfection, shelterless in the time of covid-19, taking turns, weeding the labyrinth, in the garden, biracial identity | seeking to be unconditioned, a letter to herman creek canyon, mind matters most, becoming medicine, the vitality of paradox, ordinary grace, john fullerton on the qualities of a regenerative economy, leading in unknown terrain, wisdom from the flood.

Already have an account? Log in here .

Create a free account and we will share the world of Kosmos.

• Early, priority access to the freshest Quarterly
• Kosmos Newsletter, with briefings, podcasts and short videos delivered to your inbox
• Opportunities to engage online with thought leaders and affinity groups
• Invitations to our yearly retreats and other Kosmos gatherings

Create a Free Account

Possible Futures   Regeneration, Connection and Values

A story still unfolding, thomas berry and the rights of nature, ten economic insights of rudolf steiner, holding a seed for the future, from what is to what if, the unexpected journey of caring, re-imagining america, the alchemy of power, the next civilization, with jeremy lent, collective trauma and our emerging future , sacred season gathering of songs, freedom to make music, global social witnessing, a cry for help, active hope | time with joanna macy, healing the wounded mind, art in a time of catastrophe, hopeful essay penned by firelight, our scarlet blue wounds, kito mbiango | the power of art to drive action, closer looking | microscopy and aboriginal art, three poems, new spirit, wise action  , new spirit, wise action, beyond ‘sacred activism’, fourteen recommendations when facing climate tragedy, restoring the housatonic river walk, shut it down: stories from a fierce, loving resistance, thich nhat hanh’s code of global ethics, every act a ceremony, inner work makes our outer work massively more effective, the sun of darkness, white men and native america, burning man | what we’ve learned, kathy thaden | an inner fire, big lazy | music for unsettling times, kendra smith | the disappearing art of living, holacracy | an emergent order system, the practice of liminal dreaming, god becomes a hairdresser, men at the end of their strings, what you cross the street to avoid, a long convalescence, decoding the trump virus, seven practices of ‘holistic activism’, memes, mantras, and modern illusions of the eternal, including the earth in our prayers, the paradox of wise activism, living in flow, fluency in the language of stillness, values as a means to invite greater depth, summer 2019  , resonance and relationship, to all my relations, the holy grail of restoration, freeing the dragon, developing a mindful approach to earth justice work, rhino conservation, bringing reefs back to life, farming while black, selfcare freedom, the stones will cry out, sacred headwaters of the amazon, eating as if life and the planet mattered, sam lee | birdsong hits the charts, among the nightingales in berlin, reforestation in portugal, dancing with animals, cooperation with wild boars in palestine, killing us softly, where are we in the story of the universe, borders of our perception, the gift of tears, a song of pause, captives of our desire, documenting land trauma, spring 2019  , the earth is doing her best, dancing with gaia, the community awaiting us, turtles among us, resilience, the global challenge, and the human predicament, book | trees of power, paradise lost | the sequel, cultivating right livelihood, quiet places initiative, rising earth consciousness, consciousness and the combustion engine, the lie of the land | conversation and essay, rejoining the great conversation, physics and spirituality, a vision for the world, chama river revelations, rights of nature, council of the wild gods, the power of community, gallery 1 | in the realm of the world’s heart, gallery 2 | flower flourescence, gallery 3 | guardians of the sacred in tibet, emergent universe oratorio, a conversation with alanis obomsawin, three poems from reverberations from fukushima, dear reed canyon, winter 2018   global citizen, global spirit, the practice of global citizenship, we are all global citizens | seeing ourselves in the advancement of all, breaking out of the domination trance, evolving toward cooperation, on edge work, migration flows, and glocalization, returning to indigenous worldview, liquid democracy and the future of governance, book | farming for the long haul, delivering the un global goals | the consciousness perspective, the insurgent power of the commons in the war against the imagination, on elevating the human narrative, film | lifeboat, refugees adrift at sea, for love of place | reflections of an agrarian sage, sacred diplomacy in the emerging ecozoic era, globalism-nationalism, the new left-right, the economics of solidarity, spirit, and soul, global citizenship | an emerging agenda in education, caring for the soul of humanity, a pocket full of stones, the most important thing, being and becoming in a field of resonance, an overcast morning, i sit down to write, almost bethlehem, the rebel’s silhouette, xiuhtezcatl martinez | break free, playing for change, the universal declaration of human rights, toward a global ethic, statement on the unique challenge of nuclear weapons, the earth charter, fall 2018   all consuming, the four nutriments, un-pick-apart-able, tending the wild, making politics sacred again, from the unreal to the real, the problem with “more”, the galileo project, eager: the surprising, secret life of beavers and why they matter, do we really want to be happy, the deschooling dialogues | plant medicine and the coming transition, eldering in the age of consumption, water and the rising feminine , a tale of two pipelines, unity and the power of love, between the inner and outer worlds, wind | a letter to my daughters, healing the hunger, the selling of the soul, nourishment, are we addicted to fear, what the wind taught, the prophecy, green medicine, the fairy begs for bacon, finals time, how love builds a home, may everything flower, healing sound with jesse paris smith, consumption as the path, books in brief, climate news.

Contributors

KOSMOS Summer Quarterly, 2018

Unlearning together, awake, awakened, woke, change the worldview, change the world, presence at the edge of our practice, dynamic governance, roots and evolution of mindfulness, indigenous worldview is a source we now urgently need, the wanderer’s preparation in the death lodge, the deschooling dialogues: grief, collapse, and mysticism, social breakdown and initiation, forgive: the new practice and mantra for black men, the migrant quilt, the connection, healing into consciousness, wealth and abundance, confessions of a recovering catholic, the habits of schooling, an uncommon song, purposeful memoir as a path to alignment, being human, the night i didn’t stand up, absence presence, yorkston/thorne/khan.

Essay on Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

In an increasingly globalized world, it is important for one to consider how best to be a global citizen, and engage effectively with the trends and developments of an interconnected world. Issues such as terrorism, transnationalism, immigration, climate change and technological disruption are fundamentally issues founded in a globalized world, and it is therefore important for individuals to understand the impact of these issues on their lives and communities. This paper will begin with making a clear distinction between “globalism” and “globalization”. The paper will then discuss the personal, academic and professional benefits of being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology, and then explain the nature of disagreement on the definition of global citizenship, before proposing a personal definition of global citizenship. The paper will then discuss environmental sustainability and social justice as key outcomes of global citizenship, and explain why these outcomes are most crucial in becoming a global citizen. Finally, the paper will discuss two personal events and two specific general education courses that influenced this student to develop a stronger sense of global citizenship.

Distinction between “Globalism” and “Globalization”

The video and article discuss the distinction between “globalism” and “globalization” in terms of their scope, definition and global impact. Globalism refers to the global network of connections across finance, while globalization refers to the integration and free flow in labor, finance and ideas that have brought the world closer. For example, the video noted that Latin’s America’s socialist revolutions have been a result of a backlash against globalization as a concept which has promoted inequality and stagnant living standards, as opposed to globalism as a basic network of labor and capital. Globalization and delocalization of manufacturing has also led to offshoring of jobs by multinational corporations, which have provoked a backlash from populist movements, rather than the globalism of manufacturing and supply chains. Furthermore, globalism and globalization differ in degree, as the globalism of labor, capital and innovation networks has been distinct from the globalized reforms linked to neoliberalisation and multinational expansion. In other words, we should consider the globalism of these networks as distinct from the positive and negative impacts of globalization-driven reforms that have concurrently brought about significant prosperity and economic volatility.

Benefits of being a global citizen

Being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology can be beneficial to one’s financial investment strategies, managerial capabilities and intellectual foundations, which can help significantly with one’s personal, academic, and professional goals. Foremost, being a global citizen allows one to identify the impacts of technological automation, pandemics and climate change on specific industries, and avoid industries such as oil and gas, travel and aviation which are set for a decline, while joining high-growth industries such as technology and e-commerce. Secondly, being a global citizen allows one, as a manager, to understand, assess and navigate developments in immigration policy, climate change and cross-border supply chain regulation to skillfully adjust the organization’s policies in areas such as human resources, finance and procurement accordingly. Thirdly, being a global citizen allows one to build strong intellectual foundations to understand how and why specific global events and developments are occurring, and to explain these developments within a global and historical context satisfactorily. Finally, being a global citizen allows one to investment financially with prudence and acumen, by identifying key growth sectors that would benefit from an increasingly globalized world.

Debates on the definition of global citizenship

Theorists have disagreed on the definition of global citizenship based on the degree of global awareness and normative environmental consciousness required, as well as the types of behaviors and characteristics exhibited by global citizens (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). The distinct academic perspectives and terminologies used by theorists to define global citizenship, on the basis of cultural, environmental, political and ethical concerns, have also caused theorists to be unable to agree on a common definition (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). Furthermore, distinct values of intergroup empathy, valuing of diversity, sustainability and a responsibility to act have been sources of discord for a common definition of global citizenship. Reysen & Katzarska-Miller (2013) thus find that two key factors, namely global awareness and the normative environment, encourage a sense of global citizenship and its associated values. Based on the definitions reviewed, global citizenship can be broadly defined as a familiarity and comfort with cultural and ethnic diversity, which is applied to contexts such as social injustice and climate change, and accompanied by attempts to integrate and acculturate into global society.

Two key outcomes of global citizenship

Two key outcomes of global citizenship and becoming a global citizen would be environmental sustainability and social justice.

Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability refers to a general conviction in the interconnectedness between humans and their natural environment, with a sense of personal responsibility for protecting the natural environment for the benefit of future generations. Environmental sustainability is crucial in developing a sense of global citizenship because it promotes a general understanding of the deep and mutualistic relationship between human activities and the global environment. By having a sense of environmental sustainability, individuals and communities are then able to shape their consumer choices accordingly to promote the use of less carbon intensive and more emissions friendly products and services. Individuals can thus choose to reduce, reuse and recycle their products in the name of global sustainability. This then fosters a sense that one’s actions and buying decisions have impacts on the collective natural environment, and compels the individual to develop a broad awareness for the environmental impact of specific decisions across global supply chains and the global environment. This is one of the most important outcomes for global citizenship as it also fosters a deep desire to act on key global issues, and put beliefs into practice.

Social justice

Social justice refers to a belief that all humans are entitled to specific and inalienable rights, and that they deserve to be treated fairly and equitably on the basis of those rights. Social justice is a key outcome of global citizenship because it encourages the individual to think of human rights and equitable treatment of individuals across a variety of global contexts, such as marriage, healthcare and employment, and question whether these rights are applied equitably. Furthermore, as discussed by Arditi (2004) in his work on the politics of resistance, social justice inherently fosters a sense of global citizenship because of the global nature in which human rights have to be applied under ideal conditions, across supranational and transnational borders. Marriage equality in the West does not represent full social justice if it has yet to exist in the East. This encourages individuals to think beyond their specific communal contexts toward a broader view of equity in various areas globally, and encourages the individual to connect specific miscarriages of justice in the news to a broader sense of global social justice (Arditi, 2004). This is one of the most important outcomes for global citizenship as it also fosters a deep desire to act on key global issues, and put beliefs into practice.

Personal examples and global citizenship outcomes

First Personal Example on environmental sustainability

A personal example that motivated this student to think more carefully about environmental sustainability was in watching the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and then seeing the health impacts of a Superfund site near my community. The documentary demonstrated that the local air pollution in my community was a global, rather than local, issue, and required concerted and coordinated global activism to resolve the issue.

Second Personal Example on social justice

A personal example on social justice would be the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests amid the killing of George Floyd in my town’s civic center, which demonstrated how police brutality and social injustice had become national, if not global, issues. These were occurring in Hong Kong at the same time, and showed the interconnectedness of a global resistance against hegemonic authority and police brutality.

Overview of global citizenship in previous courses

The two courses previously taken that facilitated personal development as a global citizen were ‘BUS 437 Business Plan Development’ and ‘BUS 455 Internet & Social Media Marketing’, with the University of Arizona Global Campus. This is because these two courses were firmly situated in the global political, economic and legal situation. For example, specific cultural sensitivities and regional media consumption patterns had to be taken into consideration when formulating a global social media plan. Concurrently, a business plan had to take into account the patterns of globalized supply chains and transnational regulation in order to ensure a legitimate license to operate effectively in different international jurisdictions. While these courses were catered toward business considerations, the ubiquity of globalization in a business context encouraged this student to think globally about business plans and social media marketing strategies. This necessitated regular understanding, assessment and application of knowledge from the news on the evolving global business context, and thus fostered a global perspective to business that facilitated the development of a strong sense of global citizenship.

In conclusion, this assignment has demonstrated that globalization’s impacts and development are distinct from globalism, and that being a global citizen can help with one’s financial investment, career choice and intellectual outlook. Furthermore, this assignment has shown that a working definition of global citizenship is still subject to debate by theorists. Finally, this assignment has discussed how social justice and environmental sustainability are critical issues for global citizenship, and outlined how they can be found in personal examples and general education courses, as with other events in the course of everyday life. Globalization is here to stay, and global citizenship will thus help us to adapt effectively to its impacts.

Arditi, B. (2004). From globalism to globalization: the politics of resistance 1.  New Political Science , 26(1), 5–22. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1080/0739314042000185102

Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes.  International Journal of Psychology ,  48 (5), 858-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

Stucke, K. (Writer). (2009). Globalization at a crossroads [Series episode]. In M. Stucke & Claudin, C. (Executive Producers),  Global issues. https://fod.infobase.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?token=39350&wID=100753&plt=FOD&loid=0&w=640&h=480&fWidth=660&fHeight=530

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on Underworld Journey in Virgil’s Aeneid and Dante’s Inferno
• What Can Social Workers Do to Help Safeguard Children from Child Sexua...
• Essay on Effects of High Population Growth
• Impact of E-commerce on the Airline Industry
• Essay on ANA Official Position Statement
• Essay on the Negative Effects of Artificial Intelligence

Home / Essay Samples / Environment / Ecology / Global Citizen

Global Citizen Essay Examples

The role of a good citizen: nurturing a strong and responsible society.

Being a good citizen is more than just following laws and paying taxes. It's about actively contributing to the betterment of society and taking on responsibilities that go beyond individual interests. In this essay, we'll explore the multifaceted role of a good citizen, discussing how...

Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

When we hear globalization and globalism we tend to think that they have the same meaning and are similar. Globalization and globalism are actually two separate things and have two separate meetings. Throughout this paper it is going to discuss the distinctive differences between globalization...

The Meaning of Being a Global Citizen

As communication across cultures gets easier our world gets smaller helping us bridge the gap between us and our fellow nations. There is no shame in being proud of where you’re from but recently it seems people do so at the expenses of a marginalized...

The Portrait of an Active Global Citizen: Jane Goodall

Active global citizen is a term that is used to refer to an individual that portrays unique characteristics and actions, where they care for and influence members of a community and take interest in local and global issues. Having a maintained, organized, and functioning society...

The Power of Global Citizenship

According to Hugh Evans “A global citizen is someone who self-identifies first and foremost not as a member of a state, tribe or nation, but instead as members of the human race”, this quotation speaks about the essence of being part of an emerging world...

To Be a Thomasian Global Citizen

Each one of us may have a different perception of what it means to be a Thomasian Global Citizen. For me, it is being aware of our surroundings and taking an active part to be make our world a better place to live in for...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Water Scarcity
• Air Pollution
• Energy Efficiency
• Nuclear Energy
• Conservation of Forest
• Carbon Dioxide
• Solar Energy Essays
• Plastic Bags Essays
• Water Conservation Essays
• Environmental Protection Essays
• Offshore Oil Drilling Essays
• Hydroelectric Power Essays
• Resource Management Essays
• Water Pollution Essays
• Pollution Essays
• Deforestation Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->