Select Page
Your Perfect Assignment is Just a Click Away
We Write Custom Academic Papers

100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Customized to your instructions!




Educational Philosophy and Theor y, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of AustralasiaPublished by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKEPATEducational Philosophy and Theory0013-1857© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of AustralasiaSeptember 2005374Original ArticleGlobalisation, Globalism and CosmopolitanismMarianna Papastephanou

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal





University of Cyprus


In this paper, I discuss globalisation as an empirical reality that is in a complex relationto its corresponding discourse and in a critical distance from the cosmopolitan ideal. I arguethat failure to grasp the distinctions between globalisation, globalism, and cosmopolitanismderives from mistaken identifications of the Is with the Ought and leads to naïve andethnocentric glorifications of the potentialities of globalisation. Conversely, drawing theappropriate distinctions helps us articulate a more critical approach to contemporary culturalphenomena, and reconsider the current place and potential role of education within thecontext of global affairs. From this perspective, the antagonistic impulses cultivated byglobalisation and some globalist discourse are singled out and targeted via a radicalizationof educational orientations. The final suggestion of the article concerns the vision of a morecosmopolitically sensitive education.

Keywords: globalisation, nation-state, identity, antagonism, hybridity, Bauman,Giddens, Kristeva, Dewey


As early as 1916, John Dewey wrote:

Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided with theoperation of factors which have tended to eliminate distance betweenpeoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another. Even thealleged benefits of war, so far as more than alleged, spring from the factthat conflict of peoples at least enforces intercourse between them andthus accidentally enables them to learn from one another, and thereby toexpand their horizons. Travels, economic and commercial tendencies,have at present gone far to break down external barriers; to bring peoplesand classes into closer and more perceptible connection with one another.It remains for the most part to secure the intellectual and emotionalsignificance of this physical annihilation of space. (Dewey, 1993, p. 110)

Today, although the relevant empirical phenomena have advanced in incredibleways and paces, the intellectual and emotional significance has not been debated


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

exhaustively, let alone secured. The economic and commercial tendencies thatDewey noticed have now taken the form of a shift of the population to the tertiarysector of economy, i.e. services, commerce, transport, etc. (Habermas, 1998, p. 308),what is often seen as knowledge economy, and an unprecedented flow of informa-tion across the globe. These facts—and many more—constitute the phenomenon ofglobalisation, which has become the object of globalist studies.

In this paper, after exploring the connection of globalisation and globalismmeta-theoretically, I discuss some tendencies in the globalist examination of thefactual, intellectual and emotional significance of globalisation and show how theyaffect educational theory. A critical assessment of these tendencies leads me to sugges-tions regarding the direction globalism and the theorization of the cosmopolitanpedagogical ideal must take.


Globalisation is an empirical phenomenon that has been primarily felt as a structuraltransformation of the world economic system operating in a complex dialectics withtime and space compression effected by advances in technology and communication.Politically, globalisation is playing a major role in issues of state sovereignty, world-order, extra-state policies and administration practices. Culturally, it is interveningdramatically in the (re)shaping of identities and self-conceptions, the premises ofhuman encounter and exchange of world-interpretations and the frame of diversesensitivities, creativities and responses to aesthetic experience. As a result of itsmulti-dimensionality and the chaotic force of its effects, globalisation denotes the‘indeterminate, unruly and self-propelled character of world affairs: the absence ofa centre, of a controlling desk, of a board of directors’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 38).

Theoretical responses to the facts of globalisation vary and often conflate empiricalreality and rhetorical myth. The line distinguishing the two is fuzzy since our accessto empirical reality is always linguistically and culturally mediated but this shouldnot lead us to blurring the distinction itself. To see Globalisation as a ‘discursivelyconstructed master discourse of uncontrollable global market forces’ ( Janice Dudley,cf. Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451) ignores the material effects of globalisationand their extra-linguistic factual character. That this character is thematized andknown to us through our linguistically mediated interactions (a chiefly epistemo-logical matter) should not obscure the fact that globalisation occurs as a set ofactualities that radicalize and accentuate older phenomena of cross-cultural humancontact. Such a set may be entangled in a complex dialectics with its discursiveness,as its narrativity, its representation and the imaginary investments they create playan important ideological role in that very consolidation and promotion of globali-zing effects and the construction of the particular symbolic sphere that nurturesglobalisation. Globalisation often becomes an ideological device that states andgovernments employ as an excuse for imposing certain policies that would otherwisefail to gain public acceptance or support. But it would be erroneous to concludethat the admission of the ideological role globalisation plays should lead us some-how to deny its reality. It could even be politically dangerous since the political

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

significance of a discursive construction differs from that of a detectable reality andfocusing on the former would engender one-sided interpretations overlooking theneed to deal with the latter. In any case, as Giddens writes,

… a few years ago, there was some doubt, particularly on the left, aboutwhether globalization was a reality. The unpersuaded would write‘globalization’ in inverted commas, to demonstrate their essential scepticismabout the idea. This controversy has moved on. Discussion continuesabout how best to conceptualize globalization, but few would any longerdeny its influence—as signalled by the role of global financial markets,new developments in electronic communication and geopoliticaltransitions [ … ]. Discussion of globalization is no longer concentrated onwhether or not it exists, but on what its consequences are (Giddens,2001, p. 3).

In this respect, I argue, the idea that ‘globalization is best understood as a kind of


’ (Smith, 1999, p. 2) should rather correspond to globalism than thelatter’s object of inquiry. For, the facticity of globalisation is one thing but the


of this facticity is quite another.For many thinkers, especially Third Way advocates, the impact of globalisation

‘has been compared to that of the weather; a “self-regulating, implacable Force ofnature” about which we can do nothing except look out of the window and hopefor the best’ (Andrews, 1999, p. 1). But also critics of the Third way such asBauman diagnose the same quality. ‘Globalization is not about what we all or atleast the most resourceful and enterprising among us wish or hope

to do

. It is aboutwhat is

happening to us all

. It explicitly refers to the foggy and slushy “no man’sland” stretching beyond the reach of the design and action capacity of anybody inparticular’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 39). These meteorological metaphors that have beenemployed by many theorists to illustrate the unanticipated and unintended characterof globalisation prove indirectly the facticity of this phenomenon and the need fora nuanced conceptual treatment of globalisation and its discursive thematization.

Given such a chaotic multiplicity and lack of determinate responsibility or liability,it is no wonder that the causes and consequences of globalisation, ‘let alone thenew political arrangements and kinds of democracy—cosmopolitan, realist, liberal,radical—that should respond to globalization are debated and contested’ (Isin &Wood, 1999, p. 92). To render the distinction between empirical reality and itstheorization more operative, I suggest that we reserve the term ‘globalization’ forthe description of the intensification of global interconnectedness and use the term‘globalism’ for the discursive treatment and analysis of the empirical phenomenon.Globalisation as an empirical phenomenon involves various practices—some ofwhich are discursive—and states of affairs. But the discourse about globalisation,i.e. its thematization, should be examined separately, at least for methodologicalpurposes, and under a different heading: the term I suggest is ‘globalism’. To usean example, it is part of globalisation that a multinational company operating in aWestern state may cause an ecological disaster that will affect primarily the clima-tological conditions of some remote countries or perhaps even the whole planet.


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

The debate on this phenomenon, however, belongs to a particular discourse thatwe may call globalist.


Following Isin & Wood, we may regard globalism as a discourse that constitutesglobalisation as an object (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 92). Therefore, globalism is nota process or a set of realities independent from researchers.


It is a ‘discourse inwhich the very idea of globalization is articulated, disseminated, justified, debated,in short, constituted as an object of reflection and analysis’ (Isin & Wood, 1999,p. 94).

Globalist discourse operates at many levels deploying a large variety of descrip-tive, evaluative and normative judgements—most frequently in a syncretic andeclectic fashion. But one may synthesize some of the approaches so as to groupthem in three main categories of responses to globalisation.

1. The


category includes the positions that express deep concern about globalisa-tion as a new form of domination propelled by a ‘homogenization’ principle.

2. The


comprises those that have a more positive and optimistic outlook restingon what I would call a ‘global diversity thesis’.

3. The


involves positions that share the pessimism of the first category but explainit via a description that acknowledges more subtle differentiations and accepts thedual nature of globalisation.

The first and third focus on the concentration of power whereas the second on itsdispersal. One may associate the first with Eric Hobsbawm, the second with Feath-erstone, Giddens and Appadurai and the last with Bauman. (It should be notedhere that there is nothing ‘essential’ about the association of the above thinkerswith the corresponding positions on globalisation. Categorizations of the abovekind serve methodological purposes and can become easily relativized by thepolemical shifts that often guide theoretical discussions. For instance, Giddens’sapproach can be largely associated with the ‘global diversity thesis’ but when heconfronts the glorifications of globalisation that derive from the conservative inter-nationalist camp he adopts a far more sceptical and critical outlook. Therefore, likeall generalizations, the above segregation of positions is subject to the vagaries ofdeliberation.)

1. Hobsbawm deplores the fact that globalisation puts heterogeneity and particularityunder threat by imposing a single dominant culture as the model of all operations.Globalisation is ‘a state of affairs in which the globe is the essential unit of operationof some human activity, and where this activity is ideally conducted in terms ofsingle, universal, systems of thought, techniques and modes of communication.Other particularities of those who engage in such activities, or of the territories inwhich they are conducted, are troublesome or, at best, irrelevant’ (Hobsbawm,1998, p. 1).

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

2. The opposite holds for Featherstone who ‘calls into question the homogenizationthesis, arguing that globalization often results in indigenization and syncretization ofglobal symbols and hybridization of various local symbols’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p.105). To him, complexity is the most important feature of globalisation. He arguesthat a paradoxical consequence of that phenomenon and the awareness of ‘finitudeand boundedness of the planet and humanity, is not to produce homogeneity but tofamiliarize us with greater diversity, the extensive range of the local cultures’ (cf.Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451). Giddens singles out and focuses on anotherpositive effect of globalisation, namely, the freedom that stems from the enlarge-ment of the economic, political and cultural horizons of people. Thus, he considersglobalisation a ‘transformation of space and time in which the development ofglobal systems and networks reduces the hold of local circumstances over people’slives’ (Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 449).

3. Giddens’ approach appears one-sided when compared to Bauman’s position. Bau-man associates the above kind of freedom with the potentialities of a small percent-age of the population worldwide. ‘The global network of communication, acclaimedas the gateway to a new and unheard of freedom, is clearly very selectively used; itis a narrow cleft in the thick wall, rather than a gate’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 44). Thesway of a localizing trend triggers a new social division and hierarchy. The knowl-edge economy that cancels old modes and relations of production, as well as themovement of the footloose élites and their sense of time are such that secure for therich an unprecedented independence from the poor. Those are now even removedfrom the sight of the privileged classes and become so tied to their local circum-stances that social mobility seems no longer to be a feasible life option for them.Habermas’s analysis converges with Bauman’s on this point. As Habermas writes,‘pauperized groups are no longer able to change their social situation by their ownefforts’ (1998, p. 315). Overall, the third large category of positions we notice inglobalist discourse provides a comprehensive and nuanced reading of globalisationbut concentrates on a diagnosis of negative global effects. I will return to thepositions that have consolidated in globalist discourse thematically after I examinehow educational theory has responded to them by generating what I would call‘educational globalism’.

The main positions of general globalism are traceable and informative in educa-tional globalism too. Additionally, within it, one may discern perspectives fromwhich the relation of education and globalisation can be examined. One perspectiveis concerned with research in ways by which practices, institutions, discourses andstructures of education have been affected by globalisation. Another places moreemphasis on ways by which educational policies express and respond to the pres-sures of globalisation (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 421), i.e. on how educationactively engages with the facts of globalisation and often with the promotion ofglobalizing effects. A third perspective, which appears as yet underdeveloped,explores ways by which education should try to counterbalance the negative effectsof globalisation and extend the potentialities of it for all in a democratic fashion.Most authors have dealt with the first two points in a diagnostic mode. [With


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

respect to this last point, cosmopolitanism can contribute a lot having first beingdefined in an appropriate way.]

What underlies most approaches, however, is the same feeling of unease, power-lessness and bewilderment that characterizes general globalism. As Gregory Heathremarks, ‘education sits in an unfamiliar and interesting position in the face ofglobalisation. This is new territory for education, its institutions and practitioners’(2002, p. 37). Patrick Fitzsimons comments that, regarding globalisation, ‘exactlyhow education is involved or what it can or should do, is not quite as clear’ (2000,p. 505). Overall, education seems to be unsure of its direction regarding globalisationand this is often attributed precisely to the tensions between the global and the localand unity and difference that mark globalist discourse (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 520).

A Critique of Globalist Positions

The position I defend in relation to the theorization of globalisation, which under-lies the suggestions in the educational frame that will follow, is deontological. Bythis I mean that my approach is primarily concerned with the imperatives and theimpact of globalisation regarding the ethical dimension of intersubjectivity ratherthan with the economic growth or techno-informational progress it may facilitate.Issues such as productivity, efficiency and profit enter the picture of a deontologicalapproach only when and if they answer the question: for whom? Who or whichgroup of people benefit from globalisation? How are justice and equality affected?What seems to be happening to diversity and cultural plurality in a globalizedworld? How does the Is of globalisation relates to the Ought of the vision of betterconditions for all biota?

Therefore, I shall concentrate on how globalisation is viewed as affecting unityand plurality, social and international justice, and emancipatory enrichment ofhumanity and protection of natural life. I shall expound my critique thematicallyby focusing on the issues of (i) the nation-state and territoriality, (ii) diversity andhomogeneity, (iii) identity and rootlessness and (iv) equality and life options.

The Nation-state and Territoriality

The nation-state and its prospects constitute a crucial point of contention withinglobalism. Advocates of globalisation celebrate its challenging impact on the modernistconstruction of the nation-state because they associate with this configuration theterror of totality and homogeneity and treat it as a barrier to ‘cosmopolitanism’.Detractors of globalisation (and of the corresponding appreciative globalist theory)defend the nation-state invoking a very wide spectrum of arguments. For polemicalreasons, or due to lack of true engagement in the debate, many thinkers who regardglobalisation positively draw a caricature of their opponents and reduce the latter’sdefense of the nation-state to a conservative and reactionary commitment to obso-lete notions such as consanguinity, community ethos, and cultural purism. ‘Forsome, the de-realisation and de-territorialisation of place associated with thegrowth of globalisation and symbolic exchange results in a loss of social meaning

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

and disruption of established senses of community and identity’ (Usher, 2002,p. 48). This picture is accurate only for a small group of globalist theorists andwithin it there is room for a variety of positions, not all of which could be consideredas motivated by conservative nationalist concerns. By contrast, there are those whodefend the nation-state precisely because they see it as the last bulwark of particu-larity against the homogenizing flows of globalisation. Additionally, there are thinkerswho offer the theoretical means for dissociating the nation-state from the unity


plurality binarism by unmasking operations of domination that use diversity


totality equally effectively for their purposes but detrimentally for people and nature.Let us examine the issue of the nation-state more closely. It may be true that

‘the establishment of any sovereign state required as a rule the suppression of state-formative ambitions of many lesser collectivities’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). Butaccounts presenting the nation-state as a product of homogenization at the expenseof the lives of millions of people by suppressing uprisings, oppositional movements,and so on (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 93) are one-sided and eurocentric. They are soin the sense that they generalize the data that concern major Occidental states tocover all cases of territorial sovereignty on the planet without taking into considerationindependence wars and anti-colonial movements. The reason why I pinpoint thishas nothing to do with a defense of the nation-state or a belief in its preservation.It aims solely to draw attention to its double nature which problematizes any effortto render the nation-state a scapegoat on which we could project the trials of moder-nity and establish its overcoming as the new legitimating metaphor of globalisation.

Another reason motivating some globalist theorists to allocate globalisation’schallenges of the nation-state immediately into the sphere of progressivism is theassumption that national territoriality is intimately bound up with tribal instinctsthat impede the just and equal treatment of alterity imposing homogeneity. Glo-balisation then is presented as the process that disarms territoriality and allowsmore diasporic and differentiated political configurations to flourish. A concomi-tant—and equally faulty assumption—is that cosmopolitanism is a simple matter ofrootlessness. In turn, this idea leads to a mistaken identification of globalizedmanagerialism and footloose entrepreneurs as ‘emerging cosmopolitan classes’ (Isin& Wood, 1999, 7). Both assumptions are reflected in the following connection ofglobalisation and postmodernism. ‘If globalization is contesting the sovereignty of thenation-state and making its boundaries permeable, giving rise to various forms ofcosmopolitan citizenship, postmodernization is creating new forms of social differ-entiation, establishing new relationships between class and citizenship’ (Isin &Wood, 1999, p. 23). I will deal with the issue of rootlessness and cosmopolitanismlater on but now I will turn to territoriality.

Contrary to the fashionable idea that the territorial principle of political organizationemanates from a dormant tribalism, Bauman writes that it ‘does not stem from thenatural or contrived tribal instincts alone (not even primarily)’ (1998, pp. 41–2)and proves that its relation to globalisation is far more complicated. Beneath thesurface gloss, and despite its threat to the nation-state, globalisation encouragesforms of tribal territoriality for reasons of money and power. The territorial principleis being revived now because ‘global finance, trade and information industry


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

depend for their liberty of movement and their unconstrained freedom to pursuetheir ends on the political fragmentation, the


of the world scene’(Bauman, 1998, p. 42). Thus, homogenizing and imperialist forces use plurality ina strategic way while destroying those aspects of that plurality that would slowdown the ‘free movement of capital and limit market liberty’ (p. 42). ‘Far fromacting at cross-purposes and being at war with each other, the political “tribalization”and economic “globalization” are close allies and fellow conspirators’ (p. 42).

In those circumstances, the task of a profound postmodernist outlook would be,I argue, to unveil the fact that in the complexities of globalisation doublenessborders with duplicity. This becomes more evident if we recall that the debilitatingeffects of globalizing processes on territorial sovereignty do not affect all nation-states equally. On the contrary, some powerful nations stand up against extra-nationalpublics and stop the globalizing measures the latter impose so long as they do notserve the interests of the former. An obvious and relatively recent example is ‘therefusal of the United States to accept one of the few international agreementsgenuinely accepted by everyone else, namely, the commitment to cut the emissionof greenhouse gases down to the required level. It has thus single-handed sabotageda global measure’ (Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 3).

I would like to conclude this section by stressing that if competitiveness damagesthe significance intersubjectivity may acquire for our lives, then, the nation-state,by not being the only possible carrier of competitiveness, cannot be the only cause ofoppression of alterity, culturally or socially. Recalling the cold war, we realize thefact that at that time the nodal points of coexistence and competition were theblocks of states rather than the states themselves (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). And inthe Fordist and post-Fordist landscapes, economy has gradually shifted some of thepolitical initiative and control from the nation-state to extra-national formationswhile preserving and even exacerbating self-interested antagonism


among nations


and individuals. The persistence of competitiveness and its negative effects (thatwe cannot take up here)


transcending the nation-state ought to put us on guardvis-à-vis postmodern political optimism. Like other things, imperialism takes anew form too. It no longer conquers territories but preserves and intensifies theaggression and competitiveness that used to characterize the nationalist claims ofsuperiority.

Diversity and Homogeneity

However, affirmative responses to globalisation do not herald only the limitationsconfronting the nation-state. They also discard the idea that the New World orderpromotes a Western-led homogenization as too simplistic and argue that, thoughOccidental influence is significant, ‘there is a degree of cultural interpenetration,hybridity and fluidity across different localities around the globe’ (Isin & Wood,1999, p. 94). Equated with either modernization or Westernization, globalisationbecomes bereft of the multiplicity of its rationalities. Moreover, within the frameof globalisation-as-modernization the mobilization of encounter and influence ofnon-western cultures would be underestimated. For many globalist theorists, ‘the

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

“global” and the “local” are not opposing but mutually constituting elements ofglobalization’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 94).

For Bauman, on the other hand, this complexity and interrelation of the globaland the local—what he calls ‘glo


lization’—is precisely the vehicle of new modesof domination and oppression of diverse others. Glo


lization as the process of the‘world-wide redistribution of sovereignty, power, and freedom to act’ (Bauman,1998, p. 42) divides the world into the tourists of the planet and the vagabonds ofregions, i.e. those that ‘inhabit the globe’ and the others that ‘are chained to place’(p. 45). Moreover, I believe, counterarguments to the positive globalist outlook donot emanate solely from different interpretations and appraisals of the interconnec-tion of the global and local. Doing justice to the qualitative asymmetries of influenceamong cultures is an additional motivation for turning a critical eye on favourabletreatments of globalisation. ‘If globalization has to adjust to local particularities, ofwhich “nations” are an important subvariety, particularities are much more powerfullyaffected by globalization and have to adjust to it or be eliminated by it’(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 2). Hence, what is sidestepped by the positive category ofglobalist discourse is the fact that, in certain cases, the difference in degree makes allthe difference in the world and the deflationist theorization of modernization andWesternization misdirects globalism.

Consider for instance the fact that to the critical and often dismissive treatmentsof globalisation through the employment of notions such as ‘Americanization’,Westernization’, and ‘McDonaldization’ is counterpoised a set of terms such as‘diaspora’, ‘hybridity’, ‘


identities’ and so on. However, if one thinks overthe generality of the latter set of terms one cannot but notice that they do not reallyarticulate processes that run truly counter the occidental domination of culturalinfluence. Contrasted to the concrete character of the terms signifying one-sidedexpansion and concentration of power, the generality and vagueness of ‘diaspora’and ‘hybridity’ speaks for a lack of analogous influence of non-western cultures on thewestern ones rather than a possibility for a more even-handed reshuffling and dis-persal of power. None of the defenders of the complexity of cultural interpenetrationseems to have terms to offer that account for how the Western world is influencedby non-Western cultures—and that is no accident. The lack of terms theorizing e.g.‘Easternization’ is very telling regarding the asymmetries of cultural interplay.

Also, the implicit assumption of some positive treatments of globalisation thatcultural influence is a matter of free play in which people select merrily what theyfind attractive is politically insensitive and sociologically blind to issues of powerand control. Capitalism with its subsystems of economy and administration pene-trates lifeworlds anchoring in them and often eroding them in ways that go farbeyond the scope of cultural merry-go-rounds. Finally, we should take into accountthe qualitative differences that mark the reception of or, adaptation to, othernessby diverse cultures. Even when western cultures are influenced by others this doesnot occur with respect to what they really desire but with respect to what they lack.For instance, the ‘fastfoodization’ of foreign food we notice in the western worldhas added variety to western eating habits without contributing significantly tochanges of western perceptions of time, labor, and lifestyle. Eating Chinese or


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Indian or Mexican food relates to cultural sufficiency, desire, social position andoverall influence in ways that are strikingly different from those surrounding theintroduction of fast food in the non-Western world. Fast food in the latter worldgoes hand in hand with a change in the conception of time, the sense of worthyactivity and the assumptions about what is nutritious or healthy.

Identity and Rootlessness

Many globalists hope that the recognition of the fact that subjectivities are con-structions rather than essences will lead to eliminating or complicating the neatcategorization of people that usually sparks off wars, violence, exclusion and rac-ism. It is true that phenomena of globalisation could be credited with a reassertionof fluid, diasporic, hybrid and contingent identities but this is only one side of thestory. Only by way of a logical leap one could justify the identification of fluidityas such with its potential fruitful political interpretation. That is to say, thediasporic and the hybrid identity on their own do not determine the conditions oftheir political treatment or their cultural reception and ethical significance. To givean example, the relativized identity of footloose élites does not appear very helpfulwhen they negotiate in the good old capitalist fashion about their interests. Worse,it does not seem to enter the picture when they display the disarming innocenceof the unsuspecting with regard to their own, subtle or manifest, complicities.

In this respect, rootlessness may be a disguise of a deep and unreflective rootednessin the Occidental culture of performativity, modernization and profit. A closer lookshows that the hope that rootlessness is the royal route to transcending a tyrannicalconception of identity is grounded in problematic and ethnocentric premises. Letus first examine an example of the attention rootlessness has received. In certainlocations, the space-time compression results in globalized senses of place. This‘can lead to what Benko refers to as non-places, spaces “devoid of the symbolicexpressions of identity, relations and history: examples include airports, motoways,anonymous hotel rooms, public transport”—and possibly even cyberspace’ (cf.Usher, 2002, p. 47). This phenomenon invites a careful interpretation. In myopinion, the anonymity of a hotel room, instead of rendering it a non-place, isprecisely one of the features that root it in a particular culture in relational distinc-tion to non-anonymous space. The sense of normalcy it enjoys because it is oursempties it in our eyes of any content as we forget that its lack of name is exactlywhat makes it northwestern, i.e. ours and nobody else’s.

As to airports being non-places, once again, this idea mirrors our ethnocentricforgetfulness that efficiency, passports, security, regional or racial origin and so on,are still loaded with various cultural meanings. For instance, as Habermas argues,international flights, global stock market transactions, the millennium, conferencesetc, are scheduled by the Christian calendar (1998, p. 307). I believe that thisexample proves that the identity of the supposed non-places, which is not discernibleto us when we assume that history and culture are cancelled out when convention-ally standardized, is surely felt by those who follow our conventions temporarilyand then return to their own. ‘World air travel is possible because of a number of

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

arrangements which link all airports and airlines of the globe, and which arehandled in a standardized manner everywhere and, in fact, with the use of a singlelanguage of communication for all essential technicians anywhere in the world’(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 1). Thus, the so-called rootlessness and its supposed mani-festations speak more for the homogenizing effects of globalisation and the euro-centrism they encourage rather than the redemption of pluralism. If there is freedomfrom the constraints of identity, that freedom is for those others who make the effortto adjust to our normalized and eurocentrically anonymized modes of existence.

Equality and Life Options

The approaches I have placed in the large category of affirmative theorizations ofglobalisation also converge in their appreciation of the new opportunities forimprovement of people’s lives. ‘The movement of people, money, and informationacross national and cultural boundaries means that we now have access to markets,cultural practices, and products as never before. This access clearly has the poten-tial for enriching our lives by providing lifestyle and employment options that wereonce beyond our reach. [ … ] Even the remotest cultural traditions are now readilyaccessible to us’ (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 419). It is true that politically pessimistglobalist discourses often downplay these opportunities or unduly demystify themas being a smoke screen. But the undue emphasis on prospects for equality andenlarged existential choice founders upon serious problems too. These involveissues such as for whom the employment options are truly available, what happensto cultures that are not very adaptable to the globalizing rationale and to whatextent (and filtered through what) remote cultures are really accessible.

Besides, any account of globalisation, precisely those which purport to grasp thecomplexities and paradoxes of the phenomenon, must pay attention to the fundamentalinequalities that solidify or emerge from the course of restratification (Bauman, 1998,p. 43) effected through globalisation. As Habermas diagnoses, ‘the gap between theliving conditions of the employed, the underemployed, and the unemployed is widen-ing’ (1998, p. 315). Globalisation as, primarily, ‘a redistribution of privileges anddeprivations, of wealth and poverty, of resources and impotence’ (Bauman, 1998,p. 43) widens the scope of choice for some and drastically narrows it for some others.

Given that our times are marked ‘by the structural menace to the welfaristdomestication of capitalism and by the revival of a neoliberalism unhampered byconsiderations of social justice’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 314),


equality is sacrificedon the altar of performativity. A consequence of economic globalisation and thecompetitiveness it has imposed is the transformation and reduction of the welfarestate mirrored in the fact that benefits drop, access to social security is toughenedand pressure on the unemployed is increased (Habermas, 1998, p. 315).

Educational Globalist Discourse

The dilemmas and tensions of globalism are noticeable in educational theory too.Some commentators concentrate on the complexities of the global knowledge


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

economy and their impact on education directing their endeavours in a theorizationof the new possibilities. Novel conceptions of spatiality, the cyberspace, and diaspora(Usher, 2002) as well as the features of knowledge economy (Peters, 2002)


attractthe attention of theorists in a way that often refrains from painting a gloomypicture—or sometimes creates a picture that is even overtly optimist.

Some others refer to the fact that globalisation threatens traditional forms andstructures of pedagogy to render them obsolete (Heath, 2002). Haynes (2002, p. 103)contrasts the conception of the university ‘as a community of academics engagedin a range of traditions or practices’ with its conception as a ‘quasi-governmentaladministrative entity’—a conception shaped by globalizing procedures and thetolerance or welcome they encounter in educational systems and policies. The latterconception should be combated because it reduces the university to an organization‘employing workers to value-add to customers intending to maximise personaleconomic rewards from future engagement in a more competitive national economy’(p. 103).

Others focus not so much on the threats confronting tradition and communitybut rather on what they view as an overwhelming tendency of the globalized worldto treat education solely as a means to an end (Coxon, 2002, pp. 69 –70). Education,then, turned to a commodity (Bagnall, 2002, p. 81), becomes ‘instrumental togoods which lie outside the realm of knowledge and rational or critical understand-ing’ (Heath, 2002, p. 38).


In this way, it is complicitous in the cultivation ofconsumptive subjectivities (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 519) and the promotion of policiesthat aim to ‘ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in the face ofglobalization’ disregarding the democratic deficits they involve (Rizvi & Lingard,2000, p. 421). Such deficits affect detrimentally, among other things, gender sensitivestate policies and educational practices (Blackmore, 2000).


True, there is a positive side in the relation of globalisation and education whichseems to relate chiefly to new modes of encouraging multiculturalism, group dif-ferentiated citizenship, diversity and cross-cultural encounters. However, thisadmission should not be overgeneralized and exaggerated lest the negative side willbe obscured and covered up. Some educationalists have already acknowledged thatthe educational systems of the newer states emerging as a result of recent developmentsin world affairs ‘may be shaped by some degree by colonialism’ (Dale, 2000, p.446). Bagnall argues that the internationalisation of higher education may be seenas ‘counter-ethical to the extent that it is irremediably cultural hegemonic regard-less of the efforts that are made to be sensitive and responsive to the cultures intowhich it is marketed’ (2002, p. 85). Others diagnose a homogenizing linguisticimperialism operating in educational systems worldwide endangering linguisticdiversity and plurality (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2001; Phillipson, 2001). And, in spite ofthe fact that the extent of global educational curricular homogeneity is contestable,it is evident that it imposes, at least to some degree, a kind of world culture. Thisfavors unity rather than plurality since isomorphism of curricular categories acrossthe world applies ‘irrespectively of national, economic, political and cultural differences’(Dale, 2000, p. 430). To summarize, globalisation regarding education is guilty ofa promotion of unity over plurality through cultural imperialism (Porter & Vidovich,

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

2000, p. 451) and the cultivation of antagonism.


Via market imperialism, it isguilty of vocationalization of higher education, privatisation of educational respon-sibility and benefit, dependence of accountability on educational outcomes and‘competitive marketization of educational institutions and their services’ (Bagnall,2002, p. 78).

Overall, this kind of educational globalist critique of the unethical consequencesof globalisation shares nothing—in most cases—with reactionary or conservativenotions attached to narrow conceptions of value, identity and cultural homogeneity. Italso reflects the concerns of the equivalent tendencies within general globalism.What is more important is that this educational critique displays a very ‘healthy’reaction to the connection of globalisation and competitiveness. It seems to be wellaware of the fact that the system encourages self-regarding rather than ethical conductthrough an assumption of ‘enlightened self-interest through individual choice’(Bagnall, 2002, pp. 81-2) and condemns it relentlessly. ‘Education has been seenas the key factor in honing states’ competitive edge with respect to each other’ (Dale,2000, p. 441), which means that local diversity is promoted only to the extent thatit is conducive to the goals of the market. Thus, situational sensitivity serves a largelyWestern, privatized, and ego-centred set of cultural values (Bagnall, 2002, p. 86).Due to a conflation of conflict and antagonism, postmodernism often becomes asecret accomplice of the market by associating dissent, pluralism and competition.The awareness ‘that highly competitive, unregulated, marketised systems do not,in fact, encourage educational (or any other “product”) diversity, at least beyond aparticular minimal level’ (p. 82), should lead us to questioning this hasty identifica-tion of antagonism as the inexhaustible source of the new and the unknown.


As I mentioned in my introductory comments, educational philosophical globalismperforms diagnostic interventions rather than concrete and deontological sugges-tions for change. Or, it draws from the suggestions offered within general glo-balism. The latter has produced a wide spectrum of speculations about the futureof the globalizing world, some of which have a clearly normative character andmirror the position one takes regarding the significance of globalisation. I shallexamine some of these ideas (regardless of whether they have been used in educa-tion or not) in order to move to my own suggestions.

First of all, I believe, identity politics sometimes approximates conservatism andpurism wishing cultures to remain as they are, supposedly uncontaminated byobtrusive otherness. It tries to arrest time and sees change as violation and distor-tion. The solutions it offers do not touch upon issues of power but rather on issuesof communal bonds and preservation of the ‘spirit’ of collectivities. More thananything, the emphasis on the idea of community is no antidote to globalisation‘but one of its indispensable global corollaries simultaneously products (


) andconditions’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 43).

Part of the postmodernist discourse that seems to be less troubled by globalisa-tion imagines a future in which diversity and hybridity will effect new forms of


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

solidarity. Kristeva’s position seems to me to be exemplary of this trend. Admittingthat one is strange to oneself creates a sense of solidarity among us because ‘we allbelong to a future type of humanity which will be made entirely of foreigners/strangerswho try to understand each other’ (1998, p. 323). To my mind, this position betraysovergeneralizations, is completely negligent of the complex politics of differenceand normalizes the experiences of one as being those of all.


Worse, it not onlymisses all the tensions and negative effects that material and symbolic competitive-ness produces but it even justifies them through a very misguided and conservativepragmatism. This is evident by the following. Kristeva mentions cultural differenceas something we have to pay attention to but, as she adds, ‘still, we are fully aware ofthe risks that may come with such an attitude: ignorance of contemporary economicreality, excessive union demands, inability to take part in international competition,idleness, backwardness. This is why we need to be alert and always remember thenew constraints of our technological world, of “causes and effects” ’ (1998, p. 329).Kristeva’s main suggestion, however, reflects a psychoanalytic rather than a socio-political problematic—and a very dubious one—as the next citation shows. ‘Inorder to fight the state of national depression that we have in France (and in othercountries as well) as a result of globalization and the influx of immigrants, and alsoin order to oppose maniacal reactions to this depression (such as that of theNational Front), it is important to restore national confidence’ (p. 326). Here, theassociation of national depression with globalisation and the influx of immigrantsis negligent of other important factors. As for the idea of restoring national confidence,in its vagueness, it accommodates the worldwide pressures for more competitivenation-states instead of fighting them.

Other approaches along similar lines derive a ‘critical’ aspect of globalisationfrom the very lack of coherence and unity characterizing this phenomenon. As Ihave mentioned previously, this move takes a leap of thought that is arbitrary and,arguably, in underestimating the negative signs of globalisation, it makes unwit-tingly common cause with the market. A more sophisticated variation of this themeconnects the unpredictability of globalizing realities with the possibility for theemergence of a critical localism (Fitzsimons, 2000). But as Habermas argues, localgovernmental measures ‘would bring about local advantages, but would not changethe pattern of international competition between countries. Economic globalisa-tion, no matter how we look at it, destroys a historical constellation in which, fora certain period, the welfare state compromise was possible. This compromise, tobe sure, is by no means the ideal solution of a problem inherent to capitalism, butit has after all succeeded in keeping the social costs within accepted limits’ (1998,p. 316).

Now, Habermas seems to opt for the opposite solution, i.e. instead of criticallocalism he defends the idea of differentiated international publics. To him, welfarefunctions may be rescued if transferred from the nation-state to larger politicalunits that can catch up with transnationalized economy (1998, p. 317). A supra-national politics catching up with markets would promote the transformation ofthe world into a community of solidarity placing the emphasis on generalizableinterests.

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

However, this solution is also problematic for nothing guarantees that thesepublics will truly serve the interests of all people. Habermas admits a similarweakness when he writes that ‘the creation of larger political units leads to defen-sive alliances opposed to the rest of the world, but does not change the mode ofcompetition between countries as such’ (p. 317). Hence he sets the followingprecondition that he hopes it will have a reforming effect on human relations. ‘Onlyunder the pressure of the changing consciousness of citizens, and of its impact onthe field of domestic affairs, may those collective actors capable of acting globallycome to perceive themselves differently, that is, increasingly as members of acommunity that leaves them no choice but cooperation and compromise’ (pp. 318 –9). Now, if we consider the role education plays in the shaping and change of theconsciousness of future citizens, we realize that the need for new pedagogical idealsis compelling. These will undo the effects of dominant ideals such as the individ-ualist and the technicist that have elevated antagonism to a major given of humancoexistence. I suggest, then, that we search for or construct those ideals the edu-cational cultivation of which will encourage a different way of relating to otherness.And here is where cosmopolitanism enters the picture.

There has been a revived interest in cosmopolitanism recently that has created,in my opinion, two major tendencies: one is to understand cosmopolitanism in apragmatist way as mobility, rootlessness, openness to different lifestyles and detach-ment from the nation-state;


the other adds to it strong legal and ethical dimensions.The former derives from a confused and under-theorized equation of the everydayuse of the term with the philosophical one whereas the latter attempts to reformu-late the notion drawing from the philosophical tradition but couching it in a moreadequate philosophical idiom. The former, light-hearted, sense of cosmopolitanismcan be encountered in the work of many contemporary and influential politicalphilosophers like Jeremy Waldron (2000) and to a lesser degree even in BruceAckerman (1994). The latter, deeper, sense of cosmopolitanism can be found inNussbaum’s renegotiation of Stoicism and in neo-Kantian and post-Kantian polit-ical philosophies. The notion of cosmopolitanism I see as compatible with theabove mentioned educational suggestion is this latter one, but as I argue elsewhere,it has first to address some serious criticisms, which here I shall only brieflysummarize. First, it must distance itself from a ‘tourist’ conception of cosmopoli-tanism. It must also show that it does not rest on obsolete philosophical accountsof the self i.e. accounts that give antagonism ontological citizenship and establishit as an inescapable human reality (Papastephanou, 2002). Then it must prove thatit is not a secret accomplice of ethnocentrism and finally that it does not expressthe concerns of a paternalistic and elitist small group of intellectuals (Lu, 2000).

What is important here is that only a reformulated conception of cosmopolitanismand its transference to educational goal-setting can address the need for a changeof consciousness and frame it legally and ethically. The relevance of the legaldimension is demonstrated by the fact that all efforts to counterbalancing thenegative side of globalisation founder upon a fundamental lack. As Habermaswrites, ‘what is lacking is the emergence of a cosmopolitan solidarity, less binding,of course, than the civic solidarity that has emerged within nation-states’ (1998,


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

p. 319). The ethical dimension concerns the fact that true cosmopolitanism is notjust about openness to alternative ways of life but involves also the duty to materialaid and transnational redistribution (Nussbaum, 2000).

In this context, it becomes apparent that, whereas globalisation regarding edu-cation concerns new global policies and the structural changes of schooling theyare causing, the cosmopolitan pedagogical ideal should concern the cultivation ofresistant, critical and reflective subjectivities. It should concern the effort to mini-mize the risks for individuals and cultures and maximize the positive potentialitiesof globalisation in a fairer way by encouraging non-competitive feelings to othersand acknowledging that there are more than just negative duties towards them.


A very powerful objection to what I have suggested above would involve theassumption that the cultivation of non-competitive attitudes is unrealistic becauseantagonism is—supposedly—intrinsic in human nature. Because people are self-centred beings, the excessive competitiveness we notice nowadays among individualsand nations is not a pathology but rather a side-effect of an otherwise much desiredfreedom of thought and action. However, one of the very few points on whichpostmodernist trends—and globalism that concerns us here—converge is that post-modern discourse is de-essentializing, although the implications of this appear notto be fully recognized yet. Had they been recognized, the objection would have lostits meaning. For, if there are no essential characteristics of humanity, then nopossibility of becoming could be blocked from the start. A rejection of assumptionssuch as the antagonistic nature of people should become part of anti-essentialismas much as the questioning of identity, transcendentalism, rationalism and absolutetruth. Consequently, a discourse or practice that relies tacitly on the idea thatpeople are self-serving and interest-driven cannot be de-essentialist or at least notall the way. Some postmodernists are led astray by their conflation of agonisticswith antagonism and their hasty glorification of conflict. By omitting to draw thenecessary distinctions within conflict, they weaken its explanatory power and tran-scendentalize it by making it an almost mystical source of innovation and progress.They do so as they hope that in this way they protect heterogeneity and lose sightof the fact that antagonism is the worst enemy precisely of that kind of cosmo-politanism that recognizes and defends plurality. If the major issue is to change theconsciousness of people, then education has a heavy burden, because people oftenbecome what they are taught that they are. Thus, in the endeavour to problematizeexternal borders, many postmodernists forget that borders are sometimes internaland their overcoming presupposes a dismantling of the binarisms (e.g. internal vsexternal, nature vs culture etc.) that have grounded them. By emphasizing so muchthe overcoming of external borders we overlook the complex interplay of internaland external. Such an ‘internal’ border—philosophical, psychological, and moral—isthe one created by the assumption of closed and competitive subjectivities.

Habermas states that ‘the Hobbesian problem of how to create and to stabilizesocial order is too big a challenge, on the global scale as well, for the capacity of

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

rational egotists to cooperate’ (1998, p. 319). Postmodernist philosophers havetaken great pains to demonstrate that the rational egotists are not exactly rational.It remains now to demonstrate that they are not necessarily egotists either. It is perhapsthen that the intellectual and emotional significance of the physical annihilation ofspace that Dewey mentioned will be secured.


1. It should be noted here that not only philosophers and academics but many othersparticipate in the constitution of globalization as discourse, e.g. government officials,journalists, social movements, artists, managers, politicians, etc.

2. ‘There can be little doubt that there has been an intensification of economic competitionamong nations, regions, and industries with dramatic changes in state policies, markets,and work’ (Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 453).

3. On how the international competitiveness places the nation-states in a self-contradictoryposition, see Habermas (1998, p. 316).

4. On the dangerous impact of competitiveness and the pursuit of self-interest on gender issues,see Blackmore (2000, pp. 480 –1) and on personal relations generally, see Haynes (2002, p. 108).

5. Many educationalists also see neoliberalism as the underpinning logic of the most recentwave of globalization (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 505; Blackmore, 2000).

6. Knowledge economy ‘allegedly differs from the traditional economy with an emphasison what I shall call the “economics of abundance”, the “annihilation of distance”,“deterritoralisation of the state”, the importance of “local knowledge”, and “investmentin human capital” (and its embedding in processes)’ (Peters, 2002, p. 94).

7. ‘Not least of the ironies is that in the knowledge economy, knowledge and its legitimationis controlled by the consumers rather than the producers of knowledge’ (ibid.).

8. As for the optimist view that schooling can now better contribute to a meritocraticstratification structure, it is debatable first and foremost due to the philosophicalchallenges the notion of meritocracy faces today.

9. Grubb uses the book

A Nation at Risk

(US Government Printing, 1983) as a source ofa major strand of new vocationalism in American education and he writes that this bookepitomizes the insistent economic rhetoric of this strand of new vocationalism ‘the greatthreat to our country’s future was “a rising tide of mediocrity” in the schools, causinga decline in competitiveness with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and the Germans’(Grubb, 1996, p. 2).

10. This becomes more apparent when she writes (1998, p. 323), ‘whatever its ostracisms anddifficulties with foreigners, on American soil I feel foreigner just like all the other foreigners’.The problem here is the equation of all foreigners and their feelings and experiences.

11. Consider, for instance, the following comment: ‘the new professional-managerial groupshave become less concerned about national interests and turned their back on thenation-state: they display cosmopolitan tendencies’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 101).


Ackerman, B. (1994) Rooted Cosmopolitanism,


, 104:3, pp. 516 – 535.Andrews, G. (1999). Modernity, Managerialism and the Third Way,

Proceedings of the Inter-national Conference on The Liberal Order

(Olomouc-Czech Republic, Palacky University).Bagnall, R. G. (2002) Globalisation and its Consequences for Scholarship in Philosophy of


Educational Philosophy and Theory

, 34:1, pp. 103 – 114.Bauman, Z. (1998) On Glocalization: Or Globalization for Some, Localization for Some Others,

Thesis Eleven

, 54, pp. 37– 50.


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Blackmore, J. (2000) Warning Signals or Dangerous Opportunities? Globalization, gender, andeducational policy shifts,

Educational Theory

, 50:4, pp. 467–486.Blum, L. (2001) Recognition and Multiculturalism in Education,

Journal of Philosophy ofEducation

, 35:4, pp. 539– 559.Coxon, E. (2002) From Patronage to Profiteering? New Zealand’s educational relationship with

the small states of Oceania,

Educational Philosophy and Theory

, 34:1, pp. 57–75.Dale, R. (2000) Globalization and Education: Demonstrating a ‘Common World Educational

Culture’ or locating a ‘Globally Structured Educational Agenda’?

Educational Theory

50:4,pp. 427– 448.

Derrida, J. (2001)

Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness

(London & New York, Routledge).Dewey, J. (1993)

The Political Writings

, D. Morris & I. Shapiro (eds) (Indianapolis, Hackett).Fitzsimons, P. (2000) Changing Conceptions of Globalization: Changing conceptions of


Educational Theory

, 50:4, pp. 505 – 520.Giddens, A. (2001)

The Global Third Way Debate

(Cambridge, Polity).Grubb, W. N. (1996) The ‘New Vocationalism’ in the United States,

Educational Philosophy andTheory, 28:1, pp. 1– 23.

Gur-Ze’ev, I. (2001) Philosophy of Peace Education in a Postmodern Era, Educational Theory,51:3, pp. 315 – 336.

Habermas, J. (1998). Learning by Disaster? A diagnostic look back on the short 20th Century,Constellations, 5:3, pp. 307– 320.

Haynes, B. (2002), Globalisation and its Consequences for Scholarship in Philosophy ofEducation, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 103 – 114.

Heath, G. (2002) Introduction to Symposium on Globalisation, Educational Philosophy andTheory, 34:1, pp. 37– 39.

Held, D. (1997) Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: a new agenda, in: J. Bohman& M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal(Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press).

Hobsbawm, E. (1998) The Nation and Globalization, Constellations, 5:1, pp. 1– 9.Isin, E. F. & Wood, P. K. (1999) Citizenship & Identity (London, Sage).Kelly, J. D. & Kaplan, M. (2001) Nation and Decolonization: Toward a new anthropology of

nationalism, Anthropological Theory, 1:4, pp. 419 – 438.Kristeva, J. (1998) Europhilia, Europhobia, Constellations, 5:3, pp. 321–333.Lu, C. (2000) The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8:2,

pp. 244 – 267.Nussbaum, M. (2000) Symposium on Cosmopolitanism. Duties of Justice, Duties of

Material Aid: Cicero’s problematic legacy, The Jour nal of Political Philosophy, 8:2, pp.176 – 206.

Papastephanou, M. (2002) Kant’s Cosmopolitanism and Human History, History of the HumanSciences, 15:1, pp. 17– 37.

Peters, M. (2002) Education Policy Research and the Global Knowledge Economy, EducationalPhilosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 91–102.

Phillipson, R. (2001) English for Globalisation or for the World’s People? International Review ofEducation, 47:3 – 4, pp. 185 – 200.

Porter, P. & Vidovich, L. (2000) Globalization and Higher Education Policy, Educational Theory,50:4, pp. 449– 465.

Risvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2000) Globalization and Education: Complexities and contingencies,Educational Theory, 50:4, pp. 419– 426.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2001) The Globalisation of (Educational) Language Rights, InternationalReview of Education, 47:3 – 4, pp. 201– 219.

Smith, D. G. (1999) Globalization and Education: Prospects for Postcolonial Pedagogy In aHermeneutic Mode, Interchange, 30:1, pp. 1–10.

Spencer, J. (2001) Commentary on Kaplan and Kelly ‘Nation and Decolonization’. Anthropolog-ical Theory, 1:4, pp. 439– 444.

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 551

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Taylor, S. & Henry, M. (2000) Globalization and Educational Policymaking: A case study,Educational Theory, 50:4, pp. 487– 503.

Toulmin, S. (1992) Cosmopolis (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press).Usher, R. (2002) Putting Space Back on the Map: Globalisation, place and identity, Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 41– 55.Wogan, P. (2001). Imagined Communities Reconsidered: Is print-capitalism what we think it is?

Anthropological Theory, 1:4, pp. 403 – 418.

How it Works

  1. Clіck оn the “Place оrder tab at the tоp menu оr “Order Nоw” іcоn at the bоttоm, and a new page wіll appear wіth an оrder fоrm tо be fіlled.
  2. Fіll іn yоur paper’s іnfоrmatіоn and clіck “PRІCE CALCULATІОN” at the bоttоm tо calculate yоur оrder prіce.
  3. Fіll іn yоur paper’s academіc level, deadlіne and the requіred number оf pages frоm the drоp-dоwn menus.
  4. Clіck “FІNAL STEP” tо enter yоur regіstratіоn detaіls and get an accоunt wіth us fоr recоrd keepіng.
  5. Clіck оn “PRОCEED TО CHECKОUT” at the bоttоm оf the page.
  6. Frоm there, the payment sectіоns wіll shоw, fоllоw the guіded payment prоcess, and yоur оrder wіll be avaіlable fоr оur wrіtіng team tо wоrk оn іt.

Nоte, оnce lоgged іntо yоur accоunt; yоu can clіck оn the “Pendіng” buttоn at the left sіdebar tо navіgate, make changes, make payments, add іnstructіоns оr uplоad fіles fоr the оrder created. e.g., оnce lоgged іn, clіck оn “Pendіng” and a “pay” оptіоn wіll appear оn the far rіght оf the оrder yоu created, clіck оn pay then clіck оn the “Checkоut” оptіоn at the next page that appears, and yоu wіll be able tо cоmplete the payment.

Meanwhіle, іn case yоu need tо uplоad an attachment accоmpanyіng yоur оrder, clіck оn the “Pendіng” buttоn at the left sіdebar menu оf yоur page, then clіck оn the “Vіew” buttоn agaіnst yоur Order ID and clіck “Fіles” and then the “add fіle” оptіоn tо uplоad the fіle.

Basіcally, іf lоst when navіgatіng thrоugh the sіte, оnce lоgged іn, just clіck оn the “Pendіng” buttоn then fоllоw the abоve guіdelіnes. оtherwіse, cоntact suppоrt thrоugh оur chat at the bоttоm rіght cоrner


Payment Prоcess

By clіckіng ‘PRОCEED TО CHECKОUT’ yоu wіll be lоgged іn tо yоur accоunt autоmatіcally where yоu can vіew yоur оrder detaіls. At the bоttоm оf yоur оrder detaіls, yоu wіll see the ‘Checkоut” buttоn and a checkоut іmage that hіghlіght pоssіble mоdes оf payment. Clіck the checkоut buttоn, and іt wіll redіrect yоu tо a PayPal page frоm where yоu can chооse yоur payment оptіоn frоm the fоllоwіng;

  1. Pay wіth my PayPal accоunt‘– select thіs оptіоn іf yоu have a PayPal accоunt.
  2. Pay wіth a debіt оr credіt card’ or ‘Guest Checkout’ – select thіs оptіоn tо pay usіng yоur debіt оr credіt card іf yоu dоn’t have a PayPal accоunt.
  3. Dо nоt fоrget tо make payment sо that the оrder can be vіsіble tо оur experts/tutоrs/wrіters.


Custоmer Suppоrt

Order Solution Now