Global citizenship is now a radical idea, but one we need

Global Citizenship Education (GCED) emerged from post-World War II aspirations to build peace through education, drawing on international declarations such as UNESCO’s 1996 Delors Report and the 2000 Earth Charter. It envisioned education as a transformative force, cultivating critical consciousness, empathy and a sense of belonging to humanity.

GCED positioned learners not merely as national citizens, but as active participants in an interconnected world, capable of addressing complex global issues.

This vision gained renewed momentum when GCED was formally incorporated into Sustainable Development Goal 4.7 in 2015, amid growing optimism about globalisation, expanding digital connectivity and revitalised multilateral cooperation.

At that historical moment, GCED seemed not only timely but essential – a framework through which education could prepare individuals to engage with pressing global challenges, such as climate change, inequality and violent conflict, with a shared sense of purpose and responsibility.

Shocks to the system

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep fractures in the international order, as vaccine nationalism, politicised science and xenophobic rhetoric undermined global solidarity. Far from fostering unity, the pandemic intensified divisions and magnified existing inequalities, particularly along racial, economic and geopolitical lines.

Simultaneously, neonationalist movements gained traction across multiple regions, promoting sovereignty, cultural purity and protectionist policies over global cooperation. These movements often framed transnational educational efforts as subversive, positioning GCED as incompatible with national loyalty.

Education became a new ideological battleground, with GCED increasingly portrayed as a threat to national identity and cultural autonomy. Critics questioned whether global citizenship promotes cultural homogenisation, erodes traditional values or imposes Western liberal norms – challenging GCED’s legitimacy in societies where public discourse is increasingly polarised and global engagement is viewed with suspicion.

A paradoxical space

GCED now occupies a paradoxical space: it is more urgently needed than ever, yet its legitimacy is increasingly contested.

The escalating complexity of global challenges – climate disruption, digital disinformation, pandemics and rising authoritarianism – underscores the need for education that fosters critical consciousness, intercultural understanding and a sense of shared responsibility across borders. GCED’s foundational vision remains vital to any effort aimed at addressing transnational crises in an ethical and sustainable way.

Yet the sociopolitical context in which GCED operates has shifted dramatically. In many countries even core principles such as human rights, diversity and environmental responsibility have become entangled in ideological battles. GCED is often criticised for promoting ‘globalist’ agendas seen to conflict with national values, sovereignty or cultural identity.

This backlash is particularly acute in higher education, where institutions are increasingly drawn into debates over curriculum, identity politics and academic freedom. Faculty implementing GCED may encounter institutional resistance, political scrutiny and constraints on funding, especially where global engagement is equated with cultural erasure or liberal bias.

These ideological tensions are not merely theoretical. In many parts of the world, GCED has become a flashpoint in public debates over national identity, educational sovereignty and cultural values. Two recent cases illustrate how GCED programmes can be challenged in contested environments.

India’s nationalistic priorities

In India, the government’s increasing emphasis on ‘Indianising’ education has led to a cautious retreat from global citizenship themes. Under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, while global competencies are nominally encouraged, critical GCED content – such as secular ethics, postcolonial critique or transnational solidarity – has been marginalised in favour of national heritage and cultural revivalism.

Schools piloting GCED modules through international partnerships (for example, UNESCO-APCEIU’s Global Citizenship initiatives) have encountered implicit pressure to conform to nationalistic priorities, with some educators reporting institutional hesitancy when it comes to addressing contentious global issues, such as religious freedom or gender equity.

The shift reflects a broader ideological climate in which GCED is reframed as a potential threat to national cohesion.

Cultural battles in the US

In the United States, GCED has increasingly been swept into polarised cultural battles over ‘woke’ education and internationalism.

In states such as Florida and Texas, classroom content that addresses global perspectives, climate justice or United Nations goals has come under legislative and parental scrutiny. Several school districts have curtailed participation in Model UN programmes or restricted access to teaching materials on global human rights, citing concerns about political bias.

Educators attempting to teach critical global issues often face backlash, with some encountering administrative restrictions or fears of reprisal under new curriculum transparency laws. In this context, GCED’s core principles – such as empathy, critical thinking and transnational awareness – are being recast as ideological rather than educational.

Further complicating this environment is the rise of digital nationalism and online echo chambers, which accelerate polarisation and undermine the conditions necessary for thoughtful intercultural dialogue.

In this context, GCED must confront not only external criticism but also internal fragmentation over its aims and methods. The challenge now is not to defend GCED in abstract terms, but to reconceive it as a flexible, locally grounded and ethically resilient framework, capable of navigating contested terrains while remaining anchored to its moral core.

Distinct strands

Faced with mounting political pressures and ideological contestation, GCED has evolved into distinct strands, each reflecting different interpretations of its purpose. One approach, often referred to as critical GCED, foregrounds issues of power, inequality and systemic injustice. It encourages students to interrogate dominant narratives and engage in transformative action.

A second strand, sometimes labelled soft GCED, emphasises universal values such as intercultural understanding and mutual respect, but deliberately avoids direct engagement with contentious political issues to maintain broader appeal.

A third variant, instrumental GCED, reframes global competencies in terms of employability and economic competitiveness, aligning GCED with workforce development agendas and, in doing so, depoliticising its original moral vision.

These variations reflect both strategic adaptations and deep ideological tensions within the GCED movement itself. Fundamental questions remain unresolved: Should GCED primarily cultivate global moral responsibility or prepare students for participation in a global labour market? Should it prioritise critical consciousness that challenges systemic injustices, or emphasise social cohesion in increasingly polarised societies?

In the current climate, these debates are not merely theoretical; they determine whether GCED is accepted, diluted or rejected outright across different educational and political contexts.

Challenges to GCED

The future of GCED is shaped by several interrelated challenges that test its coherence, legitimacy and adaptability.

First, ideological instrumentalisation poses a significant risk. GCED initiatives are increasingly susceptible to co-optation – whether by progressive activism emphasising global justice, or by neoliberal frameworks that reduce education to an economic tool – thus fracturing its appeal across political divides.

Second, the tension between cultural sensitivity and universalism remains unresolved. Advocating for universal human rights while respecting diverse cultural traditions requires a careful balancing act that GCED has yet to fully master.

Third, the fragmentation of global norms has weakened the international consensus that originally underpinned GCED’s legitimacy. As multilateral institutions lose authority and geopolitical rivalry intensifies, GCED cannot rely solely on top-down frameworks; it must cultivate legitimacy through engagement with diverse local contexts.

Finally, the dynamics of digital polarisation have amplified ideological echo chambers, making the cultivation of critical media literacy and intercultural dialogue both more urgent and more difficult. As misinformation spreads rapidly and digital publics become increasingly divided, the core aims of GCED – critical thinking, empathy and global solidarity – face unprecedented obstacles.

Embrace of pluralism

For GCED to thrive in an era of heightened polarisation, it must undergo both reaffirmation and reinvention. First, GCED must reaffirm its foundational commitments to justice, empathy and planetary responsibility. In an age of technocratic dilution and ideological capture, it is critical that GCED remain, at its core, a moral project, calling individuals to recognise their interconnectedness and mutual obligations across human and ecological boundaries.

At the same time, GCED must be reimagined through a lens of plurality rather than homogeneity. Rather than advancing a singular, universalised model of the ‘global citizen’, it must cultivate diverse pathways to global consciousness, grounded in varied cultural, historical and political traditions. Embracing pluralism strengthens GCED’s relevance and guards against perceptions of cultural imperialism.

Furthermore, GCED must adopt new strategies for engagement in polarised environments. Dialogue across ideological divides must shift from being an ancillary goal to a central pedagogical task. Educational practices that intentionally cultivate skills of active listening, civil disagreement, empathy toward opposing perspectives and critical self-reflection will be crucial to preparing learners for democratic engagement in divided societies.

Finally, GCED must be rooted in a model of local-global reciprocity. Global citizenship cannot be abstracted from local responsibility. Anchoring global issues within local realities – while empowering learners to take meaningful action within their own communities – can rebuild GCED’s credibility and demonstrate that global solidarity begins with everyday, situated acts of care and justice.

GCED’s transformative promise

A decade after its optimistic incorporation into the Sustainable Development Goals, GCED stands at a critical juncture. Confronted by pandemic-induced uncertainty, neonationalist resurgence and the fragmentation of global norms, it faces both intensified necessity and intensified resistance.

The future of GCED will not be determined by international declarations alone but by how educators, communities and learners navigate the complex tensions of our time – holding fast to the hope of shared humanity, even as the world fractures around them.

If GCED can embrace complexity, foster resilience and adapt creatively while remaining anchored to its ethical core, it may yet fulfil its transformative promise. In a world increasingly defined by division, the task of nurturing global citizens is not only more urgent but, indeed, more radical than ever before.

James Yoonil Auh is the chair of computing and communications engineering at KyungHee Cyber University in South Korea. He has worked across the United States, Asia and Latin America on projects linking ethics, technology and education policy.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.