Research Question 3

3. What has a critical discourse analysis of texts related to GCED revealed about participatory parity as defined by Fraser?

To answer this question I will present a brief reminder of Participatory Parity and Fraser’s three dimensions of justice that constitute it. The conclusions of questions 1 and 2 will then be considered in light of Participatory Parity.

Justice, according to Fraser (2010, 2013), is the principle of Participatory Parity which demands that all have the opportunity to interact as peers in social life. It concerns the removal of structural, concrete obstacles that impede people from

participating as peers. To achieve participatory parity, the conditions for three

dimensions of justice must be met (Fraser, 2010b). If one or more is not met, then participatory parity cannot be achieved and the situation at hand is unjust. The three dimensions of justice can be analysed separately but they are interrelated. The three dimensions, discussed previously in chapter 4, are firstly distribution which requires that resources and opportunities are equally open to all. This will foster independence, avoid class inequality and the injustice of maldistribution. Secondly, the dimension of recognition requires that institutional structures and practices must recognise the equal status of all people and their cultural distinction and that these must be given equal respect in social interactions. This will avoid cultural domination by more powerful

groups and the injustice of misrecognition. Thirdly, the dimension of representation requires that people must have their definition of a situation regarded through expression of their voice equally in decision making. They must have the space and capacity to act autonomously. If this is not provided they suffer the injustice of misrepresentation and, where their claims for justice may transcend national borders, meta-political misrepresentation.

The analysis of classification and the texturing of relationships of equivalence and difference in the texts has revealed that the way the texts are structured constitutes a structural barrier to the achievement of participatory parity. The way values are structured within the discourse has led to misrecognition. As I will explain further, this is potentially generative of misrepresentation and maldistribution in social life.

The structuring of values in the discourse such that they deny difference, are divorced from social contexts and universally applied is a source of misrecognition. Further, the structuring of values in the discourse has termed only UNESCO’s values as appropriate, implicitly stating that any values outside of this are inappropriate. This denies recognition to alternative values and possible ways of doing global citizenship which may be more rooted in local contexts. They are considered inferior. Their status is not recognised equally, their cultural distinctiveness is not equally recognised and they are not likely to be given equal respect in social interaction. As has been discussed, this has been seen to lead to resistance from local people to a model of global citizenship that they view as imposed and not relevant to them. Inherent in this

misrecognition is also a denial of evidence. The WVS illustrated that values exist in distinct cultural zones around the world and that they change. It is UNESCO’s view that counts. Due to the hegemony of this discourse which has achieved social dominance, UNESCO’s approach influences subjectivities in line with their own image, which as discussed, is in line with western ideals. Misrecognition is also seen here through the citizenising of the other in UNESCO’s own image. This results in the potential cultural domination by the more powerful group and participatory parity is denied.

Misrecognition can also be the generative injustice for misrepresentation and maldistribution in social life. As discussed previously, in looking at all three dimensions of justice I am avoiding the limited approach that comes from just considering one (Keddie, 2012). After all, Fraser asserts that the dimensions are interrelated (Fraser, 2013). I wish to provide a full consideration of participatory parity and so I consider all three.

In terms of potential misrepresentation, a consideration of institutional culture brings insight. As stated previously, through the critical discourse analysis of the language in texts (the social event), insight can be gained into the culture of an organisation (social structure), because the choices of how to structure the text and the particular grammatical and language choices made are intentional and influenced by the social life within the organisation (it’s social practices) (Fairclough, 2003). This has been applied in this research to the global culture of UNESCO and the field of GCED, but can also be applied to the working practices within UNESCO. As stated, values can be used to regulate employee

behaviour (Jaakson, 2010). With UNESCO having such a closed and fixed meaning of values, UNESCO exhibit a strict sense of institutional values which Mowles (2007) has termed cult values. With UNESCO determining which values are ‘appropriate’ and desiring to influence subjectivities and mind-sets, it is reasonable to consider that the social practices enacted by staff and the wider culture of UNESCO (social structure) is one where people are regulated to adopt an ‘appropriate’ mind-set exhibiting universal values. Due to values as evaluators of action that is worthwhile, social practices and institutional culture may also serve to socially confirm universal values. Because these values are abstract, as shown in the analysis, they offer an appearance of institutional unity which may not be the reality within social practices. Employees potentially work within an atmosphere which has an appearance of unity but is possibly fragmented in practice. This can have the effect of ‘alienating employees from their own experience’ (Mowles, 2007, p407). Staff are potentially required to aim for something which is unreal and out of reach. Mowles (2007) states that when values deemed universal are ascribed to the members of a group they become ‘cult values’ which begin to decide who is included and who excluded from those deemed acceptable. He states

‘Cult values are an important part of who we are and where we come from, but ethical issues arise when the values of an idealised group become norms to which individuals must subscribe if they are not to be deemed sinful or selfish, that is they become a cult which can exclude or include according to the level of adherence to the values described as norms’. (Mowles, 2007, p403)

Mowles further states that cult values can be a way of ‘stifling discussion, potentially excluding those who dare to disagree with the way they are being articulated…We are invited to set aside our doubts and believe in the cult, or risk rejection by the idealised group. When leaders take up values in this way they are using them as a form of social control’ (Mowles, 2007, p403). This is not to suggest that UNESCO is a cult - remember that the insight from these documents is partial – but with social practices and social structure requiring the adoption of an ‘appropriate’ mind-set (which means adopting universal values and potentially being within a culture which socially confirms ‘appropriate’ values) members of the organisation appear subject to cult values. This denies recognition to anyone who may hold alternative values or a different point of view, such as those who value distinctive cultural voices or who may question the practical relevance of universal values, and affords a lack of equal respect to anyone who might question institutional culture. Their distinctiveness is not recognised within institutional structures and practices and they are not afforded equal status. They suffer misrecognition. This misrecognition may also be generative of misrepresentation. Through a lack of recognition, employees potentially find their definition of a situation disregarded and their opinion or voice not considered; especially if discussion is stifled when they dare to disagree (Mowles, 2007). Participatory parity is denied because employees suffer misrecognition and potentially misrepresentation.

In terms of potential maldistribution, as stated previously, UNESCO distribute

resources and opportunities for the enhancement of pedagogy through their Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet). ASPNet ‘links educational

institutions across the world around a common goal: to build the defences of peace in the minds of children and young people’ and lists global citizenship education as one of its two priorities (ASPNet, 2017). Schools which are members of the network gain access to resources such as innovative educational materials, new teaching and learning approaches and opportunities to connect with others to learn and share good practice. These are explicitly based on UNESCO’s core values and the values are to be integrated in schools and act as a gateway to becoming role models in their community and beyond. ASPNet’s approach is summarised in Figure 6.7, with these points underlined

Figure 6.7 ASPNet’s approach to achieving GCED (ASPNet, 2017, box added)

Where non-western countries may be seeking to improve their education systems and look to UNESCO for help, not ascribing to UNESCO’s view of global citizenship arguably leaves them excluded from further resources and opportunities which could potentially improve educational pedagogy, not just in citizenship but more generally in education. Where this is the case, they potentially suffer inequality and the injustice of maldistribution. Yet it is the misrecognition of alternative values and ways of doing global citizenship that is

1. Creating: As a laboratory of ideas, ASPnet develops, tests and disseminates innovative educational materials and promotes new teaching and learning approaches based on UNESCO's core values and priorities.

2. Teaching & Learning: Capacity-building, innovative teaching and

participative learning in specific ASPnet thematic areas allow school principals, teachers, students and the wider school community to integrate UNESCO's values and become role models in their community and beyond.

3. Interacting: ASPnet gives its stakeholders opportunities to connect and exchange experiences, knowledge and good practices with schools, individuals, communities, policy-makers and society as a whole.

the generative injustice. Were these afforded equal cultural respect, for example, UNESCO’s resources and opportunities may well be distributed more justly.