Understanding DE 'Talk'

Given that meaning changes and meanings change – they are constructed, decconstructed, shifted and reframed from time to time – and people often adopt multiple meanings for the same concept, it is not possible to capture meaning in any fixed or final way. All efforts to understand meaning are just that, efforts. Is it possible, therefore, to understand what people mean when they talk of DE? Mannion et al talk of education for global citizenship as a “floating signifier that different discourses attempt to cover with meaning” (2011: 443). One way of trying to explore meaning is to explore the discourses people draw upon (Ryan, 2011) – the words they use, their talk and how they make sense of DE. While even those who engage in it are often confused as to what it is, as evidenced in research undertaken by Kenny and O’Malley (2002), Bailey (2009) and Bryan and Bracken (2011) in the Irish context, even this ‘confusion’ is interesting as it points to different understandings and perspectives. Furthermore, like all similar ‘educations’ there appear to be people ‘in the know’, the ‘legitimate’ voices who interpret its meaning to others. As such, it is the subject of ‘insider speak’, rhetoric or jargon. As with development more broadly, DE policy discourse and ‘talk’ is replete with a language of its own, words understood by insiders. These concepts, talk and language become the buzzwords and fuzzwords (Cornwall, 2010) of DE which serve to include and exclude and to leave development language and practice unquestioned (Cornwall, 2007). These include terms such as ‘critical thinking’, conscientisation, critical literacy, education for transformation, education for justice, participatory tools, experiential learning. But how do facilitators and policy makers understand these terms? What do they mean to them? By being ‘fuzzy’, they allow for multiple interpretations. This has the advantage of not fixing meaning in any limited sense but it has the disadvantage of lack of clarity.

Fuzzwords can be useful in that they allow us to take account of ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning on the one hand but they assist obfuscation on the other. In addition, there is a challenge in trying to clarify meaning while resisting the drive for certainty and the limitations of definition.

A characteristic of DE definitions, and from my experience in relation to talk, is what might be called

‘wishful thinking’ words. These are concepts or ideas which are presented as ‘fact’ but which are aspirational (Bourn, 2011b). An example might be when someone says that ‘DE is transformative. It is based on the values of social justice’. In such a statement, the assumption is that there is something

‘transformative’ about DE and that it is based on ‘social justice’. Neither of these two terms are explained but we are to assume what is meant by both. In addition, they are cited as ‘fact’ yet they reflect the motivations, visions or desires of the person saying them as well as other influences. They

may also reflect a mantra of words which have been taken on and which are spoken unthinkingly, like

‘nothing words’. Of course this doesn’t mean that they have no power or effect as many of them are

‘strong words’, like ‘transformation’ or ‘justice’ which can inspire or motivate. Cornwall talks about the ‘warmly persuasive’ words that Raymond Williams described for community in his 1976 book

‘keywords’. “Among them can be found words that admit no negatives, words that evoke Good Things that no-one could possibly disagree with” (Cornwall, 2007: 472). Cornwall also talks about “words that encode seemingly universal values” and “code-words that are barely intelligible to those beyond its borders” (2007: 472). And there are ‘weak words’ which have limited effect, and ‘noisy words’

which seem to drown out others and which dominate, e.g., results, measurement, outcomes. Swanson (2010: 140) draws on Bernstein’s discussion of the “‘strong voice’ of Science as a ‘vertical discourse’”

and she compares this to the “‘weak voice’ of the more ‘horizontal discourses’ of education that are an integrated bricolage of a number of disciplines and fields”.

When it comes to DE, while it is impossible to capture different meanings in any fixed or final way, understanding ‘DE speak’ goes some way towards providing an insight into different understandings of and assumptions about DE among facilitators in Ireland and the politics of naming, framing and imagining DE.

1.3. 'Definitions' of DE

As a contested term with different interpretations (Bourn, 2011), DE is one of those nebulous, slippery concepts and processes that means different things to different people, and which requires

‘constructive deconstruction’ (Cornwall, 2010), as discussed in Chapter Three. A further complication in understanding DE is the divergence between understandings of what DE is [or is not] and what it should [or should not] be, as well as between the ‘ideals’, articulated in policy and academia, and its varying practice. There is also a growth in the use of some of the following terms: ‘global citizenship education’, ‘education for sustainable development’, ‘human rights education’ or ‘intercultural education’, which are often used interchangeably with ‘DE’.

While being cautious of ‘definitions’ of DE because of their tendency towards simplification, reductionism and fixity of meaning, I am exploring such definitions here, as many do, to ‘start the ball rolling’ in trying to understand what people mean when they talk about DE. As a discursive genre in Van Dijk’s (2007) sense of the term, it serves a particular function and is constructed using a common style. I explore definitions as textual and policy constructions of DE which have discursive meaning (Van Dijk, 2007) in the sense that they reflect understandings of DE at a particular time as articulated in a particular context. They also have discursive effect in that they help to shape policy, funding and practice.

An oft-cited early definition of DE is that from the UN in 1975 which describes DE as being

“concerned with issues of human rights, dignity, self-reliance and social justice in both developed and developing countries. It is concerned with the causes of underdevelopment and the promotion of an understanding of what is involved in development, of how countries go about undertaking development, and of the reasons for and ways of achieving a new economic and social order” (in Kenny and O’Malley, 2002: 10). The focus in this definition of DE is on development, though this is linked with issues of human rights, dignity, self-reliance and social justice. It gives some sense of what the ‘content’ of DE might involve but there is little clarity on what is meant in this case by ‘dignity’,

‘self-reliance’ or ‘social justice’. As in many definitions of DE, these kinds of values or concepts are taken for granted. Accepting the notion that there are ‘developed’ and ‘developing countries’ the definition does not assume that DE only focuses on either one of these but it does focus on the ‘causes of underdevelopment’ and on how to bring about development for ‘a new economic and social order’.

This is regarded by McCloskey as a radical call for change but, he argues, “it is scant on methodology and how it is to be achieved” (2014: 4).

By 1992, the understanding of DE had shifted, according to Kenny and O’Malley, to “a learning process which proceeds from knowledge to action. It has evolved from being education about developing countries to a broader concept of education for global citizenship” (UNICEF’s 1992 definition cited in Kenny and O’Malley, 2002: 11). Here we can see the framing of DE in North-South terms. There is a tendency to define DE in aspirational terms – what it is and what it does – as well as early links between knowledge and action. In Ireland, in 1998, the NCDE, the Irish Government organisation for promoting DE at the time, defined DE as “increasing people’s awareness and understanding of global issues and of the interdependence of different countries and parts of the world in relation to those issues. In particular, it’s about what sustains underdevelopment and what is needed to reach and sustain more equal development. It is an education based on reflection, analysis and action at local and global level” (in Kenny and O’Malley, 2002: 11). Here we see a move to associating development with ‘global issues’ though the concern with understanding

‘underdevelopment’ and with achieving ‘more equal development’ remains. Kenny and O’Malley also note the mention of the type of pedagogy involved in DE as indicated by this definition – an

“education process of reflection, analysis and action” (2002: 11).

McCloskey (2014: 4) tells us that the DARE forum, “which comprises representatives from national DE platforms across Europe” agreed the following definition in 2004. “DE is an active learning process founded on values of solidarity, equality, inclusion and co-operation. It enables people to move from basic awareness of international development priorities and sustainable human development, through understanding of the causes and effects of global issues to personal involvement and informed action”.

In an Irish context, Irish Aid has argued that “DE aims to deepen understanding of global poverty and encourage people towards action for a more just and equal world” (2007: 6). Regan (2006: 6), expanding on what this might involve, suggests that DE

“is an educational response to issues of development, human rights, justice and world citizenship; [it] presents an international development and human rights perspective within education...; [it] promotes the voices and viewpoints of those who are excluded from an equal share in the benefits of human development internationally; [it] is an opportunity to link and compare development issues and challenges in Ireland with those elsewhere throughout the world; [it] provides a chance for Irish people to reflect on our international roles and responsibilities with regard to issues of equality and justice in human development; [and it] is an opportunity to be active in writing a new story for human development.”

Whereas the DARE (2004) and Irish Aid definitions prioritise understanding of poverty and action for a more just and equal world, DARE (2004) and Regan’s (2006) definitions suggest that DE involves educational processes, which link local and global issues and which are directed towards action for global equality and justice. For all three, therefore, DE is much more than just education ‘about’

development issues or so-called ‘developing countries’, though the context is marked out in terms of global relations, underdevelopment, poverty, equality or justice. It is about content, but it has a clear value basis and action dimension. This is also reflected in the Irish DE Association (IDEA) definition.

For IDEA, DE is

“an educational process aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of the rapidly changing, interdependent and unequal world in which we live ... for IDEA, DE has an explicit focus on social justice, globalisation and development; a focus on multiple perspectives on the story of development; roots in, and strong links to, civil society at home, promoting empowerment of the grassroots; a focus on awareness-building and action for positive change;

a focus on active Global Citizenship ... it is about supporting people in understanding and acting to transform the social, cultural, political and economic structures which affect their lives and others at personal, community, relational and international levels” (IDEA, 2013b: no page).

A somewhat different understanding of DE is evident in the Dóchas DE Group ‘Submission to Irish Aid on DE, June 2015’. Here the focus is on development in a narrower and more ‘traditional’ sense to that of IDEA (2015). For Dóchas,

“DE is an active learning process based on inclusion and co-operation, enabling people to move from basic awareness of global issues to personal action and reflection. DE is seen as a means to raise public understanding of the complex causes of poverty, whilst increasing understanding of the interconnections between lives here and the lives of those in developing countries. It is helping Irish people work towards global literacy: an awareness and understanding of global issues, how these issues affect society as a whole, and how individuals’ attitudes, decisions and actions can fit into this web of world affairs. This includes building awareness of the structures, rules and institutions that impact on poor communities, and of the differing cultures and norms around the world. DE also sets out to counter stereotypical assumptions, based around dependency and helplessness, which people in the

West might draw upon to construct their relationship with the global South” (Dóchas, 2015:

2).

This understanding highlights the critical role of DE in identifying the ‘causes’ of global inequalities as well as the ‘solutions’ and does not assume it is about ‘developing countries’ but about global relations and inequalities. At the same time there is an acceptance of the existence of ‘here’ and

‘developing countries’ which serves as a less than challenging construction of mainstream development.