Universal Values and Neoliberal Globalisation

In addition to universal values acting as social regulators of people’s actions, privileging western dominance, the second factor that undermines the

effectiveness of UNESCO’s GCED is neoliberal globalisation. GCED requires sustained motivation and action over time to achieve its aims underpinned with values which are necessarily stable and enduring. Neoliberal globalisation has resulted in values which are volatile and relative - one can go shopping for values not unlike one goes shopping for consumer goods – which undermines UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education.

A dominant neoliberal globalisation emphasises values of economic competitiveness and individualism and values have become conflated with economic success. Conflating values with the economy does not just influence which values are deemed worthwhile but has led to a perception of values which exhibit a volatility and relativity not unlike the financial markets. This is counter to the aims of GCED which require sustained action and motivation over time and, underpinning this, values which are stable and enduring. The volatility of values is supported by Bindé who, discussing the thoughts of Paul Valéry, states

‘in a world dominated by [financial] speculation, our conception of moral or ethical values was increasingly influenced by the model of the stock market. There is no longer any fixed standard of value, any stable and absolute measure, but rather all values fluctuate in a vast market’. (Bindé, 2004, pxii)

The emergence of values as relative and volatile is additionally attributed to the prominence of the consumer (Goux, 2004). It is as if an individual can go shopping for values, deciding as they shop which to adopt and which to discard.

This has added to the volatility and relativism of all values undermining UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education. Goux states that ‘all values, not only economic ones, seem driven by a kind of volatility, of relativism’ (Goux, 2004, p50). The volatility and relativity of values and their link with economic success is supported in practice by the World Values Survey which notes that the volatility of values is seen to correlate with the degree of economic advancement in societies (WVS, 2016). The more economically successful a nation, the greater the volatility of values. The survey further notes that values may remain fairly consistent in countries that remained ‘economically stagnant’, but as an overarching principle globally, there is a correlation between the degree of economic success and values change (WVS, 2016). Not only do values change in more developed countries, but they change more quickly. This has apparently not been seen before the era of globalisation and suggests that values are transient and changing rather than enduring. The aims of global citizenship education are long term aims. They require sustained action, which requires sustained motivation, which is necessarily based upon values which are stable in their orientation towards the welfare of a common humanity. Values as relative, fluctuating with prevailing economic winds, will undermine the aims of GCED.

A further consequence of values as relative and changing is that they can become relegated to ‘cultural differences’ which require passive respect rather than the real engagement necessary as global citizens to resolve the world’s challenges. This attitude of passivity, demonstrated through this research, further reduces the effectiveness of UNESCO’s GCED. Alongside engendering

passive respect, cultural difference is a way of labelling division within society and avoiding discussion which can lead to a real understanding of change, being reduced instead to the telling of stories or of different perspectives on events (Standish, 2012). Passivity can legitimise dismissal of and disengagement from others rather than seeking the dialogue and understanding necessary to act in the global space as a global citizen. As Standish states ‘In order to genuinely respect another perspective one has to engage with it and understand it, even if one disagrees’ (Standish, 2012, p138). An example of values which have fallen prey to neoliberal globalisation, which UNESCO have relegated to the realm of ‘cultural difference’ requiring ‘respect’ (UNESCO, 2016) and which are also relativized to such a degree that they have become an excuse for passivity and inaction, is religious values.

Religious values are not seen as values which can motivate people to act for the benefit of others in concert with the aims of GCED despite people with religious beliefs claiming their religion as a key source of their motivation for solving global problems such as climate change (Schaefer, 2014) which is specifically listed as a problem to be tackled via GCED (UNESCO, 2015). Moreover, Bush supports the role of religion to support motivation stating that religion is a ‘source of motivation and a vehicle for engagement in the global public sphere’ (Bush, 2007, p1646) and Einolf notes the influence of religious values on action and states that ‘people learn ideas and values of helping through the language of sermons, texts, and conversations, and internalize them into their own identity. They act on these ideas and values by helping others…’ (Einolf, 2011, p451). Remaining passive may instil a non-judgemental

disposition but this can discourage students from critical engagement which, as discussed, could potentially resist unequal power relations within top-down global citizenship. UNESCO have denied religious values recognition and in treating values outside of their own definition as passive they have missed opportunities to consider sources of values that may motivate action for the benefit of others in concert with the aims of GCED. This reduces the effectiveness of UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education.