Circumnavigating Citizenship, from Local to Global
Written by Hillary Lim
The concept of citizenship started in the early polis of ancient Greece, stemming from the Greeks’ fear of being enslaved and a desire to erode personal chieftainship. The notion of citizenship drew inspiration from the pantheon of Greek deities. Hermes was the god of travel and language, protecting merchants, traders and human heralds while Hestia was the goddess of the hearth, home and family, binding people to a specific place, tethering individuals to their homelands. This oppositional relationship — where Hestia ends is where Hermes starts — reflects the paradoxical nature of national citizenship and global citizenship, regardless of your understanding of global citizenship which you should keep in mind as you read on.
In the Greek polis, true inhabitants (also known as citizens), were viewed as legally belonging, equals and given political rights based on their place of birth. Today, the model citizenship has evolved, as it can be offered to naturalised individuals who prove themselves through their actions. Yet, the common understanding remains: citizenship is reserved only for a specific group sharing an identified space. Being a citizen provides us civic benefits like voting rights, a sense of participation in a sovereign political community, and priority in housing and education.
Therefore, based on the original Greek precepts of citizenship, as an individual living on this globe, we are entitled to call ourselves global citizens. However, when referenced against the modern definition of citizenship, global citizenship seemingly no longer exists as the physical benefits are absent. Regardless, many institutions and companies are pushing for global citizenship education, claiming that their aim is to nurture and employ global citizens respectively.
From an economical perspective, being able to claim that one is a ‘global citizen’ increases their employability through asserting a familiarity with different cultures and geographies. From a political perspective, universal issues such as climate change and international cooperation will be easier to tackle through the frameworks that global citizenship purportedly brings offers.
However, does it really do all the above? Or is global citizenship just an idealised model that we are chasing after, especially in today’s hyper-nationalist world?
Is global citizenship still tenable and valuable in a hyper-nationalist world?
In recent years, anti-globalisation sentiments and protectionism have been on the rise. Beginning in 2016, significant political shifts such as Brexit, President Trump’s decisions to remove America from multiple transnational partnerships, the intensification of U.S.-China rivalry, the delayed Covid-19 vaccination support provided to third-world countries, and China’s wolf warrior diplomacy heralds the hyper-nationalist world that we have come to live in. With this apparent reversion from the course of globalisation, global citienship seems to be no longer tenable and necessary.
Yet, this insular world has made global citizenship more important than ever. Just as the saying, “no man is an island” goes, no country can be a world on their own. Given the depth of interdependency forged between nation-states over the past century, and the complexity of transnational issues such as inequality, climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, the edges of ‘borders’ and ‘geography’ have morphed into mere mental constructs.
Under these circumstances, it would be immensely tough for a country to prosper when they choose isolation and supposed autarky. Hence, it has become even more important for us to become true global citizens to ensure the continuity of relationships across borders. As cliche as it sounds, global citizenship should remain a pressing priority to ensure the survival of Mother Earth, attaining collective prosperity, and developing social progress.
Apart from achieving communal aims, global citizenship is also a form of individual self-investment. This special, seemingly barrier-less status equips us with intrapersonal competencies which are highly valuable in the workforce.
In 2021, Ly Thi Tran, Jill Blackmore and Mark Rahimi found that in the job market, Chinese graduates returning from overseas studies benefited from the exposure to international practices and global perspectives. Furthermore, they had the marker of distinction of possessing both local and international connections, which improved their chances of better employment.
Similarly, at the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, which has a four-decade-long partnership with Southwest University in Beibei, China, it was reported that 80% of students who have studied abroad eventually adapted to diverse work environments better. In addition, alumni in the college’s global education programs earn at least $6000 more in starting salaries compared to those who do not. As seen, international experience, which brings about various soft skills and valuable exposure, is highly valued in the workforce.
How can we reconcile local and global citizenship?
However, given the paradoxical relationship of global citizenship to national citizenship, should one be given priority over the other? Realistically, local citizenship has to be attained before global citizenship.
This is because citizenship fundamentally serves to provide a sense of belonging. Therefore, like Hierocles’ Concentric Circles, if one is unable to find their place within their nation or appreciate the culture of their own nation, how can they find their role in the larger world while appreciating all the other cultures? Similarly, if one struggles to think from a national point of view, it would be overtly wishful of us to expect them to consider the 7 billion population. Thus, we have to be an active national citizen by participating actively within our country before global citizenship can be meaningfully gained.
Source: Hierocles’ Concentric Circles
Even then, if we follow the target of the UN’s Global Citizenship Education, which emphasizes knowledge and respect for human rights as core tenets, the interpretation of what constitutes “global citizenships” for each country and region would be vastly different. There have been countless arguments positing human rights being a belief and construct of the West, and thus, is not accepted universally.
Take the most iconic example of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of Speech. Countries like the United States, Denmark, and Belgium uphold this strictly but in countries such as Singapore and China, ensuring harmonious living is privileged over freedom of speech. Hence, given the lack of consensus on what constitutes human rights, the idea of global citizenship across nationalities would be grounded by local contextualities.
Although this might seem as if the “global” aspect of citizenship has been diluted, we must keep in mind that global citizenship’s aim is not to cultivate a homogeneous species, but to imbue an understanding and celebration of differences amongst the people of the world, through building upon similar aspirations.
Furthermore, we as individuals need not only identify as a local of one country. As Taiye Selasi shared, if our beliefs, values and relationships have been partially shaped by our experiences abroad, we should put aside rigid borders and cultivate our unique, flexible identity. By cultivating our universal presence, which encapsulates our locality, nationality, experiences, values and beliefs, we can attune ourselves to the idea of global belonging.
Does living abroad and keeping up with global news make us global citizens?
Assuming that we have been active national citizens, how can we work towards becoming global citizens? Many tertiary educational institutes claim to be nurturing global citizens through their exchange programmes, voluntourism and interdisciplinary courses. Ultimately, merely participating in the above will not make you a global citizen.
If you are on an exchange programme but only explore the tourist attractions, head to class, and spend time with your fellow students on exchange, are you immersing yourself in the other culture? After your exchange ends, has the shape of your ‘world bubble’ expanded, and how has your view of the country and community changed?
If you are reading a piece of international news or taking an interdisciplinary course, are you merely absorbing or critiquing it and formulating your personal take? Have you ever wondered about the background of the journalist or professor? Will someone of a different social class or upbringing or value system have a different understanding or opinion?
If you are providing community service in a foreign community, were your first few questions “What is wrong? How may I help you?”. How open-ended do you think these two questions are and what answers are you anticipating? Here is the catch: as Doug Sanders sharply points out, we tend to partake in these activities with expectations of our beneficiaries’ needs and desires. This results in a fixation akin to a saviour mentality which allows our ethnocentric biases to run counter-productive to the help we wish to render to the local community.
In essence, to become global citizens, we have to fulfil both words — Global and Citizen. Essentially, the ‘Global’ aspect can be understood through the definition of global citizenship as an awareness of the broader impacts of our actions, and the worldwide forces shaping our actions. On the other hand, the ‘Citizen’ aspect is fulfilled by responsible participation, a sense of belonging, a unique identity, and even some form of exclusivity. Meaningful participation constitutes exposing yourself to the political, public life and day-to-day experiences of the various global citizens, and reflecting on them. Find your footing and place in this world of 7 billion beautifully unique people, and visualise your own form of exclusivity without indulging in the toxicity and “xenophobia”.
So, who built the boundaries? Hermes, Hestia, both or none? Regardless, Hermes’ and Hestia’s relationship proves that segregation and union are inextricably connected. Therefore, why not pursue your new notion of global citizenship after fulfilling your responsibilities as a national citizen?
About the authors: Hillary Lim is the Research and Thought Leadership Associate of The Young SEAkers (Singapore). The article is edited by Chan Shawn Kit, Natalia Maluquer De Motes Woo, and Theron Tham from the Research and Thought Leadership Team.
The opinions and views of the author(s) contained in the article does not necessarily represent the views of The Young SEAkers and its constituent chapters.
