During the presentation of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) report Identification with the Netherlands in September 2007, Princess Máxima 11 delivered an address that caused a great deal of controversy.

The fuss centred around a simple fact that she referred to in her speech, namely that there is no such thing as Dutch identity. She even quoted her father-in-law, Prince Claus, who had previously stated: “I don’t know what it’s like to be a Dutchman. I have various loyalties and I am a global citizen and a European and a Dutchman.”³

What actually is a global citizen? The WRR report briefly considers the question. Writing about globalization and the significance of this process for national identity the authors observe: “After the seventies, globalization was, for a long time, welcomed with ideas of cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. In anticipation of a global future, nationalism was rejected as outmoded. For a long time an international orientation and global citizenship had a positive reputation in the Netherlands. Since then, it has become clear that the answer to globalization cannot be that we are now all cosmopolites.” Until now it was mainly an elite decision to adopt a cosmopolitan identity, according to the WRR. “A large proportion of the population seeks its meaningful parameters and footholds on a lower geographical level: that of the state, the region or even the town.”⁴

Global citizenship does not in fact mean that identification with one’s own country is passé, far from it. What it means is knowledge of and involvement with the world outside the Netherlands. It does not stand in the way of other identifications; what it comes down to is looking for connections. Prince Claus was noted for his sincere involvement in problems of global poverty, and yet at the same time he considered himself to be a Dutchman. For NCDO, global citizenship has, for a considerable time, been a key notion in its educational activities. Even so, it does not only concern young people’s involvement in global issues, but also their participation in their own country’s pluriform society. Seen in this way, global citizenship is the international dimension of engagement in society.

Ultimately it is about simple, though not always easy things: an awareness that extends beyond the borders of the local or national community, insight in international developments, empathy with and respect for people from other parts of the world, reflection on the many connections between one’s personal situation and conditions elsewhere, plus the readiness to draw conclusions from them. In many different ways, numerous authors have pleaded for this kind of attitude towards global citizenship.⁵

Elitist?

In our view there is nothing elitist about global citizenship. Involvement in international society has always been prevalent in the Netherlands. Market research bureau Motivaction has been charged by NCDO with carrying out research on a regular basis into Dutch people’s views on fighting poverty and other global issues. In 2008, almost half of those questioned gave money to organizations dedicated to development cooperation. Approximately two-thirds of the sample survey supported the size of the national budget for development aid.⁶

From other studies we know that the Dutch regard someone who is socially committed as a good citizen.⁷ On the basis of these research data we may assume that not only involvement with one’s own society, but also solidarity with the world as a whole is considered by the Dutch population to be a goal worth pursuing and as something quite normal.

The ‘elitist’ association is attached rather to another concept used in the WRR report: cosmopolitanism. The writers cite authors who refer to cosmopolitanism as “a cause and a privilege of an international elite” or even as “the provincialism of the indulged”.⁸ Nevertheless, there is nothing elitist about cosmopolitanism – a profound awareness of universal values and rights. What is elitist though, is to call oneself cosmopolitan because one has a lot of money and has seen a lot of the world. In that case, as a cosmopolite one wants to stand out from other people who have not been fortunate enough to travel so far. It has little to do with global citizenship. An international group of young people was once asked whether a rich and widely-travelled person was, by definition, a global citizen. No, was the unanimous answer; that depends on one’s involvement in what happens in the world, nearby and far away.⁹

You can hardly oppose an attitude like this. That despite this, the WRR cautiously distanced itself from the terms global citizenship and cosmopolitanism has to do with the fact that they are often misapplied and have consequently acquired a negative connotation. Misapplied by groups in society which have capitalized on the current phase of globalization, are mobile and have little or no bond with the local (and national) community to which they happen to belong. They have an international horizon and manage to acquire personal wealth in the wake of globalization while others are confronted with the negative results of privatization and the downscaling of the welfare state.¹⁰ If privileged groups such as these are wrongly portrayed as global citizens or cosmopolites, it is understandable that these terms are considered elitist. It should be clear that in this report global citizenship is not interpreted in this sense.

One-sided picture

Global involvement is increasingly fostered by the realization of what is happening in the world. The modern citizen has countless channels at his disposal to help him acquire the necessary knowledge and insights. Nevertheless the question has been raised whether the existing information supply is adequate enough to achieve a balanced image. For this purpose let us take a look at three important sources of information: education, media and social organizations.

First of all, education. The Netherlands has good school books and well-educated teachers, despite pertinent discussions on erosion in the level of teachers’ education, particularly in primary education. The reason for creating a historical canon was, however, the conclusion that Dutch people’s historical awareness is poor. Apparently, good teachers and educational tools are no guarantee for a broad knowledge base. The government prescribes less and less what lessons at school should deal with, including lessons which are intended to contribute to a basic knowledge of global relations. If more or less everything can be addressed within very broad core aims, things quickly become equally important and therefore equally unimportant too. Core aims do not accentuate.

Nor do core aims incite one to revise existing images of, for example, poverty and inequality, even though continual adjustment is essential in the current age of globalization. Although the Netherlands has a strong tradition of socially oriented school subjects and development education, it remains a conjecture whether schools actually do pass on balanced pictures of the new international reality to young people. There are few hard data available. This has also been pointed out by the Council of Europe’s North-South Centre in its report on global education in the Netherlands. What we do know, for example, is that, on average, primary school pupils have a rather simplistic and stereotype image of ‘poor countries’.¹¹ Facts such as these ought to make us stop and think: apparently the education system is not succeeding in adjusting one-sided pictures.

Generally speaking, the media are a rich source of information for the global citizen. The quality newspapers which provide background information on global developments only have a relatively small reading public. For many Dutch people television is the main source of societal information. Increasingly, though, television information on development, sustainability and human rights is presented frivolously and disguised as entertainment. This entails the risk of oversimplification and inadvertent distortion of the picture.¹² In addition, the Internet is a virtually inexhaustible source of facts and views about international issues. However, there is no information on the extent to which Dutch citizens actively make use of the Internet to orient themselves as ‘global citizens’.

Classic social participation in the form of membership of churches, trade unions or political parties is declining, as repeatedly shown by the Social and Cultural Planning Bureau.

Fewer people make use of these sources of information to acquaint themselves with international themes. On the other hand, membership of idealistic organizations – also in the field of international solidarity – shows an upward trend. This is often ‘chequebook solidarity’, one of the many manifestations of what we now call practical idealism.¹³ There is nothing wrong with practical idealism, the urge specifically to do something to solve global problems, as long as the social interest in a balanced picture and in more in-depth analyses does not become watered down. At any rate, the classic institutions play a less important part in this respect.

All in all, people’s orientation on international society has significantly changed character, in addition to which the international context itself is continually changing. A balanced orientation on the fate of humanity worldwide may fade into the background at a time when individualization, the pursuit of self-interest (and the interests of one’s own small circle) and calculating citizenship are powerful trends. Strengthening the basis for international engagement and solidarity therefore requires continuous attention, and fortunately that attention exists. It is a core task for NCDO. A good example is the masterclass on increasing public support organized some years ago by NCDO. Numerous social organizations were able to expand their expertise as a result. The project also resulted in a practically oriented book.¹⁴ Constant interest in global citizenship is also required in education. In this respect the Windows on the World presented in this report fit the bill.

Ethical dimension

Education: that is what most of the articles and websites on global citizenship are about. Internationally, education is regarded as perhaps the most important means of laying a foundation for global citizenship: in other words, for knowledge of and involvement with the world outside one’s own country. In the next chapter we shall deal with global citizenship and education. But let us first take a look at the term global citizenship.

Whatever global citizenship may be exactly, it certainly does not mean the enlargement of national citizenship as we know it in Western European countries, for instance, to a global scale. If we take citizenship to be a historically achieved ‘contract’ between a state and its citizens, with rights and obligations attached, it is not possible to translate this kind of citizenship to a global level. After all, there is not a single global government willing to enter into a contract with all global citizens, nor can any development be observed towards such a global government.¹⁵ Legally founded citizenship with all its rights and obligations is valid exclusively on a national level and even differs in content from country to country. This lack of a global administration has consequences for the functioning of the global civil society. Citizens who are internationally active must eventually influence national states, which of course determine the rights and obligations of their citizens and can decide, whether or not collectively, on action.¹⁶

Citizenship is pre-eminently a term that implies both inclusion and exclusion.

By the accidental fact of being born in a country one acquires certain rights that do not apply to non-citizens of that country. In this respect global citizenship is an interesting term, at least in the metaphorical sense, since the word implies that the dichotomy of inclusion-exclusion is transcended.¹⁷ For who can exclude whom from global citizenship? After all, as a citizen of the world everyone has certain rights, even if they cannot be enforced by any global authority: human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or basic socio-economic rights as established in the ambition of the Millennium Goals. Unfortunately, for millions of people such rights remain theoretical. Global citizens, people taking an active part in international society, will agree that all people should have these rights. In this sense, global citizenship implies an ethical position.¹⁸

Citizenship does not only consist of rights but also of obligations. National civic duties can be legally established, such as military service, compulsory voting or taxation. However, civic duties are increasingly moral obligations too, such as observing generally accepted codes of behaviour and developing and putting into practice social engagement, in whatever form.

As already stated, the majority of Dutch citizens regard social engagement as an essential feature of good citizenship. According to the Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Bureau, social involvement or making an effort for the community and for the less fortunate is the essence of what we ourselves consider important about citizenship.¹⁹ If we continue this line of thinking, the term global citizenship implies that a similar degree of involvement and effort should extend to people beyond our national borders. This is precisely how global citizenship is defined by NCDO.

We could also ask ourselves: who or what can fulfil the role of global citizen? Citizens are always individuals, but does the same apply to global citizens? Many big companies call themselves global citizens and go in for socially correct entrepreneurship. Development organizations, particularly the international ones, also refer to themselves as citizens of the international civil society.²⁰ All very well, but what we have in mind in this report is individual persons as global citizens: anchored in their local, national or transnational connections, but with an eye for and involvement with events in other parts of the world.

Finally, the following: just as there can be very different views on national citizenship, the same applies to global citizenship. American citizenship has a different content, tradition and legal philosophical basis from, for instance, German or South African citizenship. Countries can also differ fundamentally in the social rights of their citizens. These differences are not only linked with the welfare of countries, but also with their political philosophy.

Consequently, global citizenship can also be interpreted in different ways. For those interested: the Citizenship Studies journal is a rich source of similar debates, both on citizenship in the general sense as well as on global citizenship.²¹

All in all, global citizenship is certainly not citizenship in the current legal sense. However, there are elements of citizenship which can be easily translated to a global level. In the first place there is the idea that there are rights (human rights) which apply to each individual. Secondly, there is the moral obligation to familiarize ourselves with the international society to which we belong and to bear the consequences – in whatever form. What these consequences are, may differ from person to person. They could, for example, include conscious consumer behaviour, an open and non-discriminatory attitude within one’s own society, active participation as a citizen, well-considered voting behaviour or involvement in a development project.

Notes

2. The first report of the canon committee appeared in 2006, and consisted of a background document (part A) and the actual proposal for the canon with the windows (part B). Part C was published in 2007 and was a reaction to the debate on the canon proposal, which had by then taken place.
3. Princess Máxima’s speech can be read on www.koninklijkhuis.nl under Actueel resp. Toespraken. In the social debate on the speech, a major part was played by writer and professor Paul Scheffer, who, in his book Het land van aankomst, actually advocates new forms of “national bonding”(Scheffer 2007).
4. Wetenschappelijke Raad (Scientific Council) 2007, p. 24.
5. See for example the debate between Amartya Sen and Kwame Appiah in Gorelick 2006. The geoethical principle of global citizenship has been discussed in Stoddard & Cornwell 2003, among others.
6. Van der Lelij et al. 2008. Some other recent Motivaction studies in this area are: Lampert et al. 2007, Van der Lelij et al. 2007, Metaal and Van der Lelij 2007. These reports can be consulted at www.ncdo.nl under Ons kenniscentrum (abstracts and complete texts).
7. Dekker & De Hart 2005.
8. Wetenschappelijke Raad (Scientific Council) 2007, p. 24.
9. See the well-known essay ‘Patriotism and cosmopolitanism’ by Martha Nussbaum (1994). The young people’s opinion cited is described in Beneker & Van der Vaart 2008, p. 5.
10. A similar dichotomy in society as a result of neoliberal globalization is well described by Baumann (1999) among others. In the Netherlands, the issue has, for example, been raised by Thomas von der Dunk (2004) and Rein Heijne (2006).
11. North-South Centre 2005. For the research among primary school pupils see Zondervan 2007.
12. See Meerman’s research (2007).
13. A recent SCP report with many details on social participation is Bijl et al. 2007 (chapter 7). On practical idealism see Van den Berg & Koers 2003. There was a heated debate on the subject in the Dutch newspapers NRC Handelsblad and De Volkskrant in 2005; see for example Nieuwenhuis 2005.
14. Van der Velden 2007.
15. For a thorough and multidisciplinary analysis of the concept of global citizenship see Dower & Williams 2002.
16. Armstrong 2006.
17. John Urry (1999) poses a number of probing questions on this subject. For instance: if citizenship exists by the grace of inclusion and exclusion, are global citizens opposed to citizens of the world who do not consider themselves to be global citizens?
18. On ethics in a globalizing world see Singer 2002.
19. Dekker & De Hart 2005, p. 80.
20. What actors can conceivably be called global citizens and what logical and substantial problems are attached to such stretched ideas of citizenship is discussed in Beneker & Van der Vaart 2006, among others.
21. A few examples from Citizenship Studies must suffice here. Nyers (2004) pursues the matter of what the current preoccupation with security means for citizenship. Dean (2004) discusses the uncomfortable relation between solidarity and market thinking in European thinking on citizenship, in particular in Great Britain. The debate on what global citizenship could imply, can be found in Arneil 2007, Bowden 2003 and Schattle 2005, among others.