Universities as ‘Global Citizens’: Reflections and Learning …
103
becoming one more example of the typical neo-colonialist (we, the powerful), hegemonic (we, the universal knowledgeable people), ethnocentric (we, the good, moral
and desirable whites from the north), a-historicist (we, forgetting local history when
addressing problems), de-politicist (we, forgetting the imbalanced power relations),
self-focus (our self-affirmation and CV building), and paternalistic (we the helpers
for these poor souls) organisations that have passed by the area in the past, getting
plenty of information and leaving nothing meaningful for the community (Andreotti
2014, 2016).
This kind of structured global citizenship assessment could be part of the formative assessment of sustainable development projects from the outset. Through this
assessment, researchers could reflect and aim at working towards global citizenship ‘otherwise’ (Andreotti 2015) and critical global citizenship by recognizing and
surfacing their neo-colonial and soft global citizenship. This could provide awareness of our own neocolonial and paternalistic assumptions and behaviours and would
not only improve the outcomes of the projects in terms of equality, but also may
encourage change in and around us.
Researchers in international projects could thus pursue a position of ‘constant
vigilance and compassion’ in order to recognise patterns of complicity in perpetuating past colonialisms and oppressions. Researchers’ attention to their agency in the
project would be regularly and critically interrogated, using this kind of framework.
To attempt to equalise power relations is a complex and difficult path to tread and
risks opening up new inequalities. Treading carefully is perhaps the best we can do.
As we realize our wider complicity and vested interests in social hierarchies and principles
of separability the auto-pilot position is to reproduce these same patterns precisely while
declaring our innocence or transformation (Andreotti 2015: 224)
Another approach could come from the reflection of researchers who, like some
of the authors of this paper, grew up in developing countries, but have lived and
worked in a developed country for decades. The process of working with marginalised
communities in Colombia has allowed them to understand that in order to engage
with the local communities they need to go and live (at least temporarily) with their
everyday needs (how to access the area, how to adapt to normal working days under
local weather conditions, local food, culture, wages etc.), as well as the benefits of
living in the area (access to more ecosystem services and quality of life) to identify
opportunities for local community development. More than “feeling responsible for
changing or saving the world there” (Andreotti 2014: 22), or assuming that the
developed world is “better”, the question is how to improve the local conditions
and make the most of the benefits that those conditions offer to local communities,
from their own perspective, without promoting our “developed country” beliefs as
universal. The collaboration then works when both sides (universities in developed
countries and communities in developing countries) understand that working together
allows them to identify more opportunities and more solutions to problems.
Rather than sympathy or pity from the “developed” world (Andreotti 2014), developing countries could be acknowledged as offering a service urgently needed: more
natural resources (forests, rivers, mountains, seas) with greater and richer services
103
becoming one more example of the typical neo-colonialist (we, the powerful), hegemonic (we, the universal knowledgeable people), ethnocentric (we, the good, moral
and desirable whites from the north), a-historicist (we, forgetting local history when
addressing problems), de-politicist (we, forgetting the imbalanced power relations),
self-focus (our self-affirmation and CV building), and paternalistic (we the helpers
for these poor souls) organisations that have passed by the area in the past, getting
plenty of information and leaving nothing meaningful for the community (Andreotti
2014, 2016).
This kind of structured global citizenship assessment could be part of the formative assessment of sustainable development projects from the outset. Through this
assessment, researchers could reflect and aim at working towards global citizenship ‘otherwise’ (Andreotti 2015) and critical global citizenship by recognizing and
surfacing their neo-colonial and soft global citizenship. This could provide awareness of our own neocolonial and paternalistic assumptions and behaviours and would
not only improve the outcomes of the projects in terms of equality, but also may
encourage change in and around us.
Researchers in international projects could thus pursue a position of ‘constant
vigilance and compassion’ in order to recognise patterns of complicity in perpetuating past colonialisms and oppressions. Researchers’ attention to their agency in the
project would be regularly and critically interrogated, using this kind of framework.
To attempt to equalise power relations is a complex and difficult path to tread and
risks opening up new inequalities. Treading carefully is perhaps the best we can do.
As we realize our wider complicity and vested interests in social hierarchies and principles
of separability the auto-pilot position is to reproduce these same patterns precisely while
declaring our innocence or transformation (Andreotti 2015: 224)
Another approach could come from the reflection of researchers who, like some
of the authors of this paper, grew up in developing countries, but have lived and
worked in a developed country for decades. The process of working with marginalised
communities in Colombia has allowed them to understand that in order to engage
with the local communities they need to go and live (at least temporarily) with their
everyday needs (how to access the area, how to adapt to normal working days under
local weather conditions, local food, culture, wages etc.), as well as the benefits of
living in the area (access to more ecosystem services and quality of life) to identify
opportunities for local community development. More than “feeling responsible for
changing or saving the world there” (Andreotti 2014: 22), or assuming that the
developed world is “better”, the question is how to improve the local conditions
and make the most of the benefits that those conditions offer to local communities,
from their own perspective, without promoting our “developed country” beliefs as
universal. The collaboration then works when both sides (universities in developed
countries and communities in developing countries) understand that working together
allows them to identify more opportunities and more solutions to problems.
Rather than sympathy or pity from the “developed” world (Andreotti 2014), developing countries could be acknowledged as offering a service urgently needed: more
natural resources (forests, rivers, mountains, seas) with greater and richer services