Given the United States’ outsized role in the world, and Clinton and Trump’s quite different positions on foreign relations, the time seems ripe for Americans to ponder their positions in the world.  

A few years ago, as an assistant professor of sociology at Stetson University in Florida, I taught an introductory sociology class every semester.  Early on each semester, when my students learned about the sociology of culture, I would ask them in class “are you a cultural relativist, or a cultural universalist?”  I explained that a relativist chooses to respect people’s different cultural practices while a universalist (or absolutist) insists that there are certain universal values and practices that all nations should respect regardless of their particular cultures.  

It may come as no surprise that when simply presented with that question and those definitions, my students tended to identify as relativists.  Countries like the United States that lean individualistic on the continuum from individualism to collectivism are more likely to produce relativists since individualism inclines people to respect individual and group differences, at least in principle, if not in fact.  However, I then posed the following issue-based questions, one after the other:             

Question 1: Is it bad for people living in high-income nations to condemn the practice of child labor in poorer countries because we think youth belong in school?

Question 2: In 1997, two Iraqi brothers, aged 34 and 28, living in Nebraska were charged with statutory rape of their wives, aged 13 and 14, whom they married following Muslim law and the customs of their community in southern Iraq.  Was it right for Nebraska to prosecute the two men, or should their culture have been respected?

Question 3: What about female “circumcision,” also known as “female genital mutilation”?  Should nations intercede to stop this painful and sometimes deadly practice, or should nations respect cultural differences?  

As you might expect, a lot of my students qualified their relativism as we moved from Question 1 to Question 3.  Many defended child labor in poorer nations, but maintained that people should follow the laws of the country in which they reside, and grimaced to learn about female genital mutilation, but weren’t sure how to respond to its practice abroad.    

This question of relativism vs. universalism seems all the more relevant now as the U.S. presidential contest spurs debate about how and how much the United States should engage with the world.  Relativism, in principle, inclines people not to meddle in the affairs of other nations out of respect for their own sovereign ways of doing things, however much we may find these ways — like child labor, child marriages, and female genital mutilation — reprehensible.  Universalism, in principle, inclines people to promote their values abroad, and for westerners that can mean banning child labor, early marriages and female genital mutilation, among other practices driven by religious tradition or economic hardship.     

In the United States, how the majority of Americans feel about foreign relations depends substantially on domestic economic conditions.  In economic downturns, Americans tend to lean isolationist or protectionist.  Isolationists (as critics sometimes deprecatingly call them) generally believe the United States should focus its resources more on its own people’s needs, and not get involved in other nations’ often thorny issues.  In contrast, internationalists believe the United States stands to gain in the short and long-term by engaging more with the world, culturally, economically and/or politically.  

There are, of course, right and left-wing versions of these positions.  Leftist isolationists call for worker-protecting trade barriers and greater domestic investment while right-wing isolationists are more likely to call for withdrawal from the United Nations and crackdowns on illegal immigration.  In turn, left-wing internationalists call for advancing human rights and elevating living, work and environmental standards worldwide while right-wing internationalists are more likely to call for strengthening security, democracy and/or capitalism by economic sanction, or force if necessary.  

If you lean toward relativism, how to engage abroad seems simple on its face: don’t interfere.  If you lean toward universalism, however, should the United States only act when it can get other nations on board (multilateralism), or should the U.S. go it alone when it can’t find partners (unilateralism) so long as it’s doing the right thing?  And, what courses of action are appropriate and effective?  Should the U.S. government simply issue a public condemnation, try diplomatic dialogue, offer economic incentives, fund nonprofits fighting child labor, child marriages, female genital mutilation, and other practices we oppose, or threaten military action?  

Underlying your answers to these questions are fundamental assumptions, conscious or not, about what motivates people and nations.  So-called “realists” believe people and nations are motivated foremost by self-interest, and this accordingly drives nations to seek security, economic advantage, political prestige, and/or military glory, depending on their governments.  Idealists, on the other hand, assert people and nations are or should be motivated by ideals, whether religious (e.g., Christianity or Islam), political (e.g., democracy or nationalism), economic (e.g., capitalism or socialism), or otherwise.    

These varied and overlapping positions can help any citizens of the world think more deeply about how they and their government should engage with the world.  But it’s especially important for people in the most internationally powerful nations — like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China — to think about their positions and answers to these questions.  

So, are you a universalist or relativist?  An isolationist or internationalist?  A multilateralist or unilateralist? A realist or idealist?     

Paul Lachelier, Ph.D.
Founder, Learning Life

Note: Learning Life’s Citizen Diplomacy Initiative (CDI) works to nurture peace and educational development through international, family-to-family dialogue and collaboration.  This post explains the directions in which we are considering going with the family-to-family collaborations.  This is a working document subject to revision.  

The Problems:

Worldwide, families are looking for ways to make a living.  But often, this means working for employers, foreign or domestic, who dictate harsh terms of employment (i.e., where, when and how you will work and for how much pay) and care more about profits than their employees and the families and communities their workers support.    

Further, globalization is enriching a relative few who make and shape international relations through businesses, governments or nonprofit organizations they own or direct.  In the globalization process, people and their communities are, for better or worse, becoming more like each other as millions of individuals across the world become the employees and consumers of major transnational companies like Walmart, Apple, Toyota, ExxonMobil and McDonalds.  Transnational companies are not going away, but people and their communities do not have to, nor should they, lose what makes them unique.    

What if there were ways for people to provide for themselves, nurture local ownership, and build the unique assets of their families and communities?    

The F.A.C.T. Nexus:

People can and do often pursue food, art, community and tourism (FACT) separately.  However,  they can form a complementary nexus for people to provide for themselves, nurture local ownership, and build family and community assets.  

Food

Everyone needs to eat every day, and many if not most people enjoy eating.  Moreover, growing, processing and serving food constitute major sources of jobs in communities worldwide.  In many places, food sector workers work for chain restaurants controlled by large domestic or transnational companies.  But they could, alternatively or in tandem, work for themselves, offering residents and visitors a unique taste of their family, region and country’s culinary traditions at home, in restaurants, or community spaces and events.      

Art

Art in all its forms — paintings, photography, video, dance, music, jewelry, makeup, clothes, etc. — is a way to nurture creativity and expression, and to make homes and communities more meaningful and attractive.  Art can also be presented or sold to residents and visitors to help families and communities earn a living.  

Community

Every community has stories about its past, present and future.  These local stories often connect with national and international stories that can make local stories interesting to residents and visitors alike.  Examples include a local person who became famous, a product made locally yet widely known, the local imprints of a national or international war, remarkable local events that connect with universal human experiences.  Families and communities can record and tell these stories in unique, engaging ways, using manifold media — photos, audio, video, painting, music, dance, etc. — to create temporary and permanent community exhibits and events that can attract local to global viewers.

Tourism

Tourism can be top-down or bottom-up.  In many places tourism is top-down: controlled to varying extents by large foreign or domestic hotel and entertainment chains that create profitable, packaged experiences.  Perhaps the most problematic are deluxe resorts that fly vacationers in and out of their all-inclusive enclaves, with no need for their clients to experience let alone connect with the (often poor) communities that surround and serve the resort.  

However, tourism can be and sometimes is bottom-up or grassroots: owned by local businesses, employing local people, and devoted to building the assets of their people (e.g., experiences, knowledge, skills, products) and communities (e.g., art exhibits, museums, memorials, murals, monuments, gardens, parks, farms, restaurants, cafes, markets).              

Our F.A.C.T. Approach:

Learning Life envisions people in international dialogue to nurture their children, families and communities through shared food, arts, community and tourism projects.  

Accordingly, where CDI families are in international dialogue, Learning Life mentors will work with their families to engage parents and children in short to long-term projects that build the FACTs of their own community.  Our mentors will work with local nonprofits and advisors to provide their families’ children with training and hands-on experiences in food, arts, community and/or tourism.  The paired families and their mentors will then come together via video chat for the children to report and discuss what they have learned through their project work since they last talked.  

These opportunities to share project learning and work with other families in other nations working on similar projects will help circulate ideas, methods and lessons learned in order to deepen learning and enrich local projects.  In addition, through shared FACT projects, families will have the opportunity to collaborate to create joint products, like comparative photo or video displays that can add an eye-catching international component to local art or community exhibits and installations.  

As the children learn and do more, they can move from simpler to more complex and ambitious projects.  In so doing, they can learn how to provide for themselves and their families, nurture local ownership, and build the unique assets of their families and communities.  And, when the families and/or communities are able and willing, simpler projects can lead to more ambitious for-profit and non-profit international collaborations for mutual benefit.     

Call to Action:

Individuals interested in getting involved in Learning Life’s CDI as families, dialogue organizers, youth mentors, language interpreters, or project advisors should contact Learning Life at email@learninglife.info.   

Paul Lachelier, Ph.D.
Founder, Learning Life

Climate change, species extinction, infectious diseases, trade piracy, internet hacking, terrorism, war, trafficking in drugs, weapons and slaves, etc.  There are no lack of deadly serious problems that cross national borders in our contemporary world.  Indeed, these problems, substantially driven by our increasingly intertwined economies, define our age as global, and call for global citizens.  

There are currently four types of actors that act legally across national borders:

1. National governments facilitate or hinder international trade, cultural and educational exchanges, and diplomatic relations.   
2. Inter-governmental bodies like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Criminal Court, establish and seek to enforce transnational laws.
3. Multinational businesses like Walmart, Samsung, Toyota, Saudi Aramco, Apple and many others seek profits abroad.   
4. Transnational NGOs like the Red Cross, Greenpeace, Gates Foundation, Amnesty International, Avaaz and religious associations mobilize people to pursue common goals across borders.

Each of these actors can make our international problems better, or worse, and advance the public interest or special interests.  Whether they do one or the other always depends in no small part on the number and character of their agents.  This fact raises a fundamental challenge for our global age: how do we nurture the global citizens who can drive our international institutions to tackle our common problems, and serve the public interest?

Our world needs more global citizens, yet citizenship is too often defined in national terms.  Governments of course routinely define and enforce citizens’ rights and responsibilities in national terms.  On a world scale though, the United Nations has representatives from its member countries, but it doesn’t have citizens.  

We are not at the stage in world history when people consider themselves first as citizens of the Earth, and second as citizens of their countries.  Hopefully, we will one day reach that stage because that perceptual shift — along with enforced equal rights and responsibilities as global citizens — would go a long way toward building a more just and peaceful world.  At this time though, given the serious transnational problems we face, we can move toward that more just and peaceful future by nurturing global citizens more systematically.     

There are, of course, countless local to international organizations and campaigns doing their level best to engage ordinary people in varied public issues, from community health initiatives to coordinated climate change demonstrations across the world.  There are, however, far fewer organizations working systematically to nurture global citizens.

At their best, global citizens are active, informed, resourceful, wise and good.  They are active in connecting with others to better understand their world, and to address its needs and problems.  They are informed about our world’s geography, history, economy, politics and culture.  They are resourceful because they can think creatively, applying limited resources to meet social needs and solve public problems.  They are wise because they understand human weaknesses and strengths, and use this to democratically design more effective, peaceful and just institutions.  They are good because they put the interest of the world’s people ahead of their personal, group or national interest.  Clearly, this is an ideal of a global citizen, but ideals give us something to aspire to, and work for.  

In modern times though, people across the world are “entangled yet detached,” to borrow the phrase of the contemporary American philosopher, Michael Sandel.  We are entangled because our decisions as workers, consumers and voters often shape the lives of strangers near and far, especially if one lives in the most powerful nations.  We are detached because we are most often unaware of the many complex ways our lives are intertwined, and we feel few if any obligations to those outside our family and friends, let alone strangers beyond our borders.  Further, the widely prevailing and assumed way to live worldwide entails work, play and rest, but little if any citizenship beyond local charity, periodic voting, and military service.       

More and more schools are developing international curricula because they understand that future citizens must be able to think and act across borders.  But NGOs, if not also governments, inter-governmental bodies and multinational businesses, need to pick up where schools inevitably leave off, at the end of the school day and at graduation, to create manifold and attractive opportunities for people to engage with the world.  

Global citizens are not born.  They’re made.  Global citizenship is not a phase or fashion.  It’s our future.  And it’s time we built that future.

Paul Lachelier, Ph.D.  
Founder, Learning Life    

(c) Paul Lachelier 2016.  All rights reserved.  

Learn about Learning Life’s new Citizen Diplomacy Initiative here.