II. BASIC LEARNING NEEDS FOR LIVING TOGETHER IN THE FACE OF GLOBALIZATION

Learning to live together in the twenty-first century needs to be developed in a world characterized by a number of increasing interdependency. One of the concepts used to define this interdependency is that of globalization, of which some of the most significant characteristics are economic globalization, the emergence of democratic government, the rise of a new economy alongside its precursors accompanied by a worsening of social inequalities, change in cultural landscapes, and the dynamism of the sciences and technologies.

Economic globalization is the most visible symbol of these interdependencies. There are those who highlight its potentially positive effects: access to markets without frontiers, an increase in trade, an increase in capital, etc. Others stress the accompanying risks: the dominance of the economic over the political, widening of the gap between rich and poor, weakening of the regulatory role of the State in the area of public policies (education, social, health, etc.) and difficulties for civil society, even though it may be very active, to find replacements, particularly in the poorest sectors.

These processes of globalization are not entirely new. They have been in motion for several centuries. But what defines them in their current state is their extremely rapid pace of expansion and their consequences both objective and subjective, that is the “ subjects ”, people in their daily lives and their deepest feelings. These are the characteristics which have brought globalization in recent years to the fore, and have led to some symbolic events and violent clashes between its supporters and its opponents.

Clearly, we are witnessing, in all societies, the emergence and spread of a sentiment of anxiety as regards the future. Globalization is both a source of hope and uncertainty, whether in the field of work, social security, or culture, since the mechanisms likely to master economic, political and cultural interdependence through building strong personal feelings of belonging and security are not in place. We are witnessing the growth of societies at risk and of an “ anxious majority ” with increasingly inward-looking attitudes, yet which calls for “ globalization with a human face ”.

Building such a “ globalization with a human face ” will only be possible if we also globalize the will and ability to live together more successfully by capitalizing on its opportunities and by seeking to eliminate its risks.

The impact of globalization on basic learning needs and on instructional possibilities lead to various reflections. These reflections suggest the hypothesis that there are some learning needs for living together more successfully shared by different cultural and social contexts.

From this general need, it is possible to identify other learning needs for living together more successfully: some are more closely linked to social participation; others concern participation in the learning society and its interdependencies. Both broad discussion units of the forty-sixth session of the ICE and both major debates will provide the opportunity to intensify the exchanges and analyses of the problems and solutions to meet these needs.

1. Learning needs for living together and social participation

Contemporary society is characterized by, among others, the emergence of democratic systems and by fundamental socio-economic and cultural changes involving the challenges of renewing the concepts and commitments in terms of citizenship, social cohesion and tension between strengthening both world culture and local cultures.

From the emergence of democratic government to a renewed citizenship

Quantitatively, democracy has made enormous advances over recent decades. “ The number of States whose leaders have been elected according to party systems and multiple candidatures has increased from 22 in 1950 to 119 in 2000 ” (4). The creation of democratic governance has generated enormous expectation. But although the creation of a system for popular participation in decision making is a necessary first step, it is only one facet of building democracy. Democracy is also measured by the way in which it operates and by its ability to contribute to creating conditions which enable equitable participation in human development.

Democracy consists of a certain number of fundamental elements, including: respect for the dignity of all human beings, their right to have an influence on institutional, social, professional and political life; the Rule of Law; holding of free elections; freedom of opinion and expression and dialogue between citizens, social partners, political parties, the State and civil society.

Democratic functioning is based on individual behaviour. Democracy involves the right to become a citizen and the possibility of widening areas of citizenship. However, this democratic functioning is also based on collective behaviour and democracy also consists of the process of participation in institutions, including in educational institutions, according to the rights, responsibilities and abilities of all men and women. These forms of expression are an integral part of the economic, social and cultural realities and specificities of every people - its tradition and its history - and change frequently. Democratization and the condition of citizenship are thus processes which have to be learnt from the earliest of ages and throughout life. They are never irrevocably definitive nor are they fully satisfactory conditions. “ Old democracies”, for instance, are often apathetic, disinterested and inward-looking.

Youth from very diverse societies seem to waver between disenchantment for politics and dynamism in the associative and public way they intervene in social, cultural and religious movements which attract a growing number of them, institutions and increasingly diverse people.

Concern over an education in democratic citizenship is increasingly present in all education systems.

Some decades ago, when the relationships between democracy, citizenship and education were being sought, the first was exclusively related to learning institutional forms of public regulation.

In this context, the learning challenges essentially consisted of training electors, representatives and civil servants of a State of Law. In current conditions, ambitions with regard to educational contributions to citizenship are growing. So that known forms of democratic participation and new forms of engagement strengthen it, discover new ways of institutionalization and became established in the appropriate spaces, people need to have the appropriate knowledge, abilities and values to do this, which call for devoting more time to their training and to developing new concepts. What can and must learning do? How can it exploit the fact that school is a privileged environment, where everybody spends a number of years and contributes to forming a “ micro-society ”?

Possibilities and limits of learning for social cohesion in the face of wars, violence and inequalities

Democratic progress has not always been successful in establishing or maintaining peace. Peace, the end of discrimination of all kinds and social cohesion do not come about naturally and definitively. One needs to prevent, mitigate and cure the worst causes, namely: unemployment, poverty, exclusion, discrimination, marginalization and violence of all kinds.

During the nineties, there were over 150 armed conflicts (5). Although war has always been a tragedy in itself, those which have impacted on our time have some distinctive characteristics. It is above all internal conflicts, with nationalist, ethnic or religious connotations, whose victims are first and foremost civilian populations.

According to UN statistics, 90 % of the victims of current conflicts in the world are civilians, of which a large proportion are women and children. More than two million children have been killed, millions of others wounded or disabled for life, 12 million left to their own devices after losing their homes, in the last decade alone. Children and the young often pay a particularly heavy price, not only as victims, but also as actors, “ volunteers ” or enlisted by force. UN estimates that there are at least 300 000 children in the world who take part in armed conflicts. Girls are also enlisted. They sometimes account for 25 to 35 % of recruits.

Military life does not only cause immediate destruction, it also jeopardizes a possible return to civilian life. Unsustainable burdens, malnutrition, appalling sanitary conditions, diseases (including AIDS), wounds and impairment greatly undermine their future. Witnesses and sometimes actors in atrocities, they are traumatized for life and their re-education is long and difficult.

Humanity is directly concerned by such war situations in general and the condition of children in particular, not only because it is “ immoral that adults want children to make war for them and that there is just no excuse, nor acceptable argument to arm children ”, but above all because they reveal a profound crisis of values, as much on the local, as national or international level.

But war is not the only form of violence prevalent.

Violence is also caused by unjust and unacceptable inequalities. According to reports by UNDP, inequalities between poor and rich countries and individuals have grown in unprecedented proportions. The ratio between the income of the richest and poorest countries was approximately 3:1 in 1820, 35:1 in 1950, 44:1 in 1973, and finally 72:1 in 1992. The gap between the rich and the poor is also growing within many countries. In some countries of the North, it has grown by more than 16 %. Economic growth is stagnating where the population is on the rise, with quite serious consequences on the possibilities for distributing available social wealth. A new concept has appeared in industrialized countries: that of “ new inequalities ” or “ new poverty ”, which affects social groups who until recently were not affected and which have been called the “ working poor ”. In countries considered as rich, this new category of people who live below the poverty line can be up to 20 % of the population. Several social classes are involved, but the phenomenon particularly affects immigrant populations. When urban concentration is added to the equation, the risks of possible escalation in violence rise.

Violence in the form of discrimination based on race, gender and religion is ubiquitous. For instance, in some countries unemployment rates for the coloured adult population are much higher than that of the white adult population. Worldwide, women occupy only 14 % of parliamentary seats. Religious minorities are confronted by physical aggression on the part of extremist groups.

It has been estimated that, worldwide, one women in three has been the victim of violence on the part of their partner and that approximately 1.2 million women and young women under the age of 18 are forcibly sent abroad into prostitution.

It is therefore necessary to highlight the fact that learning to live together means understanding the need to belong, for respect and cohesion and adhering to this, while at the same time rejecting social polarization, discrimination and violence.

As regards the need to ensure social cohesion, the onus very specifically falls on the rich, as much in terms of countries, communities or individuals. The fight against poverty also concerns those who benefit most from our common wealth, who wish and learn to live together to preserve peace and their own capacity for self-development.

Furthermore, although ignorance, poverty or human distress often provide fertile ground for conflicts, it cannot be forgotten that the political or military “ war lords ”, are rarely illiterate. This is true for inventors, dealers and manufacturers of increasingly sophisticated and light-weight arms which are therefore better suited to child soldiers. What purpose has education, up to higher education, served in such cases? History has shown that most of the time some intellectuals assume a large part of the responsibility for conflicts themselves and the general climate in which they breed.

Although it seems idealistic to think that this type of situation might be reversed only by changes in the field of education, it remains particularly desirable, in this context, to design educational structures and processes which, at least, attempt to offer equivalent training possibilities, given the diversity of starting points for individuals.

It can also be asked how far education itself has contributed to promote propaganda, to feed intolerance and to stoke up hatred. The results of certain studies on school textbooks in a country in which there has been war show, for instance, that the reading book, designed for third grade primary school pupils and used before the conflict, contained 17 % of text on the subject of war; out of this, 73 % portrayed war positively and only 25 % came out against war and for peace. In this same country, the new reading book with post-conflict editing only contained 8 % of text on the same subject on but the majority of this was still in favour of war.

Education's role in strengthening social cohesion has its critics. Some believe it is for society as a whole and economic and social policies in particular to deal with such issues. Others, on the contrary, think that although education cannot act alone, the aim of social cohesion is part of schooling's fundamental educational mission and that educational policies can play a crucial role. Education often participates in maintaining social disruption: all the studies show that there is a direct causal link between criterion of birth (and therefore of the socio-economic background) and successful schooling. By selecting at too early a time, by sometimes teaching right from the first years of school an education of failure rather than of success, by not giving sufficient importance to differences in pupil ability (their origin, their culture and their expectations), by omitting to “ give meaning ” to activities, education leads, even in the most developed countries, to a high rate of failure or abandon, often synonymous with economic and social marginalization and with violent reactions both inside and outside these establishments. Costly corrective and compensatory measures then need to be taken; some, such as “ continuation education ” are undoubtedly indispensable and beneficial. Yet the fundamental question which still needs to be raised with all the education actors is surely this: what can be done to ensure that all pupils take full advantage the first time round ”?

Learning to live together in the face of pressure between belonging to a “world culture” and supporting cultural diversity

Dissemination of cultural processes at international level is as important as that of political, economic and social processes  (7). Opinions on the characteristics and impact of the cultural dimension of globalization are often deeply-held and controversial.

Some believe that contemporary developments will necessarily lead to “one market = one language = one culture”, to the detriment of diversity. Opening up and building a world culture could bring about the threat of uniformization which would endanger the diversity of cultures and lead to the predominance of one single culture. Others describe the emergence of a world culture as a permanent process of construction and renewal, which is not entirely dominated by the culture of a single country or linguistic area. They appreciate enrichening blends, for instance in the field of music.

Firstly, the development of cultural globalization is linked to the evolution of mass popular culture and comprises both an opportunity for strengthening identification with the world and the risk of dictating cultural content only concerned with commercial gain and far-removed from seeking to live together. It also involves the risk of forgetting human group practices, expressions and values which are not closely linked to decision centres or which do not have the ability as others to access the “cultural marketplace”. Lastly, it runs the risk of individualistic withdrawal, with consequences on the intolerance and refusal both of the promising aspects of a world culture with growing humanist values and the humanist heritage of other cultures.

It seems that in the present context the vitality of each local and national culture needs to be reconciled with its integration in world culture. The fact that, for instance, the supremacy of English on the Internet is starting to be partly eroded shows a trend in this respect. In 1998, 75% of content on the Internet was in English, which dropped to 60% in 2000. It has been forecast to fall below 50% in 2003.

What is also obvious is that twenty-first century Man will need to be “both rooted in their own culture whilst receptive to others”. They also need to build a strong identity (dispose of languages, structures, spatial and temporal reference points, codes, values) whilst being open to other cultures.

This requires the construction and deconstruction of both dependence and freedom as regards community, national and global traditions, whilst rediscovering and cultivating shared universal values which would contribute more to wishing and knowing how to live together.

What can education bring to this field? Frequently education has played a role of cultural homogenization. In some cases, programmes, textbooks and even thinking on school life have been imported regardless of cultural differences. In others, educational proposals only took into consideration local or national cultures. How can these two extremes be avoided?

What role do the media, the family and religious leaders play as educators in the tension between the possibilities or restrictions of belonging to the “world culture” and to the direction in which it is moving, as well as to the enrichment and acceptance of creative diversity?

Essentially, the challenge is to learn to discover that, in the world, there are other people who speak, feel, think and act differently, not only because they belong to other cultures, but also because they share the same need to seek well-being, justice and beauty.

There is also a need to learn to discover that these “others” are not stereotypes of people wholly good or wholly bad, and that they are not part of a homogenous whole. These “others ” are human beings in constant interaction with their social, material and symbolic accomplishments. They are part of a culture, in all its grandeur and failings. And this culture changes meaning depending on how and from where it is perceived.

This involves contributing to an education which will give them the tools to find in others parts of themselves, the best of themselves, to provide all men and women with opportunities to build a “multicultural common identity” together which respects diversity.

2. Quality Education for all and participation in the knowledge society to bring about the learning society

The world today is characterized by the emergence and development of a “learning society”, in which research, production and access to knowledge is a major challenge.

The question of languages: a strategic dimension to learning to live together

Languages are essential not only for access to information, but also in terms of affective education and working together. Learning languages is therefore a strategic dimension of learning to live together. But there are an increasing number of new and growing demands which interfere with teaching languages.

The defence of the right to community identity, on the one hand, and the presence of the global economy and technology as leading forces with their own laws and rules, on the other, can, in some circumstances have a pincer effect, which fosters a certain type of language teaching which may become devalued. The two arms of the pincer are not in themselves questionable.

After years of acculturation of peoples from all over the world and research which shows the importance of the first language in the learning process, its presence in school cannot be ignored. Children learn their first language, very often their mother tongue, within their family and community. They learn through affectivity. Many studies show that access to higher forms of thinking and other languages is helped if this access involves their mother tongue.

Given the undeniable presence of a globalized economy and technology, it would be unrealistic to suggest that people in the twenty-first century should not be able to learn languages which facilitate regional and international communication. Lastly, the challenges of building citizenship through strengthening political, social and legal institutions, which are still national, compel the teaching of national languages.

Meeting this need is more difficult in situations of great poverty, where languages often do not even exist in written form and there is less available school time than in more comfortable situations. There is a need to combine school policies with economic, social, cultural and, very specifically, language policies.

But intervention in terms of teaching is also required. From this viewpoint: What do we mean when we talk about language teaching? Do we mean reading and writing of signs? In the past, language teaching was above all based on deciphering signs. But there is growing consensus on the need to place emphasis on understanding and the ability to communicate. More precisely, when deciding on education on living together, greater importance needs to given to the fact that learning each language provides a new opportunity for dialogue.

Moreover, at a time of learning throughout life, is it indispensable to teach all the required languages during the first years of basic education?

When the teaching of languages, especially the mother tongue and national language, combine pleasure and emotion, reason and personal, community, national and world memories, it is makes a great contribution to learning to live together. Children, the young and adults who can use language to resolve conflicts can avoid using force. Those in favour of peace, justice and the truth need the ability to develop stronger arguments, in which language plays a central role alongside scientific knowledge and modern information means.

The question of sciences: a paradigmatic case of permanent reconstruction

Sciences in general - and life sciences in particular - are evolving at a rapid pace. Being “scientifically literate” seems to be becoming an absolute necessity in our age, to better understand, respect and master the relationships with the planet of which humans are a part.

A scientific education adapted to the twenty-first century is discovering that it has to comes to terms with some new and more complex issues.

Knowledge - and more precisely science and technology-related knowledge - is updated at an increasingly rapid pace: in one generation, and even less in some fields, knowledge becomes obsolete. At the same time, the world and science are becoming more and more complex and relations between the various disciplines more and more interdependent.

Scientific discoveries and technologies have direct consequences for some basic aspects of people’s daily life such as health, food or reproduction. They also directly impact economic output and distribution as well as the possibilities of sustainable development through atmospheric pollution, the greenhouse effect, waste-related issues, the supply of water, etc.

Developments in science and technology, which bring hope and progress but are equally a source of concern, have a more ethical dimension than before (assisted reproduction, genetic modification of plants, animals and even human beings, increasing sophistication of arms - “clean bombs” - and their use - “surgical strikes”).

Today, science is a reality which affects everyone and which raises a fundamental problem for education. What do people need to be able to participate in a more enlightened way in debates and decisions whose main challenge can be stated as: what is humanity's place in all this?

Traditionally, school has often ignored scientific literacy and has attempted to pass on “learning products”. There was a need to pass on rather academic knowledge, which was considered as true for all of the learners’ lives, organized within a discipline framework itself considered as stable.

How can scientific literacy be achieved in the context of learning for all? How is it possible to build a strong social conscience with such an imperative? How can teaching sciences be made interesting and meaningful for learners and educators?

The growth of information and communication technologies: possibilities and limits

The revolution in communications paved the way for new “expert systems” for transmitting and accessing information, which are often more efficient at carrying out this task than educational system and schools. It is therefore vital that educational institutions examine the risks and opportunities that such new expert systems present.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) may bring huge potential for improving access to and the quality of education: the possibility of overcoming geographic distances, providing self-learning, training teachers, accessing global information in all fields... They are increasingly required in the context of societies where rapid change, the growth in knowledge and the demands of high-level and constantly updated training are in permanent demand. But ICTs widen the gap between those who already have access to education and those who do not. “In poor countries, and under present conditions, technologies may not be affordable; paradoxically, the new reality is that poor countries cannot afford not to fully use them.” (8). ICTs, moreover, are an integral part, both in terms of cause and effect, of globalization.

The extent of inequalities as regards access to information flows is huge, not only in terms of what is known as the “digital gap” or “digital divide” (information technology and the Internet) but also in terms of access to older and more traditional means of communication or information such as the telephone or television.

The “digital divide”, as regards access, is a reality at world level. Whereas OECD countries in 1998 had access to 490 main telephone lines, 594 televisions and 255 personal computers, including nearly 38 Internet Hosts per 1,000 people, developing countries had access to 58 main telephone lines, 162 televisions and only 0.26 personal computers with Internet hosts per 1,000 people. The situation in East and South Asia (excluding India) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) is contrasted further still (9).

But there are tangible differences as much within regions as within countries and even within developed regions, primarily according to social class, gender and age. For instance, high income populations have access to more than 48 personal computers with Internet hosts per 1,000 people, whereas low income populations have access to only 0.02 (10).

In addition to the purely quantitative or material aspect of access, the digital divide widens the “knowledge divide”, particularly as regards access to up-to-date information.

Thinking on the relationships between ICTs and education started at the end of the sixties, when it was said there would be a “scientific revolution in teachin” due to “teaching machines”. The revolution never happened, for at least two reasons: the limits of the technology at the time and the reactions of a still very strong traditional system and what was, still a weak, innovative, teaching method. With the rise in audiovisual technologies and above all of the television, the demise of schooling (and that of the book at the same time) was also predicted. Reality showed that educational systems, as a whole, have more or less stood the test of time, despite massive advertising campaigns for technical equipment and technologies - past or present - have yet to drastically change learning and teaching.

ICTs, for some, may offer the chance of training real learning communities, based on co-operation and interdependence instead of competition and individualism. Others believe, on the contrary, that ICTs strengthen individualism and restrict socialization in real situations (“I've got loads of friends on the Internet but none at school”).

As far as teachers are concerned, studies show that they are proportionally an above-average group in terms of access and personal use of ICTs (particularly the Internet). But they are not a homogenous group. Will new technologies provide the opportunity to sideline schools and teachers? Is this necessary? It would appear very difficult to think of an education in living together more successfully based on machines, even if they are interactive. How can affectivity be taught and socialization developed outside the process of institutionalization and interpersonal relationships?

Furthermore, a whole line of thinking is open on the relations between the alternatives offered by ICTs and the cost of education. Initial costs of installing new technologies are very high, but then the cost of a quality education for all would fall significantly, enabling more equitable access to the learning society.

The essential question for decision-makers and education leaders is how to exploit the positive aspects of such increasing interdependencies and how to grasp their perverse consequences in order to provide more opportunities for social participation and access to the learning society.

Faced with new realities, learning finds itself directly challenged since, by nature, it is supposed to allow people and society to learn to master their destiny. A tool for developing a sense of belonging at family, local, regional, national and global levels, it should be able to provide everyone with a desire for social cohesion which would foster freedom and creativity, as well as individual training to deal with an increasingly wide range of personal decisions in an environment characterized by doubt and a range of tensions.

Are the learning structures, contents and strategies we are attempting to promote able to meet all of the learning needs for living together more successfully?

---

4. World Forum on Education, Final report, Paris, UNESCO, 2000, p. 32. (Back)
5. See UNDP, 2000 World Human Development Report; International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Causes and Dynamics of Conflict Escalation (Report of a research project), June 1997; Dan Smith and PRIO, The State of War and Peace Atlas, New York; Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1997. (Back)
6. International Organization for Migration, The State of Migration in the World in 2000, Geneva, IOM and UN, 2000, p. 5. (Back)
7. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar et al., Our Creative Diversity, Paris, UNESCO Publishing, 1996. (Report on the Eorld Commission on Culture and Development). (Back)
8. World Education Forum, Final Report, Dakar, UNESCO, 2000. (Back)
9. UNPD, “ Human Rights and Human Development ”, in: 2000 Human Development Report, p. 201. (Back)
10. Ibid. (Back)
11. J. Delors et al., Learning: The Treasure Within, Paris, UNESCO Publishing and Odile Jacob, 1996, p. 12 onwards. (Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century). (Back)

---

Back to summary
Next page

[ICE Menu -

- Contact us]

Last update: 2-08-2001