Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Citizenship StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccst20
Educating Europe's citizens: moving from nationalto post-national models of educating for EuropeancitizenshipAvril Keating aa National Foundation for Educational Research , Slough, Berkshire, UKPublished online: 06 Jul 2009.
To cite this article: Avril Keating (2009) Educating Europe's citizens: moving from national to post-national models ofeducating for European citizenship, Citizenship Studies, 13:2, 135-151, DOI: 10.1080/13621020902731140
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731140
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educating Europe’s citizens: moving from national to post-nationalmodels of educating for European citizenship
Avril Keating*
National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough,Berkshire, UK
(Received 19 October 2007; final version received 10 October 2008)
The relationship between the EU institutions and its citizens is once again foremost inthe minds of European policymakers and commentators. Recent referenda on Europeaninstitutional reform have been rejected by the citizens of France, the Netherlands and,most recently, Ireland, thus re-igniting debates across Europe about the quality ofEuropean democracy and the limits and possibilities of European integration.Educational reforms and initiatives are often suggested as means of fostering strongerties between political institutions and their citizens. This article therefore considershow European policies for fostering citizenship through education have fared thus far,focusing in particular on two questions: what sort of citizenship has been offered byEuropean education policies; and how have these policies sought to construct a sense ofcommunity amid the diverse peoples of Europe? These questions are examined from asocio-historical perspective, which illustrates that European institutions have longsought to harness education as a means of fostering European citizenship. However,this process also illustrates that European education policies have evolved over timefrom an ethnocentric ‘national’ model of citizenship education towards a post-nationalmodel in which the citizens of Europe are united not (only) by a common culture orhistory, but also civic values, educational skills, and a shared future. This post-nationalmodel, the author suggests, avoids many of the pitfalls of the national model ofeducating citizens, but nonetheless creates a new set of challenges for the citizens andinstitutions of Europe.
Keywords: citizenship; education; European integration; post-nationalism
Introduction
The relationship between the EU institutions and its citizens is once again foremost in the
minds of European policymakers and commentators. The rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by
the Irish public in a referendum in June 2008 has stalled, if not stymied, the latest stage in
the European integration process.1 This rejection echoed similar referenda results in
France and Holland in 2005, and has re-ignited debates across Europe about the quality of
European democracy and the limits and possibilities of European integration. As part of
these debates, questions have once again been raised about how European institutions can
connect with its citizens and ensure that its citizens are informed about (and therefore, it is
often assumed, in favour of) European integration.
ISSN 1362-1025 print/ISSN 1469-3593 online
q 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13621020902731140
http://www.informaworld.com
*Email: [email protected]
Citizenship Studies
Vol. 13, No. 2, April 2009, 135–151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Educational reforms and initiatives are often suggested as means of fostering stronger
ties between political institutions and their citizens; education has been used to this end
since the rise of the modern nation-state and mass schooling. And indeed the crucial role
played by citizens’ knowledge of the EU (or lack thereof) was underlined by recent
research on why the Irish electorate rejected the Lisbon Treaty (Millward Brown IMS
2008). This study found that voters’ lack of knowledge, information and/or understanding
was the most prevalent motivation behind Irish voters’ decision to abstain or vote no in the
latest referendum (p. ii). This lack of information and understanding is not restricted to
Irish voters; Eurobarometer surveys have consistently found that EU citizens have low
levels of knowledge about European integration and institutions.
Yet European institutions have been attempting to promote a greater understanding of
European integration through education for over five decades, which suggests that its
education policies to date have yet to bridge the gulf between European institutions and its
citizenry. Therefore, rather than proffering education as a panacea to this political
‘problem’, this article considers the relationship between European citizenship and
education, focusing in particular on how citizenship has been conceptualized in the
education policies of the European institutions, and how this has changed over time. In
other words, this article asks: what sort of citizenship is being offered by European
education policies, and how have these policies sought to construct a sense of community
amid the diverse peoples of Europe?
To examine this question empirically, this article analyses the way in which the
concept of citizenship has been framed in the education policies that have emanated from
the European Union and the Council of Europe over the past 50 years. I focus in particular
on the civic and political education2 policies of these institutions and, drawing on a
qualitative socio-historical analysis, I argue that education for European citizenship, and
the basis of belonging that these policies are designed to impart, have shifted considerably
over time. More specifically, I argue that European education policies have evolved from
an ethnocentric ‘national’ model of citizenship education towards a post-national model in
which the citizens of Europe are united not (only) by a common culture or history, but also
civic values, educational skills, and a shared future. This new approach, I conclude, avoids
the pitfalls of the national model of education, but is nonetheless problematic, not least
because it appears to still lack the political power or resonance to unseat the salience of
national citizenship in member states’ citizenship education policies.
First, however, I set out the theoretical and methodological tenets that underpin this
research.
Researching citizenship education beyond the nation-state
Although the notion of citizenship has been traced back to Ancient Greece (see Heater
2004a), there is as yet no academic consensus on its components, conceptual parameters or
implications. From a sociological perspective, citizenship has been broadly defined as ‘a
set of social practices which define the nature of social membership’ (Turner 1993, p. 4).
The criteria used to demarcate membership vary across communities, but political
theorists have developed broad models to categorize the political principles and
citizenship regimes that underpin states, namely, the liberal, communitarian, civic
republican and cosmopolitan models of citizenship.3
In the past, it has often been assumed that the community in question was a nation-
state, and indeed, that citizenship was seen as inextricably linked to the nation-state.
As Turner observes (2006, p. 225), ‘the development of citizenship is also a project of
A. Keating136
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
nation-building in which the creation of the national citizen is the primary project of the
nation-state’. Education (and in particular, formal schooling) played a key role in this
process. The consolidation of the modern nation-state was predicated on the creation of
common bonds such as a shared language, history and symbols.4 Schools provided an ideal
medium through which to introduce these ‘shared’ features to future generations, as well
as providing students with the information, literacy and skills required for political and
economic participation in the nation-state (see Gellner 1983, Hobsbawm 1987, Heater
2004b). As a result, national education systems became ‘a massive engine of integration’
through which the state attempted to ‘to create the civic identity and national
consciousness which would bind each to the state and reconcile each to the other’ (Green
1997, p. 134).
In tracing the relationship between the invention of the nation-state and education,
researchers have highlighted that national curricula have typically demonstrated a
number of features, namely: a strong emphasis on patriotism, a celebration of the
culture and history of the ‘nation’, and a mythologizing of national heroes and events.
The curriculum also tended to be ethnocentric, and reliant on establishing an ‘in’-group
and an ‘Other’ (Green 1997, Soysal 2002). However, the rise of transnational sites of
citizenship(s) has raised the question of whether the concept (and practice) of
citizenship is inextricably bound to the nation-state, or alternative conceptualizations
can (or indeed, must) be found (Wiener 1998, Turner 2006). These developments and
debates have, in turn, raised questions about how we conceptualize the manifestation of
European citizenship projects in education. Do European institutions provide a different
model or form of citizenship than nation-states? If so, can we measure or analyse
European citizenship education polices against the same criteria as nation-states? That
is, do European policies utilize the same techniques as nation-states to promote
citizenship through education, or do we need a new ‘post’-national way of describing
and characterizing the way in which European institutions seek to instil citizenship
through education?
The new sites of citizenship created by globalization are often labelled as
cosmopolitan or post-national models of citizenship, where post-nationalism is defined
as ‘any form of citizenship not exclusively defined by the nation state’ (Delanty 2000,
pp. 64–65). This is a rather broad, and unhelpful, categorization, but, over time, scholars
have helped to define and refine the features of this concept. Soysal (1994), for example,
has suggested that in the post-national state, citizenship rights are based on universal
principles and international law (for instance, the UN Convention on Human Rights)
which, even if non-binding in legal terms, encourage state compliance through their ability
to establish norms, frame discourses, and define competence and goals (Soysal 1994). As a
result, rights are becoming universalistic, uniform (at least in legal terms), and abstract and
defined at global level. At the same time, identities remain particularistic and territorially
defined, but as identities no longer necessarily engender rights and privileges, citizenship
rights and citizenship identity have been de-coupled and nationalist identity and post-
national citizenship can co-exist (Soysal 1994).
These theories have, in turn, been taken up in citizenship education research, and in
particular, within academic debates about education for global and cosmopolitan
citizenship. Central to these discussions has been the questions: what should or could a
truly post-national education look like? Moreover, what differentiates the national model
of citizenship education from the post-national model? In the efforts to address these
questions, various distinctions and features have been proffered (see, for example, Soysal
1994, 2002, Rauner 1998, Heater 1999); these are summarized in Table 1.
Citizenship Studies 137
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
These discussions give us some insight into the characteristics that a post-national
citizenship education can have. However, these features do not reflect the unique
characteristics of the European political space and EU citizenship. The latter, for example,
is based not on broad universal rights, but instead provides a very specific set of
specialized rights that are granted to a select and specific group (namely, those who are
already citizens of member states) (Wiener 1998). In terms of European citizenship more
specifically, elsewhere I have suggested a model for conceptualizing how nation-states
construct this new site of citizenship in and through their citizenship education
programmes (see Keating 2009). In national citizenship education programmes, I contend,
we should examine the following key variables: the status of European issues in national
citizenship education curriculum; the relationship between national and European
identities; the type and quality of European citizenship model presented in the national
citizenship education curriculum; the type and quality of citizenship education model
adopted in national curriculum; and whether the curriculum is based on a national or post-
national model of citizenship.
Yet this too has limited benefits for analysing EU and Council of Europe (CoE) policy
texts, for it focuses on the national arena, and assumes a national curriculum, the like of
Table 1. Features of the national and post-national models of citizenship education.
Dimensions ofcitizenship education National model Post-national model
Geographical focusand affiliation ofcurricular content
Patriotic (national seal,anthem, flag)
Focus on the region/the world
Internal (history, structure,and function of localand national government)
Focus on regional andinternational organizations(nationalism remains)
Citizenship Citizen of a nation Citizen of a regionand the world (citizenof a nation remains)
Human rights Rights and obligations arebased on national-leveldefinitions of membership
Human rights and obligationsare based on regionaland global-level definitions ofmembership (national-leveldefinitions remain)
Nature of rights andobligations are based onnational level issues
Nature of rights andobligations are based onregional and global-level issues(national-level issues remain)
Values Those espoused by thenation-state and nationalculture
Civic, ‘universal’ values – forexample, accepting personalresponsibility; recognizing theimportance of civiccommitment; respect for diversity;respect for cultural heritage andthe environment; promotingsolidarity and equity
Skills Participation in nationalinstitutions; oftenpromotes uncritical andpassive view of nationalinstitutions
For example, working collaboratively;awareness of social constructionof knowledge and culture;critical thinking
Source: Soysal (1994, 2002), Rauner (1998), Heater (1999).
A. Keating138
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
which the EU and the CoE are not able to produce. Moreover, to simply apply this
framework to European policies model risks conflating EU or European efforts with
national citizenship, and under-appreciating the ways in which the European political,
educational, and citizenship space may be distinct from the national arena. Although the
EU and the CoE are made up of member states, their policies are not merely an aggregate
of member state wishes. European integration is a multi-level mode of governance, and
within this, the European institutions (or at least the EU) must be seen as independent
actors, albeit ones that are bound by, and whose policies are mediated by, their member
states. In other words, we cannot merely apply theories of the nation-state and national
citizenship education to the European arena.
As a result, in this article I have not systematically ‘tested’ existing models of national
or post-national citizenship education against European policies, or considered if these
policies can fit into existing theoretical frameworks. Instead, their insights were used to
conceptualize and navigate this rich terrain, and as a ‘jumping off point’ from which to
explore the under-theorized concepts of citizenship education as it has been
(re)conceptualized in the emergent European space. In other words, while the above
theoretical frameworks guide the analysis, I also wanted to let the data speak for itself.
The salience of adopting this approach was underlined by the data itself,5 which, as the
following discussion illustrates, suggested that the European institutions have attempted to
move away from the national model and to develop alternative modes of citizenship
‘belonging’ that have not yet been acknowledged in post-national theories of citizenship
education.
Educating for Nation-Europe (1950–1970)
The means and mode of supra-national interventions into the education of citizens have
varied considerably over time. Citizenship education first became a matter of concern to
the European institutions in the aftermath of the Second World War. Education was
considered by the CoE to be a key instrument through which to foster reconciliation
between member states (Cajani 2003), and on its inception in 1949, the Council of Europe
quickly established cooperation frameworks to discuss educational reform in areas such as
history and geography education, and, of most salience in this context, what was described
as ‘civics and European education’. To pursue the latter objective, the CoE launched a
wide range of initiatives between 1950 and 1970, including a series of conferences on
civics teaching, a European Civics Campaign, and a guide for teachers, Introducing
Europe to senior pupils (CoE CDCC 1966). The documents associated with these various
projects provide insights into what civics and European education were perceived to entail
at this juncture, and, moreover, how citizenship itself was conceptualized. However, the
texts do not present a coherent conceptualization of (education for) citizenship; instead,
contradictory impulses (and discourses) permeate the text.
On the one hand, these documents appear to advocate a post-national conception of
citizenship and civic education. Individuals are constructed as citizens of their ‘own
country . . . but also of Europe and the world’ (CoE CoM 1964, p. 20) and civics education
is to be based on civic principles such as ‘respect for human person, the principles of
tolerance, justice, liberty and co-operation’ (cited in CoE CDCC 1963, p. 19).
The documents also warn against ‘creating an inward-looking European nationalism
which might create barriers between Europe and the world community’ (CoE CDCC 1963,
p. 20), and, in the case of history, using it for ideological or supra-nationalist ends. Indeed,
the 1966 European civics guide explicitly rules out a supra-nationalist future for Europe,
Citizenship Studies 139
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
instead proposing a federalist model, which ‘seems to be the only solution compatible with
the genius of Europe, with the factors inherited from the past and with the demands
imposed by the future’ (CoE CDCC 1966, pp. 27–28). In this vision of Europe, states cede
some sovereignty to a supra-national European government, thus ‘guaranteeing overall
unity’, but ongoing ‘legitimate differences’ are envisaged, particularly in terms of
religious and cultural practices (pp. 27–28).
That diversity in the latter is happily (and consistently) accommodated suggests that in
this model, it is assumed that citizenship rights and identity can be de-coupled, an
understanding which appears to resonate with the post-national view of citizenship that
has been proposed by Soysal (1994) and others. Yet, at the same time, the vestiges of
nationalist conceptualizations of citizenship are still apparent and indeed, ultimately
predominate. For one, these documents appear to be underpinned by a primordialist belief
in a pre-existing, immutable European culture that binds Europeans together. There are
thus widespread references to ‘common cultural heritage’ and ‘common roots’, and
Europe is defined at one point not only as a ‘political entity in embryo’, or a geographical
region, but also as:
. . . an ancient society, deeply marked by Christianity and humanism, which has found someconcrete expression in a civic system loosely called ‘democracy’. (CoE CDCC 1963, p. 17)
This suggests that Europe and its citizens are not merely (or only) united by democratic,
civic principles, but also by ethno-cultural ties. Moreover it also suggests that citizenship
was seen to be linked not only to rights and civic values, but also to the existence of a pre-
political community. This approach is arguably more akin to the liberal communitarian
view of citizenship (which emphasizes the importance of a pre-political community) than
the liberal cosmopolitan understanding of citizenship (where rights and civic values take
precedence) (Delanty 2000, pp. 25–26, 53–60).
Second, and relatedly, the policy documents implicitly and explicitly construct an
‘Other’. In earlier documents, ‘Europe’ is defined in terms of, and equated with, Western
European democratic states and by implication, the communist states are not part of
Europe (Delanty 2000, p. 17). By 1966 this conceptualization of Europe has shifted and it
is explicitly stated that ‘Warsaw and Budapest, Prague and Bucharest are still part of
Europe, whatever their countries’ political regimes’ (CoE CDCC 1966, p. 34). However,
that the status of the political regime is disregarded re-enforces the notion that ‘European-
ness’ is ethno-cultural, but it also creates the need for a new ‘Other’. In this 1966
introductory guide to Europe, a distinction is drawn between Europe and Africa, Asia and
Arab countries, the one proclaimed for genius and innovation, the ‘Other’ derided by
comparison for its adherence to tradition. (De)colonization and the ‘errors, faults . . . , and
crimes even, of Europe’ on these regions are acknowledged, but this is swiftly followed up
by an insistence on the contribution of Europe to these regions, and the ongoing sources of
pride in Europe (pp. 32–33).6
Finally, the 1966 Introduction to Europe text also uses techniques that have
traditionally been deployed in nationalist models of education. For example, the texts
emphasize the need for ‘readiness to subordinate particular interests to the good of the
European community’ (CoE CDCC 1963, p. 20), loyalty (CoE CDCC 1966, p. 18), and
even ‘sacrifices’ (CoE CoM 1964, p. 21). In addition, the texts also create myths, symbols,
and heroes, and use geography and history with a view to granting Europe a ‘central
position’ in the hearts and minds of students. This latter tendency is perhaps best illustrated
in the following extract from the Council of Europe’s teaching guide:
A. Keating140
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Europe’s central position is a geographical fact. German, English and American geographersand economists have proved this . . . The European phenomenon is illustrated in world historyby some unique facts of which Denis de Rougemont quote three:
1. Europe discovered the whole of the earth and nobody ever came and discovered Europe.2. Europe has held sway on all continents in turn and has never yet been ruled by any foreign
power.3. Europe has produced a civilisation which is imitated by the rest of the world, but the
converse has never occurred. (CoE CDCC 1966, pp. 30–31)
This extract also demonstrates that, through this text, the CoE was disseminating a highly
Eurocentric view of history and education to teachers and students across (Western)
Europe.
In short, through efforts such as these the CoE attempted to design a ‘European civic
spirit’ that would not imply or engender ‘a cosmopolitanism in which the sense of
patriotism is lost’ (cited in CoE CDCC 1963, pp. 18–19). Thus, despite attempting to
create a civic education that transcended the nation-state, policymakers struggled to move
beyond the techniques and conceptualizations that had been successfully utilized by
nation-states: namely, mythologizing a common heritage, history and culture, giving the
materials an ethnocentric focus, and creating the myth of an ‘Other’. In essence, therefore,
the CoE citizenship education policies appear to imply the creation of a ‘Nation-Europe’.
Nonetheless, these efforts met with little success and, two decades on, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that the European dimension to
education had ‘still to be effectively integrated into teaching’ in member states (CoE
Parliamentary Assembly 1989, no. 1111). Indeed, by the late 1960s, member states had
become frustrated with the institutional inefficiencies of the Council of Europe and began
instead to look towards the EU as a forum for educational cooperation (Corbett 2005,
pp. 52–60). This institutional shift opened the door for new modes of European
educational cooperation, but it also marked the beginning of a new phase in European
citizenship education policy. Developments in citizenship education policy were
dominated by the European Union for the next 20 years, but, as we shall see in the next
section, the EU also struggled to move beyond a state-centric notion of citizenship and
citizenship education when policies of this nature were introduced in the 1970s.
The EU dimension to education for European citizenship (1970–1990)
EU action and interest in education and citizenship education emerged at a time when the
role and goals of the institution were being reassessed and expanded. In particular, the
expanding membership and scope of EU had prompted concern among European leaders
about the legitimacy, identity and democracy of the institution, and the feasibility of
further economic integration.7 Until this point, it had been assumed that economic
integration would ultimately result in socio-political integration (Shore 2004, p. 42).
However, the apparent lack of citizen support for European integration led European
leaders to believe that further action ‘would have to be complemented by some form of
popular identification and a means of demonstrating European “added value”’ if it was to
be successful and acceptable to the ordinary citizen (Warleigh 2001, p. 22). It was in this
context, then, that the Heads of State of Europe ‘decided that the time ha[d] come’ to forge
a European identity and issued the 1973 Declaration on European Identity (European
Commission 1973).
Various means of achieving this end were proposed during the recurrent debates on
this topic in the 1970s and 1980s, but education was repeatedly cited as a suitable vehicle
Citizenship Studies 141
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
through which to achieve these goals (see European Commission 1974, Adonnino 1985,
Education Council 1988). The EU’s first formal foray into education policy8 in the early
1970s thus echoed the citizenship and political debates of this period and included the goal
of promoting education about Europe (or the so-called ‘European dimension to
education’) (see Janne 1973, European Commission 1974). Education in this vein, it was
believed, would instil positive attitudes towards European integration in the Community’s
future citizens and generate popular support and legitimacy for institution and its
endeavours (Heater 2004a, pp. 214–215).
Yet what the European dimension to education was to entail was only vaguely defined.
Policy documents issued by the EU in the 1970s do state that the European dimension to
education encompassed a range of areas: teacher and pupil mobility between member
states; language teaching; the European schools system; and, of particular salience in this
context, teaching about Europe in schools (Janne 1973, p. 26). Despite their interest in the
latter, however, the documents do not describe in any detail what schools should teach
about. Indeed, the first Action Programme for educational cooperation (Education Council
1976) makes no reference to the European dimension to the curriculum, and merely
commits member states to ‘promote and organise . . . educational activities with a
European content’ (Part IV, p. 3).
The EU’s reticence on this issue can be partly attributed to the political sensitivity
surrounding EU involvement in education in the 1970s and 1980s, and the related
institutional constraints that were imposed on EU action (Neave 1984, p. 125). At this
juncture the EU had no legal competency to discuss education policy, much less propose
content for member state curricula. Member states therefore resisted the European
Commission’s efforts to develop the concept of the European dimension to the curriculum
(Neave 1984, p. 125, Heater 2004, p. 251).
As the Council of Europe was also often silent on the issue during this period, further
clarification on the European dimension was not provided until 1988 when the
Commission published a report on Enhanced treatment of the European dimension in
education (European Commission 1988) and the Council of Ministers of Education
adopted the 1988 Resolution on the European dimension in education (Education Council
1988). This Resolution followed in the wake of the 1985 Adonnino report, which had
re-emphasized the importance of educating about Europe in order to create a ‘People’s
Europe’ (Adonnino 1985, p. 18). The Resolution re-affirms member states’ commitment to
the European dimension to education, and ‘invited both the Member States and the
Community to take action such as integrating the European dimension into the school
curriculum, teaching material and teacher training’ (European Commission 1993, Annex).
More to the point, however, is the fact that the Resolution firmly established the link
between education and Community identity and belonging (Hansen 1998, pp. 11–12) with
its proclamation that the European dimension should ‘ . . . strengthen in young people
a sense of European identity’ as well as preparing young people for economic and social
life in the EU and improving their knowledge of the Community and other member states
(Education Council 1988).
Once again, however, the specific policy actions to be undertaken by member states
and the Commission continued to be only broadly defined. As such, it is difficult to
interpret the rationale or underlying goals of the EU policies during this second phase, or
how citizenship was conceptualized. However, the education policy documents from this
second phase as a whole do reveal that there was concern that education about Europe
could inspire a Euro-nationalism or rely upon exclusionary boundaries towards the rest of
the world. For example, these issues, and potential means of avoiding these pitfalls, were
A. Keating142
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
discussed in the 1973 Janne Report on Community education policy (Janne 1973, pp. 27–28).
One can also locate a concern to found European citizenship on shared civic values of
‘democracy, social justice and respect for human rights’ (Education Council 1988), which
suggests that Europe was to be constructed as a civic community and not simply as a
historical or cultural community. This focus on civic and democratic principles was also in
keeping with the post-national models of citizenship education that have been proposed.
Yet at the same time, and perhaps almost inevitably, the policies focused on promoting
Europe to the exclusion of a global dimension, and relied (at least in part) on creating or
rediscovering a common socio-cultural community, with a shared heritage and system of
values. These characteristics thus implied and established boundaries, an in-group and an
out-group that was inevitably exclusionary. As a result, the EU’s European dimension
policies appear to maintain some of the features and weaknesses of the national model of
citizenship education.
But perhaps the most significant feature of the education policies from this period is
the emphasis placed on inculcating a European identity, the ‘affective’ dimension to
citizenship, and the dearth of references to citizen rights or political participation. At this
juncture, the EU was gradually establishing civil, social, economic and political rights
within other arenas (Wiener 1999), and yet the sole reference to rights in the educational
documents of this period is in the 1988 Resolution note that one of the foundational
elements of European development is respect for human rights (Education Council 1988,
Part I). This suggests that during this second phase of European citizenship-building, the
goal of the EU’s citizenship education policies was first and foremost to create affective
ties between the citizens and institutions of Europe.
The rationale for, and indeed the necessity of, this approach can be attributed (at least
in part) to the fact that Union citizenship had not yet been legally established, and that the
EU’s role in education was still tentative and without legal foundation. It would perhaps be
unrealistic to expect the policies of this period to advocate education about a citizenship
status that did not yet exist. However, it is interesting to note that the 1988 Resolution only
makes reference to economic and social participation, despite the fact that opportunities
for political participation (in other words, voting in European Parliament elections) had
been made available almost 10 years previously.
The dearth of references to Union rights suggests that education was primarily seen as
a vehicle for the rather limited goal of establishing affective ties to European institutions,
and creating the myth of a community primarily bound by cultural, historical, and
economic ties. The inclusion of economic ties in these policies marks out the EU’s policies
from those previously put forward by the Council of Europe. Yet in other respects, the
conceptual basis of the EU’s citizenship education proposals do not appear to differ
markedly from the Council of Europe’s policies of the 1950s and 1960s. Like their
predecessors, the EU policies relied heavily on creating Eurocentric myths of a common
culture and heritage, and struggled to move beyond the national model of citizenship
education. The limitations and lacuna of the EU’s approach to citizenship education
during this phase become especially apparent when compared with the educational
initiatives that were initiated after the ratification of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, a task that
is undertaken in the next section.
A new era for Europe and the education of Europe’s citizens (1990–present)
The 1990s signalled the start of a new phase in the content and governance of the European
political space, one which was marked by rapid changes and which had momentous
Citizenship Studies 143
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
implications for the policies and discourses of European citizenship and education. The
most notable development in citizenship policy, or at least the most noted, was the formal
establishment of citizenship of the Union when the Treaty of European Union (TEU) was
signed in Maastricht in 1992 (see Wiener 1998, Warleigh 2001). However, significant
shifts were also taking place within the European identity-building project(s). In
particular, the end of the Cold War and subsequent democratization of Eastern European
states opened up the potential borders and membership of the EU, and, by extension, the
question of who could be ‘European’. Where previously ‘European identity’ was
effectively restricted to Western Europe, these political developments meant that Eastern
Europe could no longer be constructed or viewed as the ‘Other’ and the borders of Europe
and European-ness had to be redefined (Delanty 1995, pp. 121–123). That is, the former
communist states had to be incorporated not only into European institutions, but also into
the ‘imagined’ Europe.
In an echo of these political and legal developments, promoting active, democratic
citizenship was identified as a core and transversal policy objective for all European
educational frameworks (European Commission 2000), and both the EU and the Council
of Europe launched a plethora of policy statements and projects on the subject, including
the Council of Europe’s project on Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) (1997 –
ongoing), the European Commission study Education and active citizenship in the
European Union (DGXXII 1998), and the EU’s framework of Key competences for
lifelong learning (Education Council and European Parliament 2006), which includes a
list of civic competences that should be instilled through education.
Even a brief review of the attendant policy documents reveals that European policy
discussions have shifted considerably in a short period of time. Where in the past
citizenship (or at least education for European citizenship) tended to be defined
predominantly in terms of identities, cultures and histories, the policies that emerged after
1992 instead tend to depict citizenship as a multifaceted and largely post-national concept.
For example, rights – be they civil, political, social, economic, cultural or human – are
now deemed to be the cornerstone of the CoE’s Education for Democratic Citizenship
project and a rights discourse permeates the documents of both institutions. Moreover, in
keeping with the post-national conceptualization of citizenship, these policy documents
indicate that rights are not exclusively derived from the nation-state, but are also granted
by European and international rights frameworks (see, for example, the CoE’s EDC
glossary in O’Shea 2003).
In doing so, these policies have shifted the concept of citizenship away from the state,
and de-coupled the link between citizenship and state borders, national cultures, or ethnic
markers. The features of (and rationale for) this shift were outlined in the Council of
Europe text (prepared by Audigier 2000), which established the core concepts of the EDC
framework being propounded by the CoE:
We have . . . passed from a conception of citizenship that placed the emphasis on feelings ofbelonging and . . . strong emphasis on obedience to the collective rules, to a moreindividualistic and more instrumental conception of citizenship, a citizenship that gives prideof place to the individual and his rights and relegates to the background the affirmation ofcollective and partial, in the geographic and cultural sense, identities embodied by States.(Audigier 2000)
Even where citizenship status is defined exclusively in terms of the state (and the
ongoing relationship between the two is acknowledged in some of the key policy texts),
greater emphasis is placed on the citizen as a member of a political or civic community
than as a member of a cultural, ethnic or historical community. This distinction is
A. Keating144
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
significant because it reflects the fact that citizenship identities are no longer seen as
inextricably linked to nations or statehood. Instead, citizenship identities are seen as
fluid, multiple, and ‘dissociate[d] . . . from belonging to a particular territory’ (Birzea
2000, pp. 30–31), thus allowing for individual citizens to identify with and ‘belong’ to
communities in a variety of contexts, be it at local, national, European and global levels,
and/or in different cultural or ethnic communities. Indeed, even the scope of the Council
of Europe’s EDC project activities is not territorially limited; although EDC policies
focus primarily on the pan-European context, EDC is to be studied and promoted ‘in
Europe and beyond’ (Audigier 2000) and to ‘foster a global vision of society’ (Birzea
2000, p. 28).
This decentred conceptualization of citizenship is dependent on a distinction being
made between citizenship identity and citizenship status, as Birzea (2000, p. 10) made
clear in his report to the Council of Europe. By separating citizenship status and identities,
socio-cultural citizenship can be de-coupled from political citizenship, and citizenship
rights and political identities from national (socio-cultural) identity, as post-nationalist
theories predict. In keeping with this assumption, since the mid-1990s EU education
policies have indicated that political identity is to be based on civic principles such as
respect for ‘human rights/human dignity; fundamental freedoms; democratic legitimacy;
peace and the rejection of violence as a means to an end; [and] respect for others’
(European Commission 1996). Similarly, the EU’s 2006 Framework of key competences
for lifelong learning views civic and cultural competences as distinct and virtually
unrelated skill sets (Education Council and European Parliament 2006).
The Council of Europe, for its part, proposes a similar value model and examples of the
‘universal’ and civic foundations of citizenship identity permeate these European
documents. However, it is two further (and less explicit) transformations that underline the
manner in which the conceptualization of citizenship has evolved beyond a state-centric
conception of citizenship. First, citizenship identities are not seen as innate but instead are
acquired and ‘assume[d] of her/her own free will’ (Birzea 2000, pp. 30–31). This contrasts
with the assumptions of the ethno-cultural model of citizenship, where it is assumed that
citizenship is, at least in part, innate and immutable. Second, the (supra)nationalist features
of education that have previously been employed in European policies (and discussed
above) have waned. Eurocentrism is explicitly disavowed (see, for example, Luisoni’s
1997 report), the nationalist techniques of mythologizing Europe are absent, and the need
for loyalty and ‘sacrifices’ for the ‘good of the European community’ (CoE CoM 1964,
p. 21, CoE CDCC 1966, p. 18) has been replaced with an emphasis on accepting
‘compromises in the reconciliation of different interests in Europe’ (CoE 1991). Similarly,
there is a greater recognition of the cultural and ethnic pluralism within European states,
and not just between European states, as had previously been the case. The citizen thus
becomes a cosmopolitan member of multiple communities rather than merely a citizen of a
nation-state or European super-state.
Uniting the multiple communities of Europe: shared (civic) values, skills, and futures
Despite the emphasis placed on multiple belongings and individual rights, however, the
European policy documents do retain the notion of a collective to which individuals
belong and a ‘common good’ they have responsibilities towards. After all, as the Audigier
Report to the Council of Europe (2000) highlights, citizenship ‘is always a matter of
belonging to a community’. The EDC project thus seeks to unite these various
Citizenship Studies 145
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
communities ‘around a common political project and shared values’ (Birzea 2000, p. 65),
but the EU appears to have even more grand aims, a ‘mission’ even, namely, to:
. . . muster the people of Europe to take on one of the greatest challenges of all time: to constructa greater Europe, within a continent that is characterised by cultural differences,differing economic approaches and varying natural environments . . . (EuropeanCommission 1996)
Given these major differences between these various communities, what do the European
policy texts suggest will unite Europe’s disparate citizens and peoples? As we have seen,
in the past European education policies emphasized the common culture and heritage, and
adopted a Euro-centric view of citizenship and citizenship education. In this phase,
however, the supposed ‘common’ European culture and heritage plays a more limited role,
and European policies also make clear that ‘common cultural heritage’ is but one
dimension of citizenship, and not even the most important. In particular, the above
discussion illustrates that these more recent European policies suggests a civic basis for
citizenship identities and values. These values are universal, and, as portrayed here, are to
bind Europeans in a broad but common framework of values and in the political project of
promoting and protecting respect for democracy, human rights, equality, and other
universal values.
Furthermore, greater emphasis is placed on creating a shared future rather than
reflecting on Europe’s common past. Take, for example, the following quote from the
1996 report from the Study Group on Education and Training:
The main values the Study Group considers as part of Europe’s inalienable heritage are valuesoriented towards the future, not values that are the lines of defence of our civilisation.(European Commission 1996)
Similarly, the 1993 Green Paper on the European dimension exhorted that teachers be
required, among other things, ‘to learn about the different aspects of Europe today and its
construction for tomorrow’ (European Commission 1993, emphasis added). Future-
oriented statements such as these are littered throughout the EU’s policy documents, a
trend Soysal (2002) has also noted.
Finally, European policy documents indicate that the citizens of Europe are to share
common educational skills or ‘competences’, as they are now more frequently referred to.
For example, both the Council of Europe and the EU have devised guidelines and
frameworks that delineate the ideal competences that all member state education systems
should reflect in order to encourage (good) citizenship in students (Audigier 2000, CoE
CoM 2002, Education Council and European Parliament 2006). The information that is
imparted may vary from state to state (thus allowing for national diversity), but the
underlying competences (critical thinking, ability to participate and communicate, and so
on) should be the same across Europe, thus forging a European community of citizens and
workers with common competences. The significance of ‘shared competences’ is further
underlined when one considers how the relationship between knowledge and citizenship
has been constructed in this arena. Within European educational policy documents and
rhetoric, citizenship has been closely linked to education, and indeed EU documents
almost suggest that it is education, rather than legal rights, that governs access to
citizenship in the so-called ‘Knowledge Society’. For example, in its Memorandum on
lifelong learning, the Commission argued that:
Both employability and active citizenship are dependent upon having adequate and up-to-dateknowledge and skills to take part in and make a contribution to economic and social life . . .(European Commission 2000, p. 5)
A. Keating146
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
The Commission’s White Paper on teaching and learning was even more explicit:
The individual’s place in relation to their fellow citizens will increasingly be determined bytheir capacity to learn and master fundamental knowledge. The position of everyone inrelation to their fellow citizens in the context of knowledge and skills therefore will bedecisive . . . in the structure of our societies. (European Commission 1995, p. 2)
As the overarching aim of the EU is to become ‘the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world’, this suggests that the (ideal) European Citizen is
the Educated Citizen, one that has been schooled and skilled for participation in
postmodern and globalized societies. However, the above discussion indicates that the
ideal citizen must also adhere to civic values, be an active participant in all aspects of
social life, and in creating a shared future for themselves and for Europe.
Conclusion
In sum, the European policies that have emerged since the 1990s appear to constitute a
significant shift in the conceptual and practical underpinnings of European citizenship
education. From the 1950s to the early 1990s, both the EU and the Council of Europe
relied upon a nationalist model of citizenship education, in which immutable (European)
identities, affective ties, histories and ‘culture’ were prioritized over rights or
participation. Citizenship continued to be linked to the notion of a nation, the primary
innovation of these institutions being to apply this idea on a European level to create a
Nation-Europe or a European supra-state. European education policies after the 1990s, by
contrast, reflected a new and broader conceptualization of citizenship and citizenship
education. These policies were concerned with promoting citizenship education, and not
just European citizenship, and shifted the emphasis of its education policies away from
histories and identities and towards rights, participation, civic principles and, perhaps most
significantly, the individual.
In doing so, contemporary European citizenship education policies appear to
dissociate citizenship from states, from socio-cultural identities, and from particular
territories. As such, the policies echo the supposedly post-nationalist model of citizenship
and citizenship education. However, these same policies do nonetheless seek to create a
sense of community in Europe and of Europeans and above it was suggested that in the
contemporary vision of the European community, the community is composed of citizens
who are united by their shared (civic) values, skills, and futures. This conceptualization of
citizenship in Europe allows for socio-cultural diversity (be it at the national, regional or
community level), but purports to bind these diverse groups in a common endeavour,
namely, building a European community of knowledge, democracy, and participation.
In their efforts to shift the locus of citizenship from the national community to the
individual and the European community, these European education policies appear to
constitute a considerable challenge to national citizenship. Not only do they offer an
alternative site of citizenship; they also offer an alternative conceptualization of
citizenship itself, one that dispenses with many of the key factors that linked citizenship to
the nation-state. However, this model is not without its own problems. For one, the
reliance on shared competences to provide a platform for European citizenship, and to
equate the European citizen with the Educated citizen, ignores the educational inequalities
that persist, and raises questions about whether European citizenship is available to all or
limited to an educated elite.
Also problematic is the way in which the EU citizenship is linked to the knowledge
society and economic goals; as Mitchell (2003, 2006) has observed, post-national and
Citizenship Studies 147
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
cosmopolitan discourses of citizenship can be co-opted and used to promote neo-liberal
economic goals, to the detriment of the social democratic goals of promoting civic
awareness or respect for individual and group difference. That said, it could also be argued
that the current concern with citizenship education policy in Europe is an attempt to find a
countervailing force to combat the worst excesses of neo-liberalism. Or perhaps European
education policies are attempting to marry neo-liberal modes of governmentality and
communitarian-cosmopolitanism discourses of citizenship in an effort to achieve the twin
goals of the New Europe – a knowledge economy and a cohesive community of
democratic states. The political and economic integration of European states are bound
together, and thus these contrasting interpretations open up interesting avenues for further
research.
Finally, questions remain about whether this new European model provides a viable
and sufficiently persuasive, alternative for member states. Thus far, evidence suggests that
the member states of Europe have been slow to abandon their commitment to promoting
national citizenship (see Philippou et al. 2009). National curricula include information
about European institutions and EU rights, but national citizenship remains the central
focus of curricula and textbooks, and member states tend to reframe the notion of
European citizenship to reflect the national model of citizenship and the histories,
traditions, and socio-political priorities of the nation-state. The centrality of national
citizenship to member state curricula is not in itself surprising or problematic; European
and other supra-national citizenships assume that national citizenship will remain, and
supra-national citizenship is a supplement to this rather than a wholesale replacement.
However, the reframing engenders two crucial problems. First, the reframing process
produces a wide range of interpretations of what European citizenship should be, and
undermines the possibility of creating a pan-European consensus on what European
citizenship really means for its citizens, thus defeating what is arguably one of its central
functions.
Second, if European is continuously re-imagined in, and for, national frames of
reference, this begs the question as to whether European citizenship has any meaning
independent of national citizenship. This, in my view, is crucial for if it has no autonomy,
and is used merely as a means to reinforce national citizenship, how can European
citizenship have any real meaning for its citizens? Similarly, if education for European
citizenship is reduced to this, it is arguable that no amount of ‘education about Europe’
will bring Europe closer to its citizens, or help them to make critical and informed
judgements about European integration, be it to vote yes or to vote no. In short, education
policy alone cannot close the gap between European institutions and its citizens; we must
first fill the gap where European citizenship should be.
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council, UK. The author wouldlike to thank Madeleine Arnot, Gerard Delanty, and Jacky Brine for their insightful comments alongthe way.
Notes
1. Under its constitutional rules, the government of Ireland is obliged to hold referenda beforeratifying new treaties or significant treaty amendments, such as the Lisbon Treaty. Thereferendum on whether the Lisbon Treaty could be ratified was held on 12 June 2008, andrejected by the Irish electorate by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6% (turnout was 53%).
A. Keating148
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
2. Citizenship education is a broad concept that can be delivered through the curriculum in a widevariety of subject headings, including civics or civic education, social studies, politicaleducation, history education, and even personal, social, and health education.
3. For an overview of each of these types of citizenship, see Delanty (2000).4. This analysis assumes a constructionist view of national identity and citizenship, which is
contested by the essentialist perspective proposed by Smith (1992) and others.5. The data in question are policy-related documents from the Council of Europe and the European
Union, which were published in the public domain between 1950 and 2005. Because of thescope of the study (1949–2006), a large number and wide array of documents from bothEuropean institutions were examined in this study, including (and primarily): legal documents(Treaties, Recommendations, Resolutions, and so on) that had been signed by all member states;policy documents (for example, Green Papers, White Papers, Communications, and so on)published by the European Commission and the CoE Directorate for Education for discussionand consideration by member states; and expert and consultancy reports commissioned by theEuropean Commission and the Council of Europe. I also examined a number of internaldocuments (primarily minutes, memos, interim reports, and so on from meetings of the EUworking groups on citizenship education that took place from 2004 to 2006); research papersprepared by European officials; and teaching materials and guidance produced by the Councilof Europe in the 1960s. The number of documents of this type in the public domain is small, andtheir inclusion dependent on their availability. These documents were identified using apurposive sampling strategy that involved internet and library catalogue searches for policydocuments in the public domain that pertained directly or indirectly to citizenship education.
6. Interestingly, a contrasting approach can be found in a history teaching guide of the same period,which highlighted that Europe’s ‘spiritual heritage . . . was enriched in several waves from Asia’and the ‘untenability of [a] narrow view of Europe as the “Occident” . . . ’ (CoE CDCC 1966, p. 12).
7. Ireland, the UK and Denmark joined the EU in 1973.8. Prior to this, EU action had largely been limited to vocational education, degree recognition and
the education of migrant children (see Corbett 2005).
References
Adonnino, P., 1985. Report from the ad hoc Committee on a People’s Europe. Bulletin of theEuropean Economic Community, 7, 18–30.
Audigier, F., 2000. Basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship[online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: http://www.coe.int [Accessed2 February 2006].
Birzea, C., 2000. Education for democratic citizenship: a lifelong learning perspective,DGIV/EDU/CIT (2000) 21. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: http://www.coe.int [Accessed 2 February 2006].
Cajani, L., 2003. Between cosmopolitanism, Europeanism and nationalism: the shifting focus in theteaching of history in Europe. In: A. Ross, ed. A Europe of many cultures, Proceedings from the2003 CiCe Conference. London: CiCe, 225–231.
CoE (Council of Europe), 1991. Resolution n81 on ‘The European dimension of education: teachingand curriculum content’. Adopted at the Standing Conference of European Ministers ofEducation, 17th Session, Vienna, 16–17 October 1991.
CoE CDCC (Council of Europe Council for Cultural Cooperation), 1963. Civics and Europeaneducation at the primary and secondary level. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.
CoE CDCC (Council of Europe Council for Cultural Cooperation), 1966. Introducing Europe tosenior pupils. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.
CoE CoM (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers), 1964. Resolution (64) 11 on civics andEuropean education. Adopted by the Ministers’ Deputies on 6th October 1964 [online].Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: http://www.coe.int. [Accessed 1 September 2006].
CoE CoM (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers), 2002. Recommendation Rec (2002)12 of theCommittee of Ministers to member states on education for democratic citizenship. Availablefrom: http://www.coe.int. [Accessed 1 September 2005].
CoE Parliamentary Assembly, 1989. Recommendation No. 1111 (1989) of the ParliamentaryAssembly on the European dimension of education. Available from: http://www.coe.int[Accessed 1 September 2006].
Citizenship Studies 149
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Corbett, A., 2005. Universities and the Europe of knowledge. Basingstoke and New York: PalgraveMacmillan.
Delanty, G., 1995. Inventing Europe: idea, identity, reality. London: Macmillan.Delanty, G., 2000. Citizenship in a global age: society, culture and politics. Buckingham: Open
University Press.Directorate General XXII (DGXXII), 1998. Education and active citizenship in the European Union
[online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/citizen/index_en.html[Accessed 2 February 2007].
Education Council, 1976. Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education, meetingwithin the Council, of 9 February 1976 comprising an action programme in the field ofeducation. Official journal of the European Communities, C 038 19/02/1976, 1–5.
Education Council, 1988. Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting withinthe Council of 24 May 1988 on the European Dimension in Education. Official journal of theEuropean Communities, C 177, 6-7-88, 5–7.
Education Council and European Parliament, 2006. Recommendation of the European Parliamentand the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning. Brussels:Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission, 1973. Declaration on European identity. Bulletin of the EuropeanCommunities, 12, 118–122.
European Commission, 1974. Education in the European Community COM(74)253 final/2.Supplement 3(74) to Bulletin of the European Communities.
European Commission, 1988. Rapport prepare par P. Vanbergen: enhanced treatment of theEuropean dimension in education, V/751/88-EN: Brussels.
European Commission, 1993. Green Paper on the European dimension of education. COM(93)457.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission, 1995. White Paper: education and training: teaching and learning; towardsthe learning society, COM(95)590. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.
European Commission, 1996. Study Group on Education and Training report: accomplishingEurope through education and training. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Union.
European Commission, 2000. Memorandum on lifelong learning, SEC(2000) 1832.Gellner, E., 1983. Nations and nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Green, A., 1997. Education, globalization and the nation state. Basingstoke and New York:
Macmillan Press.Hansen, P., 1998. Schooling a European identity: ethno-cultural exclusion and nationalist resonance
within the EU policy of ‘The European dimension of education’. European journal ofintercultural studies, 9 (1), 5–23.
Heater, D., 1999. What is citizenship? Cambridge, Oxford and Malden: Polity Press.Heater, D., 2004a. A history of education for citizenship. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Heater, D., 2004b. Citizenship: the civic ideal in world history, politics and education. 3rd ed.
Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Hobsbawm, E., 1987. The age of empire. London: Abacus.Isin, E.F. and Turner, B., 2002. Citizenship studies: an introduction. In: E.F. Isin and B. Turner, eds.
Handbook of citizenship studies. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage, 1–10.Janne, H., 1973. For a Community policy on education a report by H. Janne. Supplement 10(73) to
Bulletin of the European Communities.Keating, A., 2009. Nationalising the postnational: reframing European citizenship for the civics
curriculum in Ireland. Journal of curriculum studies, 41 (2), 159–178.Luisoni, P., 1997. What secondary education for a changing Europe? Trends, challenges and
prospects: report of the final conference of the project ‘A Secondary Education for Europe’[online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available from: http://www.coe.int [Accessed1 September 2006].
Millward Brown IMS, 2008. Post Lisbon Treaty Referendum research findings, September 2008[online]. Available from: http://www.mbims.ie/ [Accessed 25 September 2008].
Mitchell, K., 2003. Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: from the multicultural self tothe strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (4), 387.
A. Keating150
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
Mitchell, K., 2006. Neoliberal governmentality in the European Union: education, training, andtechnologies of citizenship. Environment and planning D: society and space, 24, 389–407.
Neave, G., 1984. The EEC and education. Stock on Trent: European Institute of Education andSocial Policy and Trentham Books.
O’Shea, K., 2003. Developing a shared understanding: a glossary of terms for education fordemocratic citizenship, DGIV/EDU/CIT (2003) 29. [online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Available from: http://www.coe.int. [Accessed 10 October 2005].
Philippou, S., Keating, A. and Hinderliter, D., 2009. Citizenship education curricula: comparing themultiple meanings of supra-national citizenship in Europe and beyond. Journal of curriculumstudies, 41 (2), 291–299.
Rauner, M., 1998. Citizenship in the curriculum: the globalization of civics education in AnglophoneAfrica, 1955–1995. In: C.L. McNeely, ed. Public rights, public rules: constituting citizens in theworld policy and national policy. New York and London: Garland, 107–124.
Shore, C., 2004. Whither European citizenship? Eros and civilization revisited. European journal ofsocial theory, 7 (1), 27–44.
Smith, A., 1992. National identity and the idea of European identity. International affairs, 68 (1),55–76.
Soysal, Y., 1994. Limits of citizenship: migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Soysal, Y., 2002. Full report of research activities and results of the One World project [online].Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk [Accessed 12 October 2005].
Turner, B.S., ed., 1993. Citizenship and social theory. London, Newbury Park and New Delhi: Sage.Turner, B.S., 2006. Citizenship, nationalism and nation-building. In: G. Delanty and K. Kumar, eds.
Sage handbook of nations and nationalism. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage,225–236.
Warleigh, A., 2001. Purposeful opportunists? EU institutions and the struggle over Europeancitizenship. In: R. Bellamy and A. Warleigh, eds. Citizenship and governance in the EuropeanUnion. London and New York: Continuum, 19–39.
Wiener, A., 1998. European citizenship practice: building institutions of a non-state. Oxford andBoulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wiener, A., 1999. From special rights to specialized rights: the politics of citizenship and identity inthe European Union. In: M. Hanagan and C. Tilly, eds. Extending citizenship, reconfiguringstates. Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 195–227.
Citizenship Studies 151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al F
lori
da]
at 0
7:36
28
Oct
ober
201
4
