hypothesis of a return to a mechanical solidarity, a hypothesis conversely
made by Schnapper, more recently in a book under the direction of Bernard
Rougier (2021) on *The Conquered Territories of Islamism (Les territoires conquis de l'islamisme)*. Instead of a conservative republican morality claiming to stand
on the side of organic solidarity to counter the supposed return of mechanical
solidarity, we need organs to shape collective thinking and to connect different
social demands: Durkheim "saw the state as a regulatory body that does not
impose rules from the outside but merely codifies norms that emerge naturally
from the division of labour" (Guérard de Latour, 2014, p. 154).

That being said, it is possible that the “contemporary explosion of a neo-
patrimonial [type of] local solidarities”, based on local custom, language, eth-
nicity or kinship, also reveals an inadequacy of republicanism, itself driven by
the Durkheimian belief in an Hexagonal exceptionalism, having supposedly
constituted one “same group [which] is both state and nationality”, due to
national centralisation, the French Revolution and the rationalist education
that would result from it (Birnbaum, 2018, p. 223). This is therefore an exercise
in thinking with Durkheim against himself.

On the one hand, his national-republican belief no longer holds. But on the
other hand, there remains his thought of the state as an organ of clear think-
ing, regulating, codifying the new norms and rules that emerge naturally from
the division of labour and new social aspirations that do not fail to accompany
it, even in the form of local solidarities that some equate with pre-modern
mechanical solidarity. We see how the critical neo-Durkheimian and repub-
lican approach we seek to build is not an *ad hoc* undertaking for working on
GCE.

4.1 *The Social Totality as an Engine of Pluralism*

Finally, the critical republican position is to say that school education is a focal
point for shaping society. If Durkheim did not believe in the return of mechan-
ical solidarity, deeming the division of labour irreversible, he stressed however
that one cult brings together the humans of modern societies: the cult of the
individual, also called 'cult of the human person'. Moreover, this cult is similar
to mechanical solidarity. It certainly has an increasingly focused content: as
Durkheim says, the collective consciousness tends to be reduced to it. None-
theless, it remains anchored in a concrete social reality, especially the nation,
as the author affirmed in *Individualism and Intellectuals*.

The individualist, who defends the rights of the individual, defends at
the same time the vital interests of society; for he prevents the crimi-
nal impoverishment of this last reserve of collective ideas and feelings
hypothesis of a return to a mechanical solidarity, a hypothesis conversely
made by Schnapper, more recently in a book under the direction of Bernard
Rougier (2021) on *The Conquered Territories of Islamism (Les territoires conquis de l'islamisme)*. Instead of a conservative republican morality claiming to stand
on the side of organic solidarity to counter the supposed return of mechanical
solidarity, we need organs to shape collective thinking and to connect different
social demands: Durkheim "saw the state as a regulatory body that does not
impose rules from the outside but merely codifies norms that emerge naturally
from the division of labour" (Guérard de Latour, 2014, p. 154).

That being said, it is possible that the “contemporary explosion of a neo-
patrimonial [type of] local solidarities”, based on local custom, language, eth-
nicity or kinship, also reveals an inadequacy of republicanism, itself driven by
the Durkheimian belief in an Hexagonal exceptionalism, having supposedly
constituted one “same group [which] is both state and nationality”, due to
national centralisation, the French Revolution and the rationalist education
that would result from it (Birnbaum, 2018, p. 223). This is therefore an exercise
in thinking with Durkheim against himself.

On the one hand, his national-republican belief no longer holds. But on the
other hand, there remains his thought of the state as an organ of clear think-
ing, regulating, codifying the new norms and rules that emerge naturally from
the division of labour and new social aspirations that do not fail to accompany
it, even in the form of local solidarities that some equate with pre-modern
mechanical solidarity. We see how the critical neo-Durkheimian and repub-
lican approach we seek to build is not an *ad hoc* undertaking for working on
GCE.

4.1 *The Social Totality as an Engine of Pluralism*

Finally, the critical republican position is to say that school education is a focal
point for shaping society. If Durkheim did not believe in the return of mechan-
ical solidarity, deeming the division of labour irreversible, he stressed however
that one cult brings together the humans of modern societies: the cult of the
individual, also called ‘cult of the human person’. Moreover, this cult is similar
to mechanical solidarity. It certainly has an increasingly focused content: as
Durkheim says, the collective consciousness tends to be reduced to it. None-
theless, it remains anchored in a concrete social reality, especially the nation,
as the author affirmed in *Individualism and Intellectuals*.

The individualist, who defends the rights of the individual, defends at
the same time the vital interests of society; for he prevents the crimi-
nal impoverishment of this last reserve of collective ideas and feelings
[whose object is moral individualism] which are the very soul of the nation. (Durkheim, 1898/2020, p. 286)

The socialist motif and its critical republican declination thus make it possible to give coherence and consistency to the multiculturalist version of GCE. On the one hand, the too rapid projection into a non-existent 'global community' explains why the proponents of the conservative motif reject the very idea of GC and rightly recall the principled reality of the nation. On the other hand, the conservative motif, in which classical republicans and some proponents of liberal nationalism are inscribed, does not sufficiently admit the reflexive scope of social sciences. Indeed, is the ideal of GC not already an integral part of ordinary conceptions of citizenship?

The socialist way, as Karsenti and Lemieux point out, responds simultaneously to the two preceding motifs: before recognising identities, it must be admitted that they derive from the 'cult of the person' specific to modern societies. This cult of the person is not a given, because it requires the inclusion of citizens in a political community, which is *de facto* national and is important to promote (Laborde, 2001; Levinson, 2010), whilst taking into account the reflective capacities of actors. This includes those of researchers and trainers, who themselves redefine and question the traditional frameworks for exercising citizenship from a possibly global perspective.⁸

## 4.2 *The Presence of the State in Teacher Training*

The Durkheimian gesture makes full sense in a research on teacher training, of which the state remains the privileged body, even if its reality is diffuse, contested or adapted to local contexts. Indeed, the state, in the Durkheimian approach, must not be reduced to its central organs such as the government, the National Assembly or the judicial system. Its presence is also manifested in everyday life, in France certainly, with flags (school *façades*, charter of secularism in blue-white-red colours), the symbol of Marianne (in town halls, on postage stamps, in administrative documents) or, in the GlobalSense research, through prescriptions, circulars and national examinations. The fact that the state also passes on international recommendations does not change this reality.

The presence of the state is one of the most salient issues in the GlobalSense research. The goal is to set up a training device that is common to the five countries, under the disputed label of GCE. However, each team has more or less leeway to do implement this device, depending on the local relationship of trainers, but also of pre-service teachers, to the state. Thus, the national civil service entrance examinations remain significant in France, with direct consequences on the relationship between the professional groups constituted by
[whose object is moral individualism] which are the very soul of the nation. (Durkheim, 1898/2020, p. 286)

The socialist motif and its critical republican declination thus make it possible to give coherence and consistency to the multiculturalist version of GCE. On the one hand, the too rapid projection into a non-existent 'global community' explains why the proponents of the conservative motif reject the very idea of GC and rightly recall the principled reality of the nation. On the other hand, the conservative motif, in which classical republicans and some proponents of liberal nationalism are inscribed, does not sufficiently admit the reflexive scope of social sciences. Indeed, is the ideal of GC not already an integral part of ordinary conceptions of citizenship?

The socialist way, as Karsenti and Lemieux point out, responds simultaneously to the two preceding motifs: before recognising identities, it must be admitted that they derive from the 'cult of the person' specific to modern societies. This cult of the person is not a given, because it requires the inclusion of citizens in a political community, which is *de facto* national and is important to promote (Laborde, 2001; Levinson, 2010), whilst taking into account the reflective capacities of actors. This includes those of researchers and trainers, who themselves redefine and question the traditional frameworks for exercising citizenship from a possibly global perspective.⁸

## 4.2 *The Presence of the State in Teacher Training*

The Durkheimian gesture makes full sense in a research on teacher training, of which the state remains the privileged body, even if its reality is diffuse, contested or adapted to local contexts. Indeed, the state, in the Durkheimian approach, must not be reduced to its central organs such as the government, the National Assembly or the judicial system. Its presence is also manifested in everyday life, in France certainly, with flags (school *façades*, charter of secularism in blue-white-red colours), the symbol of Marianne (in town halls, on postage stamps, in administrative documents) or, in the GlobalSense research, through prescriptions, circulars and national examinations. The fact that the state also passes on international recommendations does not change this reality.

The presence of the state is one of the most salient issues in the GlobalSense research. The goal is to set up a training device that is common to the five countries, under the disputed label of GCE. However, each team has more or less leeway to do implement this device, depending on the local relationship of trainers, but also of pre-service teachers, to the state. Thus, the national civil service entrance examinations remain significant in France, with direct consequences on the relationship between the professional groups constituted by
teacher trainers and their students, who are pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors (*conseillers principaux d'éducation*).

In the meantime, the margins of manoeuvre towards GCE are greater in Germany. This is due in part to the regulations already covering this subject, but also to the proximity to these professional groups of the federate states, who have their own Ministry of Education. Nonetheless, proximity is not necessarily synonymous of simplicity. The German GCE is driven by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the translation of requirements to the Ministries of Education come with its challenges.

The modern state is therefore not univocal and its sociological definition includes people's reflexivity. Exploratory interviews with the trainers enlisted in GlobalSense from a teacher-training college of Nantes University in France show how the state is:

- On the one hand, a legitimacy framework that justifies the action of civil servants, even embodying their presence: engagement letters, circulars, etc.;

- On the other hand, an object from which one must distance oneself, either as a researcher (a History teacher-trainer shares with her students her historical awareness of the arbitrariness of the state), or as a professional preparing students to pass the entrance examination, but is keen nevertheless to show that this examination is one thing, and the teaching profession is another.

We will see that the relationship to the state, at least the national conception of citizenship and the division between private and professional spaces, is apparent when preparing students for the GlobalSense training scheme. To show this, we will present here a part of the device in chronological order. As an introduction to the entire educational process, the consortium of five countries chose to ask the pre-service teachers (primary and secondary levels) the following series of questions:

1. What is your full name?

2. Tell the story of your name, as best you understand it.

3. Thinking back to what you wrote, to what extent does your name reflect your heritage?

4. If anything, what do you know about the story of how your family came to the country where you currently reside?

5. What does it mean to be a global citizen?

6. Do you see yourself as a global citizen? If so, how does this manifest in your everyday life?

7. Thinking of your role as a future teacher, do you think you will address such topics of global citizenship? If so, in what ways?
teacher trainers and their students, who are pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors (*conseillers principaux d'éducation*).

In the meantime, the margins of manoeuvre towards GCE are greater in Germany. This is due in part to the regulations already covering this subject, but also to the proximity to these professional groups of the federate states, who have their own Ministry of Education. Nonetheless, proximity is not necessarily synonymous of simplicity. The German GCE is driven by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the translation of requirements to the Ministries of Education come with its challenges.

The modern state is therefore not univocal and its sociological definition includes people's reflexivity. Exploratory interviews with the trainers enlisted in GlobalSense from a teacher-training college of Nantes University in France show how the state is:

- On the one hand, a legitimacy framework that justifies the action of civil servants, even embodying their presence: engagement letters, circulars, etc.;

- On the other hand, an object from which one must distance oneself, either as a researcher (a History teacher-trainer shares with her students her historical awareness of the arbitrariness of the state), or as a professional preparing students to pass the entrance examination, but is keen nevertheless to show that this examination is one thing, and the teaching profession is another.

We will see that the relationship to the state, at least the national conception of citizenship and the division between private and professional spaces, is apparent when preparing students for the GlobalSense training scheme. To show this, we will present here a part of the device in chronological order. As an introduction to the entire educational process, the consortium of five countries chose to ask the pre-service teachers (primary and secondary levels) the following series of questions:

1. What is your full name?

2. Tell the story of your name, as best you understand it.

3. Thinking back to what you wrote, to what extent does your name reflect your heritage?

4. If anything, what do you know about the story of how your family came to the country where you currently reside?

5. What does it mean to be a global citizen?

6. Do you see yourself as a global citizen? If so, how does this manifest in your everyday life?

7. Thinking of your role as a future teacher, do you think you will address such topics of global citizenship? If so, in what ways?
This list of questions is a compromise: the research and training teams from Nantes and Brussels had contested questions 2 and 3. Firstly, they argued that inviting students to explore plurality of identity by means of a surname seemed simplistic. Secondly, that since surnames are generally patrilineal, this question renders the feminine 'inheritance' invisible by arbitrarily focusing the attention on fathers.

These reservations explain the compromise made in the third question, which nonetheless does not change the fact that the device is introduced with a link to the respondents' names, suggesting a pedagogical link between surnames and pre-service teachers' inheritance. That being said, the barrier turned into an opportunity, as students' responses revealed their differentiated reflexivity and critical abilities.

We can thus study the effects of this approach in GCE, thanks to a written and oral feedback that the pre-service teachers and senior education advisors from the five countries provided us with. Within the limits of this book, many aspects will not be mentioned, such as the lesson plans they produced; the interactions between them (in small groups) to develop these locally; the interactions between students from the different countries during two-hour long videoconferences; interviews with the Nantes University students who travelled to Germany and worked on lesson plans with peers from Weingarten University of Education; teacher-trainers' reflective reports; and the cross-interviews between teacher-trainers from the different countries. The focus, concerning the future teachers and senior education advisors, will centre on the prompts (i.e. the common documents that they filled out before working on the lesson plans) and the self-reflections (or feedback interviews) they wrote right after the zooms. We will start by an analysis of how the participants from Nantes University dealt with the device, before comparing this to their peers from the other countries.

## 4.3 The Nantes Appropriation of the GlobalSense Protocol

Certain situations, during the training protocol, made the Nantes pre-service teachers and their trainers react. As previously suggested, they were interested in the GlobalSense protocol and quickly perceived its central issue. Its aim, at the very least, is to decentre (national) citizenship in order to make it fit its ideological content. Indeed, it should not just concern nationals, seeing as in our modern, individualistic and differentiated societies, citizenship in the full sense of the term is potentially open to all, contradicting the idea of a citizenship reserved for a predefined (national) group. This is due to the deepening of moral individualism, according to which, on a strictly ideological level, nothing decently allows the attachment of the individual to a particular nation:
This list of questions is a compromise: the research and training teams from Nantes and Brussels had contested questions 2 and 3. Firstly, they argued that inviting students to explore plurality of identity by means of a surname seemed simplistic. Secondly, that since surnames are generally patrilineal, this question renders the feminine 'inheritance' invisible by arbitrarily focusing the attention on fathers.

These reservations explain the compromise made in the third question, which nonetheless does not change the fact that the device is introduced with a link to the respondents' names, suggesting a pedagogical link between surnames and pre-service teachers' inheritance. That being said, the barrier turned into an opportunity, as students' responses revealed their differentiated reflexivity and critical abilities.

We can thus study the effects of this approach in GCE, thanks to a written and oral feedback that the pre-service teachers and senior education advisors from the five countries provided us with. Within the limits of this book, many aspects will not be mentioned, such as the lesson plans they produced; the interactions between them (in small groups) to develop these locally; the interactions between students from the different countries during two-hour long videoconferences; interviews with the Nantes University students who travelled to Germany and worked on lesson plans with peers from Weingarten University of Education; teacher-trainers' reflective reports; and the cross-interviews between teacher-trainers from the different countries. The focus, concerning the future teachers and senior education advisors, will centre on the prompts (i.e. the common documents that they filled out before working on the lesson plans) and the self-reflections (or feedback interviews) they wrote right after the zooms. We will start by an analysis of how the participants from Nantes University dealt with the device, before comparing this to their peers from the other countries.

## 4.3 *The Nantes Appropriation of the GlobalSense Protocol*

Certain situations, during the training protocol, made the Nantes pre-service teachers and their trainers react. As previously suggested, they were interested in the GlobalSense protocol and quickly perceived its central issue. Its aim, at the very least, is to decentre (national) citizenship in order to make it fit its ideological content. Indeed, it should not just concern nationals, seeing as in our modern, individualistic and differentiated societies, citizenship in the full sense of the term is potentially open to all, contradicting the idea of a citizenship reserved for a predefined (national) group. This is due to the deepening of moral individualism, according to which, on a strictly ideological level, nothing decently allows the attachment of the individual to a particular nation:
the normative individual, by definition, has no other social ties than
those to which he has consented and from which he can always emanci-
pate himself .... The true 'society of individuals' can only be, potentially
at least, a global society. (Descombes, 2013b, p. 214)

However, as soon as the Nantes students had read the aforementioned
questions on inheritance and surnames, several of them had strong reactions,
that are interesting to grasp in an ethnographic way. One of them was called
Lemarchand (a typical French name, meaning the merchant) but, as his name
does not suggest, he had dark skin (Métis type according to his testimony).
However, of the two criteria (surname and skin colour), the second one is the
most important to him, especially in daily interactions. Moreover, he explained
that he did not see this ethnic criterion as a legacy, but rather as a stigma placed
on him in certain contexts. In short, the student vaguely understood the inten-
tion of the questions asked, which were intended to explain the cultural iden-
tity of pre-service teachers through their name. However, he could not answer
these questions without deconstructing them, and as a result, felt suspicious
towards the GlobalSense protocol. His trainers tried to defuse this suspicion,
by stressing that it is nevertheless interesting to see how citizenship education
can have a different inspiration when it is internationalised.

Therefore, while researchers, members of GlobalSense, wished to take the
pre-service teachers as their object, at times it was them who analysed the
protocol and, by extension, the researchers. We will see below that in general,
the question on names reflecting a so-called legacy was not well received in
France, probably due to a republican conception of citizenship, a firm distinc-
tion between private and public spaces, and an approach to Moral and civic
education through knowledge (more specifically History and Geography).
However, this question was not better received in Brussels, probably, among
other things, because civic and citizenship education is approached through
Philosophy. Hence, the importance of taking into account the fact that the
place of 'education towards' is not obvious depending on the country, "par-
ticularly in secondary schools where [the teacher] is recruited on the basis of
their college education, is specialised, has expertise, and is legitimate because
institutionally certified and ... passionate about their field" (Barthes, Lange, &
Tutiaux-Guillon, 2017, p. 11).

Another important reaction, in Nantes but also in Brussels, revolves around
photos (see box below) submitted by the GlobalSense consortium to pre-
service teachers in order to raise awareness about migration. In France, the
secondary school teachers most concerned by citizenship education, via Moral
and civic education classes, are historians and geographers. Therefore, they do
the normative individual, by definition, has no other social ties than
those to which he has consented and from which he can always emanci-
pate himself .... The true 'society of individuals' can only be, potentially
at least, a global society. (Descombes, 2013b, p. 214)

However, as soon as the Nantes students had read the aforementioned
questions on inheritance and surnames, several of them had strong reactions,
that are interesting to grasp in an ethnographic way. One of them was called
Lemarchand (a typical French name, meaning the merchant) but, as his name
does not suggest, he had dark skin (Métis type according to his testimony).
However, of the two criteria (surname and skin colour), the second one is the
most important to him, especially in daily interactions. Moreover, he explained
that he did not see this ethnic criterion as a legacy, but rather as a stigma placed
on him in certain contexts. In short, the student vaguely understood the inten-
tion of the questions asked, which were intended to explain the cultural iden-
tity of pre-service teachers through their name. However, he could not answer
these questions without deconstructing them, and as a result, felt suspicious
towards the GlobalSense protocol. His trainers tried to defuse this suspicion,
by stressing that it is nevertheless interesting to see how citizenship education
can have a different inspiration when it is internationalised.

Therefore, while researchers, members of GlobalSense, wished to take the
pre-service teachers as their object, at times it was them who analysed the
protocol and, by extension, the researchers. We will see below that in general,
the question on names reflecting a so-called legacy was not well received in
France, probably due to a republican conception of citizenship, a firm distinc-
tion between private and public spaces, and an approach to Moral and civic
education through knowledge (more specifically History and Geography).
However, this question was not better received in Brussels, probably, among
other things, because civic and citizenship education is approached through
Philosophy. Hence, the importance of taking into account the fact that the
place of 'education towards' is not obvious depending on the country, "par-
ticularly in secondary schools where [the teacher] is recruited on the basis of
their college education, is specialised, has expertise, and is legitimate because
institutionally certified and ... passionate about their field" (Barthes, Lange, &
Tutiaux-Guillon, 2017, p. 11).

Another important reaction, in Nantes but also in Brussels, revolves around
photos (see box below) submitted by the GlobalSense consortium to pre-
service teachers in order to raise awareness about migration. In France, the
secondary school teachers most concerned by citizenship education, via Moral
and civic education classes, are historians and geographers. Therefore, they do
not really understand the point of these photos that are not contextualised but
rather display a type of dichotomy: migrants, some apparently rejected versus
others apparently welcomed. The French students, commenting on what they
perceived as the device's artificial aspect, therefore considered it as an object
to be analysed: what use are the photos if you do not know who took them,
where and when, for what purpose, for what media, etc.?

Extract of Documents Submitted to Future Teachers in the Five
Countries

Before getting started on their lesson plans, pre-service teachers from the five participating countries were asked to answer prompts. One of these said: “Please look at the following pictures and respond to the questions below. Both images depict migrants and refugees gaining arrival into a new country”.

The first photograph depicted a half-dozen adults of both genders, with small children, talking to reporters, in front of banners on which was written: ‘Humanity first. Resettling Syrian refugees’ (the picture can be found by following this link: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-response-to-the-syrian-refugee-crisis).

The second picture showed roughly thirty young men energetically pulling down a chain-linked fence topped with razor wire (the picture can be found by following this link: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160229104223-01-migrant-crisis-0229-restricted-super-169.jpg).

In this way, the Nantes University pre-service teachers and senior educa-
tion advisors were able to make sense of the GlobalSense training device,
because doing a background research is part of Moral and civic education.
Indeed, according to the curriculum, this type of research is part of the ‘culture
of judgment’, essential for exercising an enlightened citizenship: contextualis-
ing information, identifying the author’s intention according to the context,
deconstructing false information, etc.

Hence, it was possible for the Nantes pre-service teachers to find the places
where these photos were taken: one in Toronto in December 2015, the other
on the border between Greece and Macedonia in February 2016. According
to the publication contexts provided by CNN and the Canadian Encyclopedia
respectively, the first photo represents a family of migrants, while the other
represents a group of migrants. This is why some students went further by
not really understand the point of these photos that are not contextualised but
rather display a type of dichotomy: migrants, some apparently rejected versus
others apparently welcomed. The French students, commenting on what they
perceived as the device's artificial aspect, therefore considered it as an object
to be analysed: what use are the photos if you do not know who took them,
where and when, for what purpose, for what media, etc.?

Extract of Documents Submitted to Future Teachers in the Five
Countries

Before getting started on their lesson plans, pre-service teachers from the five participating countries were asked to answer prompts. One of these said: “Please look at the following pictures and respond to the questions below. Both images depict migrants and refugees gaining arrival into a new country”.

The first photograph depicted a half-dozen adults of both genders, with small children, talking to reporters, in front of banners on which was written: ‘Humanity first. Resettling Syrian refugees’ (the picture can be found by following this link: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-response-to-the-syrian-refugee-crisis).

The second picture showed roughly thirty young men energetically pulling down a chain-linked fence topped with razor wire (the picture can be found by following this link: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160229104223-01-migrant-crisis-0229-restricted-super-169.jpg).

In this way, the Nantes University pre-service teachers and senior educa-
tion advisors were able to make sense of the GlobalSense training device,
because doing a background research is part of Moral and civic education.
Indeed, according to the curriculum, this type of research is part of the ‘culture
of judgment’, essential for exercising an enlightened citizenship: contextualis-
ing information, identifying the author’s intention according to the context,
deconstructing false information, etc.

Hence, it was possible for the Nantes pre-service teachers to find the places
where these photos were taken: one in Toronto in December 2015, the other
on the border between Greece and Macedonia in February 2016. According
to the publication contexts provided by CNN and the Canadian Encyclopedia
respectively, the first photo represents a family of migrants, while the other
represents a group of migrants. This is why some students went further by
questioning, in the feedback interviews, GlobalSense trainers' intentions, as will be seen in the comparative analysis below.

These illustrative testimonies already show that these professional groups in the making (pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors) are looking for a way to self-regulate. We can see traces of this process in all the aforementioned international data that remain to be further analysed (notably the videoconferences and the lesson plans). Our objective is to test a new division of labour that would accompany, in a punctual and circumscribed way, the deepening and deployment of the cult of the human person (in Durkheim's words), for which citizenship and its education can no longer be exclusively national, but must be projected – as much as possible and without cutting corners – at a global level.

As mentioned previously, so far, 36 two-hour zoom sessions have been recorded, in which 312 students from the five countries have participated. In addition, thirteen focus groups of around ten students each have been held, with a total of 62 students providing in-depth feedback. Furthermore, interviews have been conducted with four Nantes pre-service teachers during their trip to Weingarten. In addition, we have the answers of 151 students to the prompts (including the photos above), the lesson plans themselves (106), and 212 self-reflections. Moreover, six cross-interviews have so far been conducted between trainers from the different countries.

Although it is under development, we will present here a salient part of the GlobalSense material corresponding to the first stage of the work provided by the pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors, namely the answers to the prompts. This is the most direct way to see international differences since all students answered the same questions. These concern four out of the five countries: though the German team did fill the prompts, the trainers did not consider them as an analysis material, but simply a pedagogical material for putting the trainees to work. Therefore the answers of the German students were not recorded and do not appear here.

## 4.4 *The Student Teachers' Perspectives on GC*

The analysis proposed here is only meant to illustrate the general trends and does not disentangle the variables that might explain the data collected (this will be done in further articles). Indeed, participants' responses to prompts can be influenced by many factors, such as the national culture, initial training, the discipline studied, prescriptions; but also by the trainers themselves during the seminars they gave, in the context of GlobalSense, on citizenship education, hence the importance of the cross-interviews between trainers. This is
questioning, in the feedback interviews, GlobalSense trainers' intentions, as will be seen in the comparative analysis below.

These illustrative testimonies already show that these professional groups in the making (pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors) are looking for a way to self-regulate. We can see traces of this process in all the aforementioned international data that remain to be further analysed (notably the videoconferences and the lesson plans). Our objective is to test a new division of labour that would accompany, in a punctual and circumscribed way, the deepening and deployment of the cult of the human person (in Durkheim's words), for which citizenship and its education can no longer be exclusively national, but must be projected – as much as possible and without cutting corners – at a global level.

As mentioned previously, so far, 36 two-hour zoom sessions have been recorded, in which 312 students from the five countries have participated. In addition, thirteen focus groups of around ten students each have been held, with a total of 62 students providing in-depth feedback. Furthermore, interviews have been conducted with four Nantes pre-service teachers during their trip to Weingarten. In addition, we have the answers of 151 students to the prompts (including the photos above), the lesson plans themselves (106), and 212 self-reflections. Moreover, six cross-interviews have so far been conducted between trainers from the different countries.

Although it is under development, we will present here a salient part of the GlobalSense material corresponding to the first stage of the work provided by the pre-service teachers and future senior education advisors, namely the answers to the prompts. This is the most direct way to see international differences since all students answered the same questions. These concern four out of the five countries: though the German team did fill the prompts, the trainers did not consider them as an analysis material, but simply a pedagogical material for putting the trainees to work. Therefore the answers of the German students were not recorded and do not appear here.

## 4.4 *The Student Teachers' Perspectives on GC*

The analysis proposed here is only meant to illustrate the general trends and does not disentangle the variables that might explain the data collected (this will be done in further articles). Indeed, participants' responses to prompts can be influenced by many factors, such as the national culture, initial training, the discipline studied, prescriptions; but also by the trainers themselves during the seminars they gave, in the context of GlobalSense, on citizenship education, hence the importance of the cross-interviews between trainers. This is
the objective of Workpackage 4 (WP4) ‘Towards meaningful practices’, which will be completed by late 2024. It unfolds the communication process between trainers from the different countries involved, in order to precisely co-analyse the different contexts and better understand the data in return.

That said, the ‘raw’ corpus is no less instructive. A striking first fact, from our local point of view (Nantes and France), is that in Philadelphia, unlike in other countries, pre-service teachers hardly ever talk about ecology or climate change. Conversely, the Philadelphia corpus contains original approaches to global citizenship, in the sense that they do not appear in the answers provided by pre-service teachers from other countries. Thus, according to US respondents, GC consists in “stay(ing) up to date with the world news” and, more rarely, in consuming global cultural products.

> In my opinion, to be a global citizen is to be an informed and aware person. You have an understanding and respect for the cultures around you and strive to learn more about them. I do see myself as a global citizen. I believe that this manifests itself in my life through my engagement with current events and world news – I try my best to stay up to date on what is going on. I also hope to travel internationally one day to enhance my passion for other cultures and experience them firsthand. (Meghan, TUP, USA)

> I would like to say I am a global citizen, as I make an effort to keep up with international affairs and news. In my everyday life, I find myself reading articles about people and events from other places around the world outside of the US. I also consume various media (music, shows, art) from around the globe. (Alexis, TUP, USA)

> I have not been far from the east coast of the United States, but I would say yes, I see myself as a global citizen. I use the internet everyday and listen to music from countries all around the world. (Dylan, TUP, USA)

The complexity of the data is not fully restored here since we focus, for comparative purposes, on the elements that do not appear in other countries. How can they be understood? First of all, Temple University students wish to obtain a Pennsylvania Certificate in Social Studies or in Citizenship Education that will allow them, according to their specialisation, to teach several subjects in secondary school: ‘civics and government’, ‘world history’, ‘geography’, ‘economics’. However, we must also take into account more general parameters linked to the American nation: several students, sensing its isolationism, wish by contrast to look towards the world: “I try to be a global citizen. I make an
the objective of Workpackage 4 (WP4) ‘Towards meaningful practices’, which will be completed by late 2024. It unfolds the communication process between trainers from the different countries involved, in order to precisely co-analyse the different contexts and better understand the data in return.

That said, the ‘raw’ corpus is no less instructive. A striking first fact, from our local point of view (Nantes and France), is that in Philadelphia, unlike in other countries, pre-service teachers hardly ever talk about ecology or climate change. Conversely, the Philadelphia corpus contains original approaches to global citizenship, in the sense that they do not appear in the answers provided by pre-service teachers from other countries. Thus, according to US respondents, GC consists in “stay(ing) up to date with the world news” and, more rarely, in consuming global cultural products.

> In my opinion, to be a global citizen is to be an informed and aware person. You have an understanding and respect for the cultures around you and strive to learn more about them. I do see myself as a global citizen. I believe that this manifests itself in my life through my engagement with current events and world news – I try my best to stay up to date on what is going on. I also hope to travel internationally one day to enhance my passion for other cultures and experience them firsthand. (Meghan, TUP, USA)

> I would like to say I am a global citizen, as I make an effort to keep up with international affairs and news. In my everyday life, I find myself reading articles about people and events from other places around the world outside of the US. I also consume various media (music, shows, art) from around the globe. (Alexis, TUP, USA)

> I have not been far from the east coast of the United States, but I would say yes, I see myself as a global citizen. I use the internet everyday and listen to music from countries all around the world. (Dylan, TUP, USA)

The complexity of the data is not fully restored here since we focus, for comparative purposes, on the elements that do not appear in other countries. How can they be understood? First of all, Temple University students wish to obtain a Pennsylvania Certificate in Social Studies or in Citizenship Education that will allow them, according to their specialisation, to teach several subjects in secondary school: ‘civics and government’, ‘world history’, ‘geography’, ‘economics’. However, we must also take into account more general parameters linked to the American nation: several students, sensing its isolationism, wish by contrast to look towards the world: “I try to be a global citizen. I make an
effort to try to stay informed about the world and not just the USA bubble”
(Evan). That being said, by the students’ admission themselves, trying is not
always the same as succeeding.

I definitely understand the importance of globalism and being a global citizen, yet I think that my understanding of history has been quite centered on America, so it makes me feel like I'm living in a bit of a bubble. I don't have family/friends that live outside of the country, so in that way I don't see myself as a global citizen, but I understand the importance of being one. (Leah, TUP, USA)

Despite this mixed feeling that emerges in US responses about being truly a global citizen, the vast majority of the Philadelphian pre-service teachers say they understand the point and importance of the notion of global citizenship, even if they sometimes define it in a very specific way: “stay up to date”, “events happening globally”, “travelling”, “internet”, “consume music and art from all the world”. This is not the case for Belgian students, who specialise in philosophy in view of teaching Philosophy and citizenship classes.

I don't have any precise idea of what it means to be a global citizen. I guess
today it means something like speaking English and being plugged on the
internet. I consider myself [not as a global citizen but] as an European
or occidental citizen, because I'm working everyday in the world of this
culture: reading Greek, Latin, German, French and English classics and
discussing them in an absolutely traditional Aristotelian style. I would
like to help my students to think about the questions of today. One of
them is the 'globalized' aspect of our world, and the NOTION of global
citizenship, the way it is used and the institutions which use it. (Martin,
FUB, Belgium)

The Belgian remarks' content is sometimes similar to their American counterparts' (the reference to the Internet for example) except for their irony. This is obvious in Martin's response who reduces the notion of global citizenship to "something like speaking English and being plugged on the internet", in order to better deconstruct it: "the way [the NOTION] is used".

We see the same approach in Djavanchir's answers to the prompts. He
highlights his Persian origins (his father fled the Islamic revolution in 1979)
and replies that the notion of global citizenship means "maybe being part of
a growing system claiming to become universal or global". By emphasising
that global citizenship would consist in being part of a system that claims its
effort to try to stay informed about the world and not just the USA bubble”
(Evan). That being said, by the students’ admission themselves, trying is not
always the same as succeeding.

I definitely understand the importance of globalism and being a global citizen, yet I think that my understanding of history has been quite centered on America, so it makes me feel like I'm living in a bit of a bubble. I don't have family/friends that live outside of the country, so in that way I don't see myself as a global citizen, but I understand the importance of being one. (Leah, TUP, USA)

Despite this mixed feeling that emerges in US responses about being truly a global citizen, the vast majority of the Philadelphian pre-service teachers say they understand the point and importance of the notion of global citizenship, even if they sometimes define it in a very specific way: “stay up to date”, “events happening globally”, “travelling”, “internet”, “consume music and art from all the world”. This is not the case for Belgian students, who specialise in philosophy in view of teaching Philosophy and citizenship classes.

I don't have any precise idea of what it means to be a global citizen. I guess
today it means something like speaking English and being plugged on the
internet. I consider myself [not as a global citizen but] as an European
or occidental citizen, because I'm working everyday in the world of this
culture: reading Greek, Latin, German, French and English classics and
discussing them in an absolutely traditional Aristotelian style. I would
like to help my students to think about the questions of today. One of
them is the 'globalized' aspect of our world, and the NOTION of global
citizenship, the way it is used and the institutions which use it. (Martin,
FUB, Belgium)

The Belgian remarks' content is sometimes similar to their American counterparts' (the reference to the Internet for example) except for their irony. This is obvious in Martin's response who reduces the notion of global citizenship to "something like speaking English and being plugged on the internet", in order to better deconstruct it: "the way [the NOTION] is used".

We see the same approach in Djavanchir's answers to the prompts. He highlights his Persian origins (his father fled the Islamic revolution in 1979) and replies that the notion of global citizenship means "maybe being part of a growing system claiming to become universal or global". By emphasising that global citizenship would consist in being part of a system that claims its
globality, this student marks a strong critical distance that never appears in the US responses. And reserves are just as present in Matsitsta's answers: she is a resident of Brussels whose bumpy migration path makes it difficult for her to project towards global citizenship.

> My family is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am the first to immigrate. For me, this notion [global citizenship] seems very vague and confusing since simply based on the legal framework, I am resident in Belgium but I do not have access to certain rights since I am not a Belgian citizen. How then can I feel like a global citizen? (Matsitsta, FUB, Belgium)

The Brussels pre-service teachers are ultimately the most critical of GCE, as presented to them by the GlobalSense consortium. As for the Jerusalem pre-service teachers, who follow a course in ‘civics and social science’, they are generally convinced, like the Philadelphians, of the relevance of the notion of global citizenship. However, unlike the latter who bring global citizenship back to a kind of cognitive connection with the world (‘news’, ‘events happening globally’), Jerusalem students keep a potentially ambitious, idealistic, action-oriented and emotional element (‘feel solidarity’, ‘empathetic’).

> As a citizen of the global [world], I don't feel that we should live between national borders but see every human predicament as if it were mine. I will convey [in my teaching] the concept of global citizenship. I will ask the question what is the meaning to be a global citizen. What is the meaning of the word 'citizen' and what does the word 'global' mean and that one should feel solidarity towards others. (Asaf, HUJI, Israel)

> To feel committed and empathetic towards those who are different from the individual. Unfortunately, I don't see myself as a citizen of the world adequately. I believe Israel is a melting pot where the problems that occur in the country remain in the country only. (Noa, HUJI, Israel)

Jerusalem pre-service teachers also often say that, in spite of the ambition they have towards this notion of global citizenship, they (‘unfortunately’, ‘not adequately’) do not feel they are citizens of the world. Unlike Philadelphian students, they regularly mention climate, as do the Nantes students, who generally say they have little understanding of the notion of global citizenship, while emphasising its relevance in the specific case of climate change. Some Nantes students say:
globality, this student marks a strong critical distance that never appears in the US responses. And reserves are just as present in Matsitsta's answers: she is a resident of Brussels whose bumpy migration path makes it difficult for her to project towards global citizenship.

> My family is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am the first to immigrate. For me, this notion [global citizenship] seems very vague and confusing since simply based on the legal framework, I am resident in Belgium but I do not have access to certain rights since I am not a Belgian citizen. How then can I feel like a global citizen? (Matsitsta, FUB, Belgium)

The Brussels pre-service teachers are ultimately the most critical of GCE, as presented to them by the GlobalSense consortium. As for the Jerusalem pre-service teachers, who follow a course in ‘civics and social science’, they are generally convinced, like the Philadelphians, of the relevance of the notion of global citizenship. However, unlike the latter who bring global citizenship back to a kind of cognitive connection with the world (‘news’, ‘events happening globally’), Jerusalem students keep a potentially ambitious, idealistic, action-oriented and emotional element (‘feel solidarity’, ‘empathetic’).

> As a citizen of the global [world], I don't feel that we should live between national borders but see every human predicament as if it were mine. I will convey [in my teaching] the concept of global citizenship. I will ask the question what is the meaning to be a global citizen. What is the meaning of the word 'citizen' and what does the word 'global' mean and that one should feel solidarity towards others. (Asaf, HUJI, Israel)

> To feel committed and empathetic towards those who are different from the individual. Unfortunately, I don't see myself as a citizen of the world adequately. I believe Israel is a melting pot where the problems that occur in the country remain in the country only. (Noa, HUJI, Israel)

Jerusalem pre-service teachers also often say that, in spite of the ambition they have towards this notion of global citizenship, they (‘unfortunately’, ‘not adequately’) do not feel they are citizens of the world. Unlike Philadelphian students, they regularly mention climate, as do the Nantes students, who generally say they have little understanding of the notion of global citizenship, while emphasising its relevance in the specific case of climate change. Some Nantes students say:
I don't find so much meaning in the word 'global citizen', maybe just the fact that we are the inhabitants of a single planet. I don't feel as a citizen of the world, only on an ecological aspect of preserving the planet on a global scale. (Thibaud, NU, France)

For me, to be a global citizen is to be aware of the challenges in our society and challenges for the future. We have together a global impact for the planet and we have to build together solutions. Yes, I'm a global citizen because in my everyday life, I would like to impact climate change with my consumption and my transport plans. [...] I talk with others to promote this dynamic of reduction not just for me but for, so to speak, the survival of humanity. (Léa, NU, France)

From my point of view, being a global citizen means first of all having common points, a common culture in particular, and shared objectives, particularly political ones. In my everyday life, no, I don't see myself as a global citizen. Sometimes, in the context of targeted projects, I feel European (this summer I went to Romania as part of a European project) but I have never felt like a citizen on a larger scale, except perhaps on the theme of ecology, which is perhaps one of the subjects that can bring together the greatest number of people. (Évane, NU, France)

Moreover, the Nantes students – half of them future history and geography teachers and the other half future educational advisors – seem to need, in order to assimilate the notion of GCE, to represent a global society that, they emphasise, does not exist. This is a striking difference with the Philadelphia students, explaining why the latter, who more readily assimilate humanity to a community even if it is understood as a collection of individuals, project themselves more easily teaching GCE. Already illustrated in the previous excerpt by Évane, for whom global citizenship implies common political objectives ('shared objectives, particularly political ones'), the Nantes students are looking for a 'global group', as Jessie says below, or 'one body' as Benjamin says, to complete the missing logical link in their eyes.

I don't see myself as a global citizen, because I think the differences of culture, language and civilization still exist in the world and I think it's a good thing. Granted, related to some engagements, it's possible to see a process of globalisation. [But] in my opinion global citizenship does not exist and can't exist for the moment because we are too different
I don't find so much meaning in the word 'global citizen', maybe just the fact that we are the inhabitants of a single planet. I don't feel as a citizen of the world, only on an ecological aspect of preserving the planet on a global scale. (Thibaud, NU, France)

For me, to be a global citizen is to be aware of the challenges in our society and challenges for the future. We have together a global impact for the planet and we have to build together solutions. Yes, I'm a global citizen because in my everyday life, I would like to impact climate change with my consumption and my transport plans. [...] I talk with others to promote this dynamic of reduction not just for me but for, so to speak, the survival of humanity. (Léa, NU, France)

From my point of view, being a global citizen means first of all having common points, a common culture in particular, and shared objectives, particularly political ones. In my everyday life, no, I don't see myself as a global citizen. Sometimes, in the context of targeted projects, I feel European (this summer I went to Romania as part of a European project) but I have never felt like a citizen on a larger scale, except perhaps on the theme of ecology, which is perhaps one of the subjects that can bring together the greatest number of people. (Évane, NU, France)

Moreover, the Nantes students – half of them future history and geography teachers and the other half future educational advisors – seem to need, in order to assimilate the notion of GCE, to represent a global society that, they emphasise, does not exist. This is a striking difference with the Philadelphia students, explaining why the latter, who more readily assimilate humanity to a community even if it is understood as a collection of individuals, project themselves more easily teaching GCE. Already illustrated in the previous excerpt by Évane, for whom global citizenship implies common political objectives ('shared objectives, particularly political ones'), the Nantes students are looking for a 'global group', as Jessie says below, or 'one body' as Benjamin says, to complete the missing logical link in their eyes.

I don't see myself as a global citizen, because I think the differences of culture, language and civilization still exist in the world and I think it's a good thing. Granted, related to some engagements, it's possible to see a process of globalisation. [But] in my opinion global citizenship does not exist and can't exist for the moment because we are too different
according to our countries or regions. Talking about a global group seems difficult to me. (Jessie, NU, France)

For me, being a world citizen means being one body. It means ignoring borders. So, today, no, I don't see myself as a global citizen. As long as racism, discrimination, states that have an apartheid regime towards populations, exist, being a world citizen will not be possible. (Benjamin, NU, France)

Finally, an important aspect concerns the photos of migrants to comment (those presented above). They are taken seriously by the Temple University of Philadelphia and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem students, who are willing to comment them, while the Nantes University and Free University of Brussels students tend to be very critical of the questions formulated. The Nantes students, especially the future historians and geographers, need to know about the pictures' context in order to carry out this task, as do the Belgian philosophers:

> I have a problem pointing similarities that are abstract from their contexts. Sure I notice the absence of woman in the second picture, sure I see some people yelling on the second picture and what looks like a prison grid (or just a grid) with a barbed wire, but what does it mean? Secondly, for the similarities, how can I make guesses only by seeing? I see a lot of people, and some cameras, what else can I say more? (Victor, FUB, Belgium)

> I completely lack context to understand the first picture. And 'Resettling' could mean things as different as accepting refugees or sending them back to where they came from. So I can't compare those pics. (Raphaël, FUB, Belgium)

To go further, each team has shared their first analyses in the wondering report which will then allow us to cross the interpretations of this corpus and obtain additional insights into the training situations, different concepts of the teaching profession and national contexts. A text analysis of the self-reflections using the Iramuteq software is also underway, among other avenues of work. In the meantime, we can already measure how much the notion of GCE is primarily a slogan that must be clarified, re-appropriated, reworked locally to make sense in the eyes of the people primarily affected.

As for the controversial question about pre-service teachers' surnames and how this, to some extent, reflects their 'heritage', all Israeli and American
according to our countries or regions. Talking about a global group seems difficult to me. (Jessie, NU, France)

For me, being a world citizen means being one body. It means ignoring borders. So, today, no, I don't see myself as a global citizen. As long as racism, discrimination, states that have an apartheid regime towards populations, exist, being a world citizen will not be possible. (Benjamin, NU, France)

Finally, an important aspect concerns the photos of migrants to comment (those presented above). They are taken seriously by the Temple University of Philadelphia and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem students, who are willing to comment them, while the Nantes University and Free University of Brussels students tend to be very critical of the questions formulated. The Nantes students, especially the future historians and geographers, need to know about the pictures' context in order to carry out this task, as do the Belgian philosophers:

> I have a problem pointing similarities that are abstract from their contexts. Sure I notice the absence of woman in the second picture, sure I see some people yelling on the second picture and what looks like a prison grid (or just a grid) with a barbed wire, but what does it mean? Secondly, for the similarities, how can I make guesses only by seeing? I see a lot of people, and some cameras, what else can I say more? (Victor, FUB, Belgium)

> I completely lack context to understand the first picture. And 'Resettling' could mean things as different as accepting refugees or sending them back to where they came from. So I can't compare those pics. (Raphaël, FUB, Belgium)

To go further, each team has shared their first analyses in the wondering report which will then allow us to cross the interpretations of this corpus and obtain additional insights into the training situations, different concepts of the teaching profession and national contexts. A text analysis of the self-reflections using the Iramuteq software is also underway, among other avenues of work. In the meantime, we can already measure how much the notion of GCE is primarily a slogan that must be clarified, re-appropriated, reworked locally to make sense in the eyes of the people primarily affected.

As for the controversial question about pre-service teachers' surnames and how this, to some extent, reflects their 'heritage', all Israeli and American
students took the question at face value. They tried and sometimes managed to trace this heritage, often linked to the Holocaust in Israel, and to the ancient Irish, Jewish, Polish, Italian or Hispanic (etc.) immigrations in the United States. As for the Belgians and French, their postures are more varied. If they sometimes responded, including in a precise way (for example, one student has a name that means ‘salt seller’, indicating that an ancestor probably exercised this trade), others refused to go along with this exercise (by answering ‘nothing’ or ‘joke’), or responded by pointing out that their surname does not matter.

More work is needed to interpret these phenomena in a truly hermeneutic perspective (Malet, 2011), while explaining to the consortium members, sometimes surprised by the annoyance the French and Belgian students express, why they are more critical than others are. Conversely, researchers and trainers from Nantes are eager to obtain more details from some GlobalSense members to fully understand the interest of certain issues included in the scheme. All this should emerge, among other things, during the analysis of cross-interviews between trainers.

## 4.5 *The State as a Reflective Body*

The friction between prescriptions (national and/or related to GCE), specific school subjects that the pre-service teachers are studying and their reactions encourage further reflection regarding the presence of the state. For Durkheim, the role of the state in its partnership with secondary groups was to break with the immediate practical emergencies that workers usually face: this being how they might access a more thoughtful form of thinking that the author called ‘collective deliberation’. Conversely, ETS show that what is prescribed, although shaped by the state and its administrations, is translated, circumvented, questioned by workers, in as many steps as needed prior to its eventual appropriation.

However, the ‘descent into generality’, from the state as a macro-actor towards its manifestations and incarnations in local contexts, is explicitly studied in pragmatic sociology (Linhardt, 2010). Let us return to Durkheimian intuitions in this matter: the reflective state “is closer to men” and establishes with them a “more intimate communication”.

It is not accurate to say that the state embodies the collective consciousness, for the latter overflows the state from all sides. Collective consciousness is largely diffuse; there are at every moment multitudes of social feelings, social states of all kinds of which the state perceives only the weakened echo. It is the seat of only a special, restricted, but higher, clearer consciousness, having of itself a more vivid feeling. Nothing obscure and
students took the question at face value. They tried and sometimes managed to trace this heritage, often linked to the Holocaust in Israel, and to the ancient Irish, Jewish, Polish, Italian or Hispanic (etc.) immigrations in the United States. As for the Belgians and French, their postures are more varied. If they sometimes responded, including in a precise way (for example, one student has a name that means ‘salt seller’, indicating that an ancestor probably exercised this trade), others refused to go along with this exercise (by answering ‘nothing’ or ‘joke’), or responded by pointing out that their surname does not matter.

More work is needed to interpret these phenomena in a truly hermeneutic perspective (Malet, 2011), while explaining to the consortium members, sometimes surprised by the annoyance the French and Belgian students express, why they are more critical than others are. Conversely, researchers and trainers from Nantes are eager to obtain more details from some GlobalSense members to fully understand the interest of certain issues included in the scheme. All this should emerge, among other things, during the analysis of cross-interviews between trainers.

## 4.5 *The State as a Reflective Body*

The friction between prescriptions (national and/or related to GCE), specific school subjects that the pre-service teachers are studying and their reactions encourage further reflection regarding the presence of the state. For Durkheim, the role of the state in its partnership with secondary groups was to break with the immediate practical emergencies that workers usually face: this being how they might access a more thoughtful form of thinking that the author called ‘collective deliberation’. Conversely, ETS show that what is prescribed, although shaped by the state and its administrations, is translated, circumvented, questioned by workers, in as many steps as needed prior to its eventual appropriation.

However, the ‘descent into generality’, from the state as a macro-actor towards its manifestations and incarnations in local contexts, is explicitly studied in pragmatic sociology (Linhardt, 2010). Let us return to Durkheimian intuitions in this matter: the reflective state “is closer to men” and establishes with them a “more intimate communication”.

> It is not accurate to say that the state embodies the collective consciousness, for the latter overflows the state from all sides. Collective consciousness is largely diffuse; there are at every moment multitudes of social feelings, social states of all kinds of which the state perceives only the weakened echo. It is the seat of only a special, restricted, but higher, clearer consciousness, having of itself a more vivid feeling. Nothing obscure and
uncertain like these collective representations that are widespread in all societies: myths, religious or moral legends, etc. We do not know where they come from or where they tend to; we have not deliberated them. Representations that come from the state are increasingly aware of themselves, their causes and their goals. They were brought together in a less hidden manner. [...] Little by little, through the general movement of ideas, the state has gradually lost this sort of transcendence that isolated it. It got closer to men, and men got closer to it. Communications became more intimate. Government power, instead of remaining inward-looking, has descended into the deeper layers of society, receives there a new development, and returns to its starting point. [...] We recognise from this trait one of the characteristics that distinguishes what is generally called democracy. (Durkheim, 1900/2020, p. 115)

The state therefore is a lever of democracy, provided that it is sufficiently reflexive to restore the diffuse consciousness of society that “overflows [it] on all sides”, and that it is present in the “deeper layers of society”, otherwise it would find its “transcendence” making it – as is unfortunately too common – an instrument for controlling populations. Is the prospect convincing? We have already mentioned its weaknesses. Nevertheless, by taking the reality of the nation-state seriously, all the while considering its evolutions in the context of social differentiation, it allows us to take into account arguments in favour of GCE, as well as those opposed to it. That is why, considering the different aspects articulated by Durkheim (the individual, the political society, professional groups, the citizen, the state, the cult of the human person), the point here is to help clarify the path towards the global level envisaged in GCE.

For this horizon proceeds from realities that a superficial approach of the 'global' level tends to ignore. In GlobalSense, the learners targeted by GCE are not essentially individuals, contrary to what the nominal bias tends to suggest; rather they are citizens embedded in a political society with historical and cultural traits, and in an institutional reality – often that of the state – whose content must be grasped. Is this not what the exploratory empirical material above suggests?

In doing so, we hope to avoid some anti-GCE criticisms, all the more formidable because their relevance is partially admitted, as we have seen, by promoters of GCE aware of the fragility and composite character (between *ethos* and narrative) of their ideal. The program is colossal and this book only sets the framework for future individual and collective research. A first step will be to carry out the GlobalSense program until the end of 2024, ensuring, as leader and scientific coordinator, the complementarity of WPS under the
uncertain like these collective representations that are widespread in all societies: myths, religious or moral legends, etc. We do not know where they come from or where they tend to; we have not deliberated them. Representations that come from the state are increasingly aware of themselves, their causes and their goals. They were brought together in a less hidden manner. [...] Little by little, through the general movement of ideas, the state has gradually lost this sort of transcendence that isolated it. It got closer to men, and men got closer to it. Communications became more intimate. Government power, instead of remaining inward-looking, has descended into the deeper layers of society, receives there a new development, and returns to its starting point. [...] We recognise from this trait one of the characteristics that distinguishes what is generally called democracy. (Durkheim, 1900/2020, p. 115)

The state therefore is a lever of democracy, provided that it is sufficiently reflexive to restore the diffuse consciousness of society that “overflows [it] on all sides”, and that it is present in the “deeper layers of society”, otherwise it would find its “transcendence” making it – as is unfortunately too common – an instrument for controlling populations. Is the prospect convincing? We have already mentioned its weaknesses. Nevertheless, by taking the reality of the nation-state seriously, all the while considering its evolutions in the context of social differentiation, it allows us to take into account arguments in favour of GCE, as well as those opposed to it. That is why, considering the different aspects articulated by Durkheim (the individual, the political society, professional groups, the citizen, the state, the cult of the human person), the point here is to help clarify the path towards the global level envisaged in GCE.

For this horizon proceeds from realities that a superficial approach of the 'global' level tends to ignore. In GlobalSense, the learners targeted by GCE are not essentially individuals, contrary to what the nominal bias tends to suggest; rather they are citizens embedded in a political society with historical and cultural traits, and in an institutional reality – often that of the state – whose content must be grasped. Is this not what the exploratory empirical material above suggests?

In doing so, we hope to avoid some anti-GCE criticisms, all the more formidable because their relevance is partially admitted, as we have seen, by promoters of GCE aware of the fragility and composite character (between *ethos* and narrative) of their ideal. The program is colossal and this book only sets the framework for future individual and collective research. A first step will be to carry out the GlobalSense program until the end of 2024, ensuring, as leader and scientific coordinator, the complementarity of WPS under the
responsibility of interdisciplinary teams: sociologists, philosophers, historians and linguists, who are sure to fuel debate and enrich our educational science enterprise. For if ETS constitute an original epistemic field, they are nothing without their contributory disciplines.

## Notes

1. In reference to the widespread expression of advanced modernity.

2. "Identity is multiple, changing, overlapping, and contextual, rather than fixed and static".

3. If Banks' relation to postmodernism is fluctuating, refusing its radical implications (Powers, 2002), it is because the latter would have prevented him from defending the academic legitimacy of his own discourse, by virtue of the famous and classical performative contradiction.

4. For Laborde, the classical republican thinkers (Kintzler, Schnapper, Taguieff), also called official republicans, are conservative in that they are in favour of a *status quo* secularism. On the other hand, a critical republican approach considers that the refusal to compromise on the wearing of ostensible religious signs by students (especially Muslim ones) is untenable as long as the compromises historically made with Catholicism have been questioned.

5. It is not even certain that issues like climate are best addressed directly at a global level. The literature has focused on the free-riding problem located on a global level (a State has no interest in lowering its carbon emissions if others are doing so anyway), but it also examines the possibilities of internal change in the States, under citizen pressure, which could gradually make cattle farming or combustion-powered cars less profitable. The framework is national because it is difficult to find a common framework for Saudi Arabia that is completely dependent on oil, Norway that is able to use oil revenues as investment funds, and Poland with its coalmines that make up part of the national identity through the cult of Saint Barbara. "The scenario [that] appears most likely: considerable variation among national climate policies, which will affect openness" (Colgan, Green, & Hale, 2021, p. 602).

6. Thus it cannot be said that Bourdieu was reactionary, although he did admit a certain conservatism, retrospectively perceiving, around the 1990s and his election to the *Collège de France*, the danger of a purely denunciatory approach to the conservative school, in the sense of an institution that preserves knowledge and heritage.

7. Let us leave aside the recurrent anachronism of projecting Diogenes' negative cosmopolitanism onto current cosmopolitan ideals. Diogenes was cosmopolitan to the exact extent that he was rejected by (and did not wish to identify with) his own political community. He identified with the cosmos because, marginalised, he refused to identify with the usual *polis*. This is why his cosmopolitanism was negative, contrary to the usual slogans in GCE that invite us to project positively at the global level. In this regard, the connection must be made, as Barbara Carnevali recalls, between Diogenes in his barrel and the current dog punks.

8. The questioning of these frameworks indeed often proceeds from the deepening of individualism which transcends demands too quickly labeled as "communitarians" or "identitarians". The 2005 French riots that took place in many working-class neighbourhoods, which led to the establishment of a state of emergency and curfews, showed the integration of young people from these neighbourhoods into political society: the latter were indeed in relation to the claimed French citizenship (Laborde, 2010). In Durkheimian terms it can be said that the phenomenon is pathological but it is because it responds to the lack of integration and regulation of the division of social work.
responsibility of interdisciplinary teams: sociologists, philosophers, historians and linguists, who are sure to fuel debate and enrich our educational science enterprise. For if ETS constitute an original epistemic field, they are nothing without their contributory disciplines.

## Notes

1. In reference to the widespread expression of advanced modernity.

2. "Identity is multiple, changing, overlapping, and contextual, rather than fixed and static".

3. If Banks' relation to postmodernism is fluctuating, refusing its radical implications (Powers, 2002), it is because the latter would have prevented him from defending the academic legitimacy of his own discourse, by virtue of the famous and classical performative contradiction.

4. For Laborde, the classical republican thinkers (Kintzler, Schnapper, Taguieff), also called official republicans, are conservative in that they are in favour of a *status quo* secularism. On the other hand, a critical republican approach considers that the refusal to compromise on the wearing of ostensible religious signs by students (especially Muslim ones) is untenable as long as the compromises historically made with Catholicism have been questioned.

5. It is not even certain that issues like climate are best addressed directly at a global level. The literature has focused on the free-riding problem located on a global level (a State has no interest in lowering its carbon emissions if others are doing so anyway), but it also examines the possibilities of internal change in the States, under citizen pressure, which could gradually make cattle farming or combustion-powered cars less profitable. The framework is national because it is difficult to find a common framework for Saudi Arabia that is completely dependent on oil, Norway that is able to use oil revenues as investment funds, and Poland with its coalmines that make up part of the national identity through the cult of Saint Barbara. "The scenario [that] appears most likely: considerable variation among national climate policies, which will affect openness" (Colgan, Green, & Hale, 2021, p. 602).

6. Thus it cannot be said that Bourdieu was reactionary, although he did admit a certain conservatism, retrospectively perceiving, around the 1990s and his election to the *Collège de France*, the danger of a purely denunciatory approach to the conservative school, in the sense of an institution that preserves knowledge and heritage.

7. Let us leave aside the recurrent anachronism of projecting Diogenes' negative cosmopolitanism onto current cosmopolitan ideals. Diogenes was cosmopolitan to the exact extent that he was rejected by (and did not wish to identify with) his own political community. He identified with the cosmos because, marginalised, he refused to identify with the usual *polis*. This is why his cosmopolitanism was negative, contrary to the usual slogans in GCE that invite us to project positively at the global level. In this regard, the connection must be made, as Barbara Carnevali recalls, between Diogenes in his barrel and the current dog punks.

8. The questioning of these frameworks indeed often proceeds from the deepening of individualism which transcends demands too quickly labeled as "communitarians" or "identitarians". The 2005 French riots that took place in many working-class neighbourhoods, which led to the establishment of a state of emergency and curfews, showed the integration of young people from these neighbourhoods into political society: the latter were indeed in relation to the claimed French citizenship (Laborde, 2010). In Durkheimian terms it can be said that the phenomenon is pathological but it is because it responds to the lack of integration and regulation of the division of social work.
Conclusion

The articulation between philosophy and sociology – without reducing one of
these fields to the other – suggests that true interdisciplinarity is possible if the
philosopher agrees to pay attention to the methods of social sciences and the
sociologist, exercising or not in the field of ETS, agrees to appropriate descriptive
and normative concepts developed in philosophy. These cross-over attempts
are not always encouraged, because of the separation of disciplines in the
academic world. They exist nonetheless, including among renowned authors:
the philosophers Michel Foucault and Ian Hacking clarified their theses with
numerous empirical data; the professor of education science and sociology
Emile Durkheim, as well as the philosopher-turned-sociologist Pierre Bourdieu,
tried to reword Kantian issues,¹ etc. The questions of secularism, republic and
diversity in education require more specifically the use of political philosophy,
which already maintains a dialogue with social sciences including ETS.

By putting this ambition to work, several questions emerged in the first part
of the book. They are vast and difficult. From the point of view of political phi-
losophy, how can we relate to the empirical contributions of social sciences,
whilst maintaining a conceptual reflection on principles (liberalism, republic,
secularism)? From the point of view of social sciences, how can one interrogate
the researcher's relationship to an object, on questions that inevitably engage
a normative judgment, if only because they are legally codified? Though these
complex questions do not receive a definite answer in this book, vigilant atten-
tion marked the endeavour: though political philosophy would benefit from
using social sciences, of which ETS are a part of, social sciences themselves
remain powerless regarding certain controversial issues without the contribu-
tion of political philosophy. Moreover, they risk dissolving into social criticism,
expertise and/or a posture of false neutrality easier to proclaim than to achieve
depending on the issues addressed.

Hence the challenge of interdisciplinarity: to clarify conceptual questions,
analysed in political philosophy, while confronting them with social phenom-
ena as they occur, that is to say, in a complexity that inevitably goes beyond the
delineated theoretical constructions. Accordingly, this book shares the ideals
of educational internationalism, that of the IBE extended by UNESCO. It is a
matter of taking seriously the idea that education, considered internationally,
has a role to play in bringing to life the ideal of a united humanity, one that
could eventually share a global citizenship.

However, our particular relationship to this educational horizon is mediated
by history. The history of the IBE, as a matrix of educational internationalism,
Conclusion

The articulation between philosophy and sociology – without reducing one of
these fields to the other – suggests that true interdisciplinarity is possible if the
philosopher agrees to pay attention to the methods of social sciences and the
sociologist, exercising or not in the field of ETS, agrees to appropriate descriptive
and normative concepts developed in philosophy. These cross-over attempts
are not always encouraged, because of the separation of disciplines in the
academic world. They exist nonetheless, including among renowned authors:
the philosophers Michel Foucault and Ian Hacking clarified their theses with
numerous empirical data; the professor of education science and sociology
Emile Durkheim, as well as the philosopher-turned-sociologist Pierre Bourdieu,
tried to reword Kantian issues,¹ etc. The questions of secularism, republic and
diversity in education require more specifically the use of political philosophy,
which already maintains a dialogue with social sciences including ETS.

By putting this ambition to work, several questions emerged in the first part
of the book. They are vast and difficult. From the point of view of political phi-
losophy, how can we relate to the empirical contributions of social sciences,
whilst maintaining a conceptual reflection on principles (liberalism, republic,
secularism)? From the point of view of social sciences, how can one interrogate
the researcher's relationship to an object, on questions that inevitably engage
a normative judgment, if only because they are legally codified? Though these
complex questions do not receive a definite answer in this book, vigilant atten-
tion marked the endeavour: though political philosophy would benefit from
using social sciences, of which ETS are a part of, social sciences themselves
remain powerless regarding certain controversial issues without the contribu-
tion of political philosophy. Moreover, they risk dissolving into social criticism,
expertise and/or a posture of false neutrality easier to proclaim than to achieve
depending on the issues addressed.

Hence the challenge of interdisciplinarity: to clarify conceptual questions,
analysed in political philosophy, while confronting them with social phenom-
ena as they occur, that is to say, in a complexity that inevitably goes beyond the
delineated theoretical constructions. Accordingly, this book shares the ideals
of educational internationalism, that of the IBE extended by UNESCO. It is a
matter of taking seriously the idea that education, considered internationally,
has a role to play in bringing to life the ideal of a united humanity, one that
could eventually share a global citizenship.

However, our particular relationship to this educational horizon is mediated
by history. The history of the IBE, as a matrix of educational internationalism,
shows how generous slogans clash with the reality of geopolitical power relations, how what is claimed to be neutral is not, and to what extent an endeavour, presented as essentially federative, is the object of disagreements. These difficulties must be admitted, but do not lead us to abandon the project of attaining a GCE.

Rather, they invite us to frame it with the strongest possible tools. These come from the humanities and social sciences – social philosophy, political philosophy, sociology, anthropology – at the service of a research and training project in ETS. This project is materialised by GlobalSense, which both shows how student teachers are driven by a desire to project themselves towards a global citizenship, and highlights the national parameters (cultural, political and related to training) that leads them to adopt a reflexive and collaborative posture on their work.

These elements, taken together, take meaning in a renewed Durkheimian framework, which allows to think all at once the division of social work, cosmopolitanism as an ideal specific to complex societies with a strong organic solidarity, and new working methods at the service of international collaborations that are both committed to a common ideal and respectful of local specificities (curriculum, etc.), as well as the political conceptions of the student-teachers themselves. This last point is crucial since, as we have said, it is not up to researchers to instruct student teachers on what global citizenship is (since the definition is subject to debate, as admitted by UNESCO), but rather for the latter to appropriate a new framework of work which, by its international and collaborative character, follows the contours of the cosmopolitan aspirations of the modern, marked by moral individualism over the deepening of the division of social work, unavoidable according to Durkheim.

We have also taken seriously the fact that citizenship, secularism, non-discrimination, freedom (etc.), as political and legal principles, are embedded in societies. Pettit's social philosophy is not a fruitful path since his holism is relatively insensitive to social sciences (Urfalino, 2022), but his reflections on freedom, as part of his political philosophy, are more interesting regarding our statement on citizenship. For the author, individuals are free if they form a people where non-domination is guaranteed by a state. The challenge then, in the second stage, is to ensure a non-domination between these agent-groups that are states.

How to apply neo-republican thinking to the international realm? This question needs to be addressed against the background of empirical assumptions about the sort of order that is feasible across the globe [...] I consider the question here on the basis of th[e] assumption [that an order
shows how generous slogans clash with the reality of geopolitical power relations, how what is claimed to be neutral is not, and to what extent an endeavour, presented as essentially federative, is the object of disagreements. These difficulties must be admitted, but do not lead us to abandon the project of attaining a GCE.

Rather, they invite us to frame it with the strongest possible tools. These come from the humanities and social sciences – social philosophy, political philosophy, sociology, anthropology – at the service of a research and training project in ETS. This project is materialised by GlobalSense, which both shows how student teachers are driven by a desire to project themselves towards a global citizenship, and highlights the national parameters (cultural, political and related to training) that leads them to adopt a reflexive and collaborative posture on their work.

These elements, taken together, take meaning in a renewed Durkheimian framework, which allows to think all at once the division of social work, cosmopolitanism as an ideal specific to complex societies with a strong organic solidarity, and new working methods at the service of international collaborations that are both committed to a common ideal and respectful of local specificities (curriculum, etc.), as well as the political conceptions of the student-teachers themselves. This last point is crucial since, as we have said, it is not up to researchers to instruct student teachers on what global citizenship is (since the definition is subject to debate, as admitted by UNESCO), but rather for the latter to appropriate a new framework of work which, by its international and collaborative character, follows the contours of the cosmopolitan aspirations of the modern, marked by moral individualism over the deepening of the division of social work, unavoidable according to Durkheim.

We have also taken seriously the fact that citizenship, secularism, non-discrimination, freedom (etc.), as political and legal principles, are embedded in societies. Pettit's social philosophy is not a fruitful path since his holism is relatively insensitive to social sciences (Urfalino, 2022), but his reflections on freedom, as part of his political philosophy, are more interesting regarding our statement on citizenship. For the author, individuals are free if they form a people where non-domination is guaranteed by a state. The challenge then, in the second stage, is to ensure a non-domination between these agent-groups that are states.

How to apply neo-republican thinking to the international realm? This question needs to be addressed against the background of empirical assumptions about the sort of order that is feasible across the globe [...] I consider the question here on the basis of th[e] assumption [that an order
of states of the kind with which we are all familiar is more or less bound
to continue in existence] because it is hard to see how the world could
cease to be organized on a state-bound motif. The concept of freedom as
non-domination that is associated with neo-republican theory provides a
guiding ideal in the global, not just the domestic arena, and does so even
on the assumption that there will continue to be many distinct states. It
argues for a world in which states do not dominate members of their own
people and, considered as a corporate body, no people is dominated by
other agencies: not by other states and not, for example, by any interna-
tional agency or multi-national corporation. (Pettit, 2016, pp. 47–48)

The influence of Pettit's work undoubtedly explains the reasons why this
book examines the ideal of global citizenship education in order to distin-
guish various components (prescription, ideal, slogan, academic notion, edu-
cational ethics) and dig a Durkheimian path. To do so, the book tries to shed
light, around this vast object, on all the themes addressed by Durkheim as an
essential figure in sociology, philosophy and ETS.

This is why several investigations had to be conducted simultaneously:
holism, collective entities, ideology of the modern, collective representations,
organic solidarity, the state, individualism, cosmopolitanism. For to study
citizenship and its education is necessarily to think of society itself, in all its
components and in its aspect that is non-reducible to aggregated individual
phenomena.

The stake is vast, but to have it fully in mind is already a first step, and this,
with the help of the many works of neo-Durkheimian authors who, opening
multiple and sometimes very different paths, have nourished the present
reflections, from the nominalist micro-holism of liberal inspiration (Gilbert)
to the holism displayed as being socialist. These elements help establish a crys-
tallisation point, that of a cosmopolitan neo-republicanism at the height of
sociological stakes. In this regard, one of the most crucial questions was: what
status should the nation be granted?

Cosmopolitans in global citizenship education tend to respond that if citizen-
ship is global, then nations are logically secondary elements. And why not? This
position corresponds perfectly to the ideology of the modern, as Descombes,
who remarked that

the normative individual, by definition, has no other social ties than
those to which he has consented and from which he can always emanci-
pate himself .... The true 'society of individuals' can only be, potentially, a
global society. (Descombes, 2013b, p. 214)
of states of the kind with which we are all familiar is more or less bound
to continue in existence] because it is hard to see how the world could
cease to be organized on a state-bound motif. The concept of freedom as
non-domination that is associated with neo-republican theory provides a
guiding ideal in the global, not just the domestic arena, and does so even
on the assumption that there will continue to be many distinct states. It
argues for a world in which states do not dominate members of their own
people and, considered as a corporate body, no people is dominated by
other agencies: not by other states and not, for example, by any interna-
tional agency or multi-national corporation. (Pettit, 2016, pp. 47–48)

The influence of Pettit's work undoubtedly explains the reasons why this
book examines the ideal of global citizenship education in order to distin-
guish various components (prescription, ideal, slogan, academic notion, edu-
cational ethics) and dig a Durkheimian path. To do so, the book tries to shed
light, around this vast object, on all the themes addressed by Durkheim as an
essential figure in sociology, philosophy and ETS.

This is why several investigations had to be conducted simultaneously:
holism, collective entities, ideology of the modern, collective representations,
organic solidarity, the state, individualism, cosmopolitanism. For to study
citizenship and its education is necessarily to think of society itself, in all its
components and in its aspect that is non-reducible to aggregated individual
phenomena.

The stake is vast, but to have it fully in mind is already a first step, and this,
with the help of the many works of neo-Durkheimian authors who, opening
multiple and sometimes very different paths, have nourished the present
reflections, from the nominalist micro-holism of liberal inspiration (Gilbert)
to the holism displayed as being socialist. These elements help establish a crys-
tallisation point, that of a cosmopolitan neo-republicanism at the height of
sociological stakes. In this regard, one of the most crucial questions was: what
status should the nation be granted?

Cosmopolitans in global citizenship education tend to respond that if citizen-
ship is global, then nations are logically secondary elements. And why not? This
position corresponds perfectly to the ideology of the modern, as Descombes,
who remarked that

the normative individual, by definition, has no other social ties than
those to which he has consented and from which he can always emanci-
pate himself .... The true 'society of individuals' can only be, potentially, a
global society. (Descombes, 2013b, p. 214)
Except that, according to Dumont and Descombes, one should not confuse the normative individual and the empirical individual, at the risk of suggesting that humanity is essentially composed of individuals, according to a sociological nominalism that is not really recognised but which, nevertheless, runs through the idea of global citizenship as soon as it is approached without the necessary reflective distance. Yet, the idea of global citizenship is available in the holist tradition in philosophy and sociology. In essence, a truly cosmopolitical citizenship education must make GCE a slogan, and it is the holistic tradition in philosophy and sociology that allow this. This perspective leads, as mentioned, to socialism, of which critical republicanism is a part.²

Thus, two pitfalls are avoided. The first one is that of permissible partialism, taking note of the fact that the preference for the nation is in tension with the moral equality of people in general: the identification with the nation, even patriotism, is then permissible strictly to the extent that it does not contradict cosmopolitan morality. The problem is that moral impartiality towards all is impossible to maintain. It would forbid us from preferring to help close family rather than the whole of humanity. More crucially, permissible partialism sees patriotism as a matter of individual preference. However, “to take patriotism as optional, or simply permitted, undermines the commitment to see the wrongs committed by one’s own state as falling under one’s own political responsibility” (Erez & Laborde, 2020, p. 194).

The second pitfall avoided is that of globally responsible nationalism, which echoes the conservative positions mentioned above (Miller, Schnapper). Of course, the nation is an ethical community and it is only through this path that individuals can be held responsible for the actions of their state (whether single or pluri-national). If it commits injustices in the global framework, its subjects must feel connected to it in order to counter its actions. Globally responsible nationalism would therefore seem an interesting middle way between abstract cosmopolitanism and narrow nationalism, but the problem is that strong identification with the nation is a mechanism that reinforces the denial of injustices. One thinker will produce a narrative saying that the French Empire is not really responsible for the current problems of formerly colonised countries, while another will claim that the dominant national group is in fact the real victim.

The neo-republican approach is more nuanced. Of course, it is the belonging to a political society that awakens the commitment to defend individual freedoms. In this sense, neo-republicans are patriots. They echo Durkheim's intuition that it is modern societies as such, marked by the integrated and regulated division of social work, that celebrate the cult of the human person. This cult is therefore a collective ideology, even if its object is the individual. Nations, in turn, are judged by individuals according to this collective ideology;
Except that, according to Dumont and Descombes, one should not confuse the normative individual and the empirical individual, at the risk of suggesting that humanity is essentially composed of individuals, according to a sociological nominalism that is not really recognised but which, nevertheless, runs through the idea of global citizenship as soon as it is approached without the necessary reflective distance. Yet, the idea of global citizenship is available in the holist tradition in philosophy and sociology. In essence, a truly cosmopolitical citizenship education must make GCE a slogan, and it is the holistic tradition in philosophy and sociology that allow this. This perspective leads, as mentioned, to socialism, of which critical republicanism is a part.²

Thus, two pitfalls are avoided. The first one is that of permissible partialism, taking note of the fact that the preference for the nation is in tension with the moral equality of people in general: the identification with the nation, even patriotism, is then permissible strictly to the extent that it does not contradict cosmopolitan morality. The problem is that moral impartiality towards all is impossible to maintain. It would forbid us from preferring to help close family rather than the whole of humanity. More crucially, permissible partialism sees patriotism as a matter of individual preference. However, “to take patriotism as optional, or simply permitted, undermines the commitment to see the wrongs committed by one’s own state as falling under one’s own political responsibility” (Erez & Laborde, 2020, p. 194).

The second pitfall avoided is that of globally responsible nationalism, which echoes the conservative positions mentioned above (Miller, Schnapper). Of course, the nation is an ethical community and it is only through this path that individuals can be held responsible for the actions of their state (whether single or pluri-national). If it commits injustices in the global framework, its subjects must feel connected to it in order to counter its actions. Globally responsible nationalism would therefore seem an interesting middle way between abstract cosmopolitanism and narrow nationalism, but the problem is that strong identification with the nation is a mechanism that reinforces the denial of injustices. One thinker will produce a narrative saying that the French Empire is not really responsible for the current problems of formerly colonised countries, while another will claim that the dominant national group is in fact the real victim.

The neo-republican approach is more nuanced. Of course, it is the belonging to a political society that awakens the commitment to defend individual freedoms. In this sense, neo-republicans are patriots. They echo Durkheim's intuition that it is modern societies as such, marked by the integrated and regulated division of social work, that celebrate the cult of the human person. This cult is therefore a collective ideology, even if its object is the individual. Nations, in turn, are judged by individuals according to this collective ideology;
that is why criticism of the nation does not imply the rejection of patriotism
but is a constitutive part of it. Neo-republicanism nevertheless pays attention
to groups' claims that they are dominated because it defends, more precisely,
the idea of an enlightened self-interest. This is crucial: the best way to defend
one's own freedom is to support public institutions that defend the freedom
of all.

This neo-republican path, which poses at the same time the necessity of
what is collective, or even societal (patriotism), and the critical skills resulting
from our modern ideology (the cult of the individual that Durkheim spoke of)
is thus also a neo-holist path. This is the missing piece to dispel the confu-
sion that haunts part of the debates on GCE, between nominalism and con-
servatism. Acknowledging the urgency of clarifying the complex relationships
between national and cosmopolitan ideals, social and political philosophy
offers social sciences a lexicon referring to collective entities that frame repub-
lican principles, while erecting safeguards against any instrumentalisation of
these entities in the service of an intellectual and political agenda that under-
mines individual freedoms. Thus, the cosmopolitan patriotism that Durkheim
called for is updated. Its relevance has been confirmed by the Globalsense
research program, and could lead to other avenues of work in education and
training sciences.

Notes

1 Bourdieu's *Distinction* is subtitled *A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste* in reply to Kant's *Critique of Judgment*. Durkheim's *Elementary Forms of Religious Life* deal with the social emergence of categories of understanding in response to Kant.

2 Socialism as such emphasises the importance of re-embedding the economy into society. Critical republicanism, whilst sharing this point of view, focuses on the evolving place of the state in society and pays more attention to particular ideals such as freedom of conscience, secularism, non-discrimination, citizenship.
that is why criticism of the nation does not imply the rejection of patriotism
but is a constitutive part of it. Neo-republicanism nevertheless pays attention
to groups' claims that they are dominated because it defends, more precisely,
the idea of an enlightened self-interest. This is crucial: the best way to defend
one's own freedom is to support public institutions that defend the freedom
of all.

This neo-republican path, which poses at the same time the necessity of
what is collective, or even societal (patriotism), and the critical skills resulting
from our modern ideology (the cult of the individual that Durkheim spoke of)
is thus also a neo-holist path. This is the missing piece to dispel the confu-
sion that haunts part of the debates on GCE, between nominalism and con-
servatism. Acknowledging the urgency of clarifying the complex relationships
between national and cosmopolitan ideals, social and political philosophy
offers social sciences a lexicon referring to collective entities that frame repub-
lican principles, while erecting safeguards against any instrumentalisation of
these entities in the service of an intellectual and political agenda that under-
mines individual freedoms. Thus, the cosmopolitan patriotism that Durkheim
called for is updated. Its relevance has been confirmed by the Globalsense
research program, and could lead to other avenues of work in education and
training sciences.

Notes

1 Bourdieu's *Distinction* is subtitled *A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste* in reply to Kant's *Critique of Judgment*. Durkheim's *Elementary Forms of Religious Life* deal with the social emergence of categories of understanding in response to Kant.

2 Socialism as such emphasises the importance of re-embedding the economy into society. Critical republicanism, whilst sharing this point of view, focuses on the evolving place of the state in society and pays more attention to particular ideals such as freedom of conscience, secularism, non-discrimination, citizenship.
References

Al-Azmeh, A. (2020). *Secularism and its enemies*. Working paper series of the CASHSS
"Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities". Leipzig University.
https://doi.org/10.36730/2020.1.msbwbm.15

Albero, B. (2019). Les sciences de l'éducation au XXI siècle. *Les Dossiers des Sciences de l'Éducation, 41*, 21-42.

Albero, B., & Barthes, A. (2022). Se situer et se positionner en SEF: thèmes de recherche et établissements d'exercice. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz J. (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 218-237). Raison et Passions.

Appiah, K. (2020). An unscientific postscript. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *Liberal nationalism and its critics* (pp. 263–278). Oxford University Press.

Asad, T., Brown, W., Butler, J., & Mahmood S. (Eds.). (2013). *Is critique secular? Blasphemy, injury, and free speech*. Fordham University Press.

Avon, D. (2017). Liberté de conscience: histoire d'une notion et d'un droit. *Annuaire de l'EPHE – Sciences religieuses, 124*, 339-344.

Avon, D. (2020). *La liberté de conscience. Histoire d'une notion et d'un droit*. Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Banks, J. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. *The Educational Forum, 68*(4), 296-305.

Banks J. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. *Educational Researcher, 37*(3), 129-139.

Barthes, A. (2017a). Quels outils curriculaires pour des 'éducations à' vers une citoyenneté politique? *Éducations, 17*(1), 25-40.

Barthes, A. (2017b). Université. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange, & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Eds.), *Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des « éducation à »* (pp. 568–571). L'Harmattan.

Barthes, A. (2022). Méthodologie d'analyse des systèmes curriculaires. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 597–607). Raison et Passions.

Barthes, A., & Lange, J.-M. (2022a). Éducations transversales, éducations à, questions d'actualité ? [On-line course]. https://hal.science/hal-03825547/document

Barthes, A., & Lange, J.-M. (2022b). Fragmentation et cohérence curriculaire en contextes : le cas des programmes Erasmus. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 382–391). Raison et Passions.

Barthes, A., Lange, J.-M., & Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2017). Introduction. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Eds.), *Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des « éducation à »* (pp. 7–15). L'Harmattan.
References

Al-Azmeh, A. (2020). *Secularism and its enemies*. Working paper series of the CASHSS
"Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities". Leipzig University.
https://doi.org/10.36730/2020.1.msbwbm.15

Albero, B. (2019). Les sciences de l'éducation au XXI siècle. *Les Dossiers des Sciences de l'Éducation, 41*, 21-42.

Albero, B., & Barthes, A. (2022). Se situer et se positionner en SEF: thèmes de recherche et établissements d'exercice. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz J. (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 218-237). Raison et Passions.

Appiah, K. (2020). An unscientific postscript. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *Liberal nationalism and its critics* (pp. 263–278). Oxford University Press.

Asad, T., Brown, W., Butler, J., & Mahmood S. (Eds.). (2013). *Is critique secular? Blasphemy, injury, and free speech*. Fordham University Press.

Avon, D. (2017). Liberté de conscience: histoire d'une notion et d'un droit. *Annuaire de l'EPHE – Sciences religieuses, 124*, 339-344.

Avon, D. (2020). *La liberté de conscience. Histoire d'une notion et d'un droit*. Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Banks, J. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global world. *The Educational Forum, 68*(4), 296-305.

Banks J. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. *Educational Researcher, 37*(3), 129–139.

Barthes, A. (2017a). Quels outils curriculaires pour des 'éducations à' vers une citoyenneté politique? *Éducations, 17*(1), 25-40.

Barthes, A. (2017b). Université. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange, & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Eds.), *Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des « éducation à »* (pp. 568–571). L'Harmattan.

Barthes, A. (2022). Méthodologie d'analyse des systèmes curriculaires. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 597–607). Raison et Passions.

Barthes, A., & Lange, J.-M. (2022a). Éducations transversales, éducations à, questions d'actualité ? [On-line course]. https://hal.science/hal-03825547/document

Barthes, A., & Lange, J.-M. (2022b). Fragmentation et cohérence curriculaire en contextes : le cas des programmes Erasmus. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 382–391). Raison et Passions.

Barthes, A., Lange, J.-M., & Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2017). Introduction. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Eds.), *Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des « éducation à »* (pp. 7–15). L'Harmattan.
Baubérot, J. (2009). Pour une sociologie interculturelle et historique de la laïcité.
*Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 146*, 183-200.

Bell, L. (2021). Climat du lycée et risque de décrochage scolaire: Le cas des élèves en orientation contrainte. *Revue française de pédagogie, 21*, 49-61.

Birnbaum, J. (2016). *Un silence religieux: la gauche face au djihadisme*. Seuil.

Birnbaum, P. (1976). La conception durkheimienne de l'État. *Revue française de socio-logie, 17-2*, 247-258.

Birnbaum, P. (2018). L'État durkheimien fait de la résistance. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 215-225). Presses universitaires de France.

Blitstein, P., & Lemieux, C. (2018). Comment rouvrir la question de la modernité ? *Politix, 123*, 7-33.

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). *On justification: Economies of worth*. Princeton University Press.

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2022). Préface: Critique et justification de De la justi-fication. In L. Boltanski & L. Thévenot (Eds.), *De la justification, nouvelle édition*. Gallimard.

Boudon, R. (2001). *The origin of values: Sociology and philosophy of beliefs*. Transaction Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1970). La maison kabyle ou le monde renversé. In J. Pouillon & P. Maranda (Eds.), *Échanges et communication. Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss* (pp. 739-758). Mouton.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Questions de politique. *Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 16*, 55-89.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). *In other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology*. Stanford University Press.

Bouvier, A. (2004). Individual beliefs and collective beliefs in sciences and philosophy. *Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34*(3), 382-407.

Bouvier, A. (2019). Individualism versus holism. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), *Sage research methods foundations*. Sage.

Bronner, G., & Di Ioro, F. (Eds.). (2018). *The mystery of rationality: Mind, beliefs and the social sciences*. Springer.

Callegaro, F. (2014). Le sens de la nation. Marcel Mauss et le projet inachevé des modernes. *Revue du MAUSS, 43*, 337-356

Callegaro, F. (2018). L'État en pensée. In B. Karsenti & D. Linhardt (Eds.), *État et société politique* (pp. 191-226). Éditions de l'ÉHESS.

Callegaro, F., & Giry, J. (2017). Une révolution à venir ? À partir du livre de Marc Joly – La Révolution sociologique. *Sociologie, 9*(3), 305-322.

Callegaro, F., & Giry, J. (2020). Le motif refoulé. Plaidoyer pour une corporation réflex-ive. *Revue du MAUSS, 56*, 98-116.
Baubérot, J. (2009). Pour une sociologie interculturelle et historique de la laïcité.
*Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 146*, 183-200.

Bell, L. (2021). Climat du lycée et risque de décrochage scolaire: Le cas des élèves en orientation contrainte. *Revue française de pédagogie, 21*, 49-61.

Birnbaum, J. (2016). *Un silence religieux: la gauche face au djihadisme*. Seuil.

Birnbaum, P. (1976). La conception durkheimienne de l'État. *Revue française de socio-logie, 17-2*, 247-258.

Birnbaum, P. (2018). L'État durkheimien fait de la résistance. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 215-225). Presses universitaires de France.

Blitstein, P., & Lemieux, C. (2018). Comment rouvrir la question de la modernité ? *Politix, 123*, 7-33.

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). *On justification: Economies of worth*. Princeton University Press.

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2022). Préface: Critique et justification de De la justi-fication. In L. Boltanski & L. Thévenot (Eds.), *De la justification, nouvelle édition*. Gallimard.

Boudon, R. (2001). *The origin of values: Sociology and philosophy of beliefs*. Transaction Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1970). La maison kabyle ou le monde renversé. In J. Pouillon & P. Maranda (Eds.), *Échanges et communication. Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss* (pp. 739-758). Mouton.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Questions de politique. *Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 16*, 55-89.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). *In other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology*. Stanford University Press.

Bouvier, A. (2004). Individual beliefs and collective beliefs in sciences and philosophy. *Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34*(3), 382-407.

Bouvier, A. (2019). Individualism versus holism. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), *Sage research methods foundations*. Sage.

Bronner, G., & Di Ioro, F. (Eds.). (2018). *The mystery of rationality: Mind, beliefs and the social sciences*. Springer.

Callegaro, F. (2014). Le sens de la nation. Marcel Mauss et le projet inachevé des modernes. *Revue du MAUSS, 43*, 337-356

Callegaro, F. (2018). L'État en pensée. In B. Karsenti & D. Linhardt (Eds.), *État et société politique* (pp. 191-226). Éditions de l'ÉHESS.

Callegaro, F., & Giry, J. (2017). Une révolution à venir ? À partir du livre de Marc Joly – La Révolution sociologique. *Sociologie, 9*(3), 305-322.

Callegaro, F., & Giry, J. (2020). Le motif refoulé. Plaidoyer pour une corporation réflex-ive. *Revue du MAUSS, 56*, 98-116.
Callegaro, F., & Marcucci, N. (2018). Europe as a political society: Emile Durkheim, the federalist principle and the ideal of a cosmopolitan justice. *Constellations*, 25(4), 542–555.

Calvès, G. (2022). *La laïcité*. La Découverte.

Chanial, P. (2019). Préface: De Durkheim à Rawls (John) en passant par Garfinkel. In A. Rawls (Ed.), *La Division du travail revisited* (pp. 7–30). Le Bord de l'eau.

Christian, M., Schneuwly, B., Brylinski, E., Leopoldoff, I., & Loureiro, C. (2022). *Le BIE dans le monde: une géographie variable*. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 509–539). Peter Lang.

Christin, O., & Deschamp M. (2016). Introduction. In O. Christin (Ed.), *Dictionnaire des concepts nomades en sciences humaines* (pp. 11–19). Métailié.

Colgan, J., Green, J., & Hale, T. (2021). Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. *International Organization*, 75, 586–610.

Cuin, C.-H. (2018). Durkheim, la foi et les deux côtés de la Force. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 101–121). Presses universitaires de France.

de Bouttemont, C. (2004). Le système éducatif belge. *Revue internationale d'éducation de Sèvres*, 37, 101–108.

Debray, R. (2004). *God: An itinerary*. Verso.

Délaye, Y. (2018). Penser la citoyenneté avec Durkheim. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 241–257). Presses universitaires de France.

Demeulenaere, P. (2012). L'interprétation des terrains et le recours à des propositions théoriques. *L'Année sociologique*, 62, 67–91.

Descombes, V. (1996). L'esprit comme esprit des lois. *Le Débat*, 90(3), 71–92.

Descombes, V. (2000). The philosophy of collective representations. *History of the Human Sciences*, 13(1), 37–49.

Descombes, V. (2009). *Le raisonnement de l'ours*. Seuil.

Descombes, V. (2013). Alasdair MacIntyre en France. *Revue internationale de philosophie*, 264, 135–156.

Descombes, V. (2013). *Les Embarras de l'identité*. Gallimard.

Descombes, V. (2014). *The institutions of meaning: A defense of anthropological holism*. Harvard University Press.

Descombes, V. (2017). L'identité de groupe: identités sociales, identités collectives. *Raisons politiques*, 66, 13–28.

Dewey, J. (1916). Nationalizing education. *Journal of Education*, 84(16), 425–428.

Douniès, T. (2018). Désanctuarisation de l'École et socialisation républicaine. *Éducation et sociétés*, 41(1), 63–71.

Dubet, F. (2018). Durkheim et les questions scolaires. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 45–66). Presses universitaires de France.
Callegaro, F., & Marcucci, N. (2018). Europe as a political society: Emile Durkheim, the federalist principle and the ideal of a cosmopolitan justice. *Constellations*, 25(4), 542–555.

Calvès, G. (2022). *La laïcité*. La Découverte.

Chanial, P. (2019). Préface: De Durkheim à Rawls (John) en passant par Garfinkel. In A. Rawls (Ed.), *La Division du travail revisited* (pp. 7–30). Le Bord de l'eau.

Christian, M., Schneuwly, B., Brylinski, E., Leopoldoff, I., & Loureiro, C. (2022). *Le BIE dans le monde: une géographie variable*. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 509–539). Peter Lang.

Christin, O., & Deschamp M. (2016). Introduction. In O. Christin (Ed.), *Dictionnaire des concepts nomades en sciences humaines* (pp. 11–19). Métailié.

Colgan, J., Green, J., & Hale, T. (2021). Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. *International Organization*, 75, 586–610.

Cuin, C.-H. (2018). Durkheim, la foi et les deux côtés de la Force. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 101–121). Presses universitaires de France.

de Bouttemont, C. (2004). Le système éducatif belge. *Revue internationale d'éducation de Sèvres*, 37, 101–108.

Debray, R. (2004). *God: An itinerary*. Verso.

Délaye, Y. (2018). Penser la citoyenneté avec Durkheim. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 241–257). Presses universitaires de France.

Demeulenaere, P. (2012). L'interprétation des terrains et le recours à des propositions théoriques. *L'Année sociologique*, 62, 67–91.

Descombes, V. (1996). L'esprit comme esprit des lois. *Le Débat*, 90(3), 71–92.

Descombes, V. (2000). The philosophy of collective representations. *History of the Human Sciences*, 13(1), 37–49.

Descombes, V. (2009). *Le raisonnement de l'ours*. Seuil.

Descombes, V. (2013). Alasdair MacIntyre en France. *Revue internationale de philosophie*, 264, 135–156.

Descombes, V. (2013). *Les Embarras de l'identité*. Gallimard.

Descombes, V. (2014). *The institutions of meaning: A defense of anthropological holism*. Harvard University Press.

Descombes, V. (2017). L'identité de groupe: identités sociales, identités collectives. *Raisons politiques*, 66, 13–28.

Dewey, J. (1916). Nationalizing education. *Journal of Education*, 84(16), 425–428.

Douniès, T. (2018). Désanctuarisation de l'École et socialisation républicaine. *Éducation et sociétés*, 41(1), 63–71.

Dubet, F. (2018). Durkheim et les questions scolaires. In C.-H. Cuin & R. Hervouet (Eds.), *Durkheim aujourd'hui* (pp. 45–66). Presses universitaires de France.
Dubuisson, D. (2019). *The invention of religions*. Equinox Publishing.

Dugonjic-Rodwin, L. (2022). Becoming ‘international’: Transgressing national identity as a ritual for class identification. *Ethnography*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381221082909

Dumont, L. (1991). *Essais sur l'individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l'idéologie moderne*. Seuil.

Dumont, L. (1992). *Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective*. The University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, É. (1996). *De la division du travail social*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1893)

Durkheim, É. (2014). *Sociologie et philosophie*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1924)

Durkheim, É. (2020). *Sociologie politique. Une anthologie*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1900–1908)

Erez, L., & Laborde C. (2020). Cosmopolitan patriotism as a civic ideal. *American Journal of Political Science*, 64(1), 191–203.

Fabiani, J.-L. (2016). *Pierre Bourdieu. Un structuralisme héroïque*. Seuil.

Fabre, M. & Lang, V. (2021). Constitution et identité des sciences de l'éducation et de la formation en France. In P. Guibert P. (Ed.), *Manuel de sciences de l'éducation et de la formation* (pp. 25–42). De Boeck.

Fassin, É. (2013). Aveugles à la race ou au racisme ? Une approche stratégique. In D. Fassin, É. Fassin (Eds.), *De la question sociale à la question raciale ?* (pp. 106–130). La Découverte.

Feniger, Y., Shavit, Y., & Caller, S. (2021). Schooling and equity in Israel. *Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education*.

Friedman, J. (2000). Des racines et (dé)routes: Tropes pour trekkers. *L'Homme*, 156, 187–206.

Gilbert, M. (1999). Reconsidering the ‘actual contract’ theory of political obligation. *Ethics*, 109(2), 236–260.

Gilbert, M. (2003). *Marcher ensemble: essais sur les fondements des phénomènes collectifs*. Presses universitaires de France

Gilbert, M. (2013). *Joint commitment: How we make the social world*. Oxford university Press.

Goren, H. (2021). *Global citizenship education in and for Israel* [Doctoral dissertation]. UCL Institute of Education, London.

Guérard de Latour, S. (2009). *Vers la république des différences*. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Guérard de Latour, S. (2014). Cultural insecurity and political solidarity: French republicanism reconsidered. In E. Chabal (Ed.), *France since the 1970s: History, politics and memory in an age of uncertainty* (pp. 245–262). Bloomsbury.
Dubuisson, D. (2019). *The invention of religions*. Equinox Publishing.

Dugonjic-Rodwin, L. (2022). Becoming ‘international’: Transgressing national identity as a ritual for class identification. *Ethnography*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381221082909

Dumont, L. (1991). *Essais sur l'individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l'idéologie moderne*. Seuil.

Dumont, L. (1992). *Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective*. The University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, É. (1996). *De la division du travail social*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1893)

Durkheim, É. (2014). *Sociologie et philosophie*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1924)

Durkheim, É. (2020). *Sociologie politique. Une anthologie*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1900–1908)

Erez, L., & Laborde C. (2020). Cosmopolitan patriotism as a civic ideal. *American Journal of Political Science*, 64(1), 191–203.

Fabiani, J.-L. (2016). *Pierre Bourdieu. Un structuralisme héroïque*. Seuil.

Fabre, M. & Lang, V. (2021). Constitution et identité des sciences de l'éducation et de la formation en France. In P. Guibert P. (Ed.), *Manuel de sciences de l'éducation et de la formation* (pp. 25–42). De Boeck.

Fassin, É. (2013). Aveugles à la race ou au racisme ? Une approche stratégique. In D. Fassin, É. Fassin (Eds.), *De la question sociale à la question raciale* ? (pp. 106–130). La Découverte.

Feniger, Y., Shavit, Y., & Caller, S. (2021). Schooling and equity in Israel. *Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education*.

Friedman, J. (2000). Des racines et (dé)routes: Tropes pour trekkers. *L'Homme*, 156, 187–206.

Gilbert, M. (1999). Reconsidering the ‘actual contract’ theory of political obligation. *Ethics*, 109(2), 236–260.

Gilbert, M. (2003). *Marcher ensemble: essais sur les fondements des phénomènes collectifs*. Presses universitaires de France

Gilbert, M. (2013). *Joint commitment: How we make the social world*. Oxford university Press.

Goren, H. (2021). *Global citizenship education in and for Israel* [Doctoral dissertation]. UCL Institute of Education, London.

Guérard de Latour, S. (2009). *Vers la république des différences*. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Guérard de Latour, S. (2014). Cultural insecurity and political solidarity: French repub-
licanism reconsidered. In E. Chabal (Ed.), *France since the 1970s: History, politics and
memory in an age of uncertainty* (pp. 245–262). Bloomsbury.
Guérard de Latour, S. (2015). Le rôle de l'identité nationale dans le républicanisme critique. *Le Philosophoire*, 43, 73-99.

Gustavsson, G. & Miller, D. (Eds.). (2020). *Liberal nationalism and its critics*. Oxford University Press.

Heinich, N. (2012). Mapping intermediaries in contemporary art according to pragmatic sociology. *European Journal of Cultural Studies*, 15(6), 695-702.

Heurtin, J.-P. (2022). Contrepoint. Défétichiser le politique. In S. Hayat, N. Kaciaf, & C. Passard (Eds.), *Le porte-parole: Fondements et métamorphoses d'un rôle politique* (pp. 309-342). Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Hofstetter, R. (2022). Ut per juvenes ascendat mundus. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 77-118). Peter Lang.

Hofstetter R., & Boss C. (2022). Se positionner comme organisation inter-gouvernementale (1929-1939). In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 117-158). Peter Lang.

Hofstetter, R., & Érhise (Eds.). (2022). *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif*. Peter Lang.

Hofstetter, R., & Schneuwly, B. (2022). Conclusion générale: Un Bureau précurseur, acteur de son temps. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 541-568). Peter Lang.

Karsenti, B. (2013). *D'une philosophie à l'autre. Les sciences sociales et la politique des modernes*. Gallimard.

Karsenti, B. (2023, March 9). Israel, 2023: What we hold on. *K. – Jews, Europe, The XXI century*.

Karsenti, B., & Lemieux, C. (2017). *Socialisme et sociologie. Éditions de l'EHESS*.

Karsenti, B., & Lemieux, C. (2019). Entretien au sujet de Socialisme et sociologie. *Raisons politiques*, 73, 133-161.

Kaufmann, L. (2002). La prédication nostrologique. Quelques réflexions sur la nature du politique. *Revue européenne des sciences sociales*, 124, 283-308.

Kaufmann, L. (2003). Le Dieu social. Vers une socio-logie du nominalisme en Révolution. In L. Kaufmann & J. Guilhaumou (Eds.), *L'invention de la société* (pp. 123-161). Éditions de l'EHESS.

Kaufmann, L. (2010). Faire collectif. De la constitution à la maintenance. In L. Kaufmann & D. Trom (Eds.), *Qu'est-ce qu'un collectif?* (pp. 331-372). Éditions de l'EHESS.

Kaufmann, L. (2011). Social minds. In I. C. Jarvie & J. Zamora-Bonilla (Eds.), *The Sage handbook of the philosophy of social sciences* (pp. 153-180). Sage.

Kaufmann, L. (2023). La quadrature du cercle: Commun, communauté et immunité. *Revue du MAUSS*, 61, 65-87.
Guérard de Latour, S. (2015). Le rôle de l'identité nationale dans le républicanisme critique. *Le Philosophoire*, 43, 73-99.

Gustavsson, G. & Miller, D. (Eds.). (2020). *Liberal nationalism and its critics*. Oxford University Press.

Heinich, N. (2012). Mapping intermediaries in contemporary art according to pragmatic sociology. *European Journal of Cultural Studies*, 15(6), 695-702.

Heurtin, J.-P. (2022). Contrepoint. Défétichiser le politique. In S. Hayat, N. Kaciaf, & C. Passard (Eds.), *Le porte-parole: Fondements et métamorphoses d'un rôle politique* (pp. 309-342). Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Hofstetter, R. (2022). Ut per juvenes ascendat mundus. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 77-118). Peter Lang.

Hofstetter R., & Boss C. (2022). Se positionner comme organisation inter-gouvernementale (1929-1939). In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 117-158). Peter Lang.

Hofstetter, R., & Érhise (Eds.). (2022). *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif*. Peter Lang.

Hofstetter, R., & Schneuwly, B. (2022). Conclusion générale: Un Bureau précurseur, acteur de son temps. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise (Eds.), *Le Bureau international d'éducation, matrice de l'internationalisme éducatif* (pp. 541-568). Peter Lang.

Karsenti, B. (2013). *D'une philosophie à l'autre. Les sciences sociales et la politique des modernes*. Gallimard.

Karsenti, B. (2023, March 9). Israel, 2023: What we hold on. *K. – Jews, Europe, The XXI century*.

Karsenti, B., & Lemieux, C. (2017). *Socialisme et sociologie. Éditions de l'EHESS*.

Karsenti, B., & Lemieux, C. (2019). Entretien au sujet de Socialisme et sociologie. *Raisons politiques*, 73, 133-161.

Kaufmann, L. (2002). La prédication nostrologique. Quelques réflexions sur la nature du politique. *Revue européenne des sciences sociales*, 124, 283-308.

Kaufmann, L. (2003). Le Dieu social. Vers une socio-logie du nominalisme en Révolution. In L. Kaufmann & J. Guilhaumou (Eds.), *L'invention de la société* (pp. 123-161). Éditions de l'EHESS.

Kaufmann, L. (2010). Faire collectif. De la constitution à la maintenance. In L. Kaufmann & D. Trom (Eds.), *Qu'est-ce qu'un collectif?* (pp. 331-372). Éditions de l'EHESS.

Kaufmann, L. (2011). Social minds. In I. C. Jarvie & J. Zamora-Bonilla (Eds.), *The Sage handbook of the philosophy of social sciences* (pp. 153-180). Sage.

Kaufmann, L. (2023). La quadrature du cercle: Commun, communauté et immunité. *Revue du MAUSS*, 61, 65-87.
Koopmann, F. K. (2004, September 23–26). *Public civic (political) education in Germany – A brief outline focussing on German schools* [Paper]. The Networking European Citizenship Education in Santiago de Compostela.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). *Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights*. Clarendon Press.

Kitcher, P. (2022). *The main enterprise of the world: Rethinking education*. Oxford University Press.

Joly, M. (2018). *Pour Bourdieu*. CNRS Éditions.

Joppke, C. (2017). *Is multiculturalism dead? Polity Press*.

Joppke, C. (2021). *Neoliberal nationalism*. Cambridge University Press.

Laborde, C. (2001). The culture(s) of the republic: Nationalism and multiculturalism in contemporary French republican thought. *Political Theory*, 29(5), 716–735.

Laborde, C. (2008). *Critical republicanism: The Hijab controversy and political philosophy*. Oxford University Press.

Laborde, C. (2017). *Liberalism's religion*. Harvard University Press.

Laborde, C., & Lægaard, S. (2020). Liberal nationalism and symbolic religious establishment. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *Liberal nationalism and its critics* (pp. 172–187). Oxford University Press.

Laden, A. (2006). Republican moments in political liberalism. *Revue internationale de philosophie*, 237, 341–367.

Lantheaume, F., & Urbanski, S. (Eds.) (2023). *Laïcité, discriminations, racisme. Les professionnels de l'éducation à l'épreuve*. Presses universitaires de Lyon.

Larmore, C. (2001). A critique of Philip Pettit's republicanism. In E. Sosa & E. Villanueva (Eds.), *Philosophical issues – Social, political and legal philosophy* (pp. 229–243). Blackwell.

Lemieux, C. (2012). Philosophie et sociologie: le prix du passage. *Sociologie*, 3(2), 199–209.

Lemieux, C. (2021). Socialism as a reaction to nationalisms: A Durkheimian perspective. In N. Marcucci (Ed.), *Durkheim & critique*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lessard, C. (2019). Conclusion: les sciences de l'éducation vers une meilleure intégration ? In B. Mabilon-Bonfils & C. Delory-Momberger (Eds.), *À quoi servent les sciences de l'éducation ?* (pp. 197–210). ESF.

Levinson, M. (2002). *The demands of liberal education*. Oxford University Press.

Levinson, M. (2010). Mapping multicultural education. In H. Siegel (Ed.), *The Oxford handbook of philosophy of education* (pp. 428–450). Oxford University Press.

Linhardt, D. (2010). L'embarras de la sociologie avec l'État. In L. Kaufmann & D. Trom (Eds.), *Qu'est-ce qu'un collectif ?* (pp. 295–330). Éd. de l'EHESS.

Magni-Berton, R. (2008). Holisme durkheimien et holisme bourdieusien. *L'Année sociologique*, 58(2), 299–318.
Koopmann, F. K. (2004, September 23–26). *Public civic (political) education in Germany – A brief outline focussing on German schools* [Paper]. The Networking European Citizenship Education in Santiago de Compostela.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). *Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights*. Clarendon Press.

Kitcher, P. (2022). *The main enterprise of the world: Rethinking education*. Oxford University Press.

Joly, M. (2018). *Pour Bourdieu*. CNRS Éditions.

Joppke, C. (2017). *Is multiculturalism dead? Polity Press*.

Joppke, C. (2021). *Neoliberal nationalism*. Cambridge University Press.

Laborde, C. (2001). The culture(s) of the republic: Nationalism and multiculturalism in contemporary French republican thought. *Political Theory*, 29(5), 716–735.

Laborde, C. (2008). *Critical republicanism: The Hijab controversy and political philosophy*. Oxford University Press.

Laborde, C. (2017). *Liberalism's religion*. Harvard University Press.

Laborde, C., & Lægaard, S. (2020). Liberal nationalism and symbolic religious establishment. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *Liberal nationalism and its critics* (pp. 172–187). Oxford University Press.

Laden, A. (2006). Republican moments in political liberalism. *Revue internationale de philosophie*, 237, 341–367.

Lantheaume, F., & Urbanski, S. (Eds.) (2023). *Laïcité, discriminations, racisme. Les professionnels de l'éducation à l'épreuve*. Presses universitaires de Lyon.

Larmore, C. (2001). A critique of Philip Pettit's republicanism. In E. Sosa & E. Villanueva (Eds.), *Philosophical issues – Social, political and legal philosophy* (pp. 229–243). Blackwell.

Lemieux, C. (2012). Philosophie et sociologie: le prix du passage. *Sociologie*, 3(2), 199–209.

Lemieux, C. (2021). Socialism as a reaction to nationalisms: A Durkheimian perspective. In N. Marcucci (Ed.), *Durkheim & critique*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lessard, C. (2019). Conclusion: les sciences de l'éducation vers une meilleure intégration ? In B. Mabilon-Bonfils & C. Delory-Momberger (Eds.), *À quoi servent les sciences de l'éducation ?* (pp. 197–210). ESF.

Levinson, M. (2002). *The demands of liberal education*. Oxford University Press.

Levinson, M. (2010). Mapping multicultural education. In H. Siegel (Ed.), *The Oxford handbook of philosophy of education* (pp. 428–450). Oxford University Press.

Linhardt, D. (2010). L'embarras de la sociologie avec l'État. In L. Kaufmann & D. Trom (Eds.), *Qu'est-ce qu'un collectif ?* (pp. 295–330). Éd. de l'EHESS.

Magni-Berton, R. (2008). Holisme durkheimien et holisme bourdieusien. *L'Année sociologique*, 58(2), 299–318.
Majhanovich, S., & Malet, R. (Eds.). (2015). *Building democracy in education on diversity*. Sense Publishers.

Malet, R. (2005). De l'État-Nation à l'espace-monde. Les conditions historiques du renouveau de l'éducation comparée. *Carrefours de l'éducation, 19*, 165–188.

Malet, R. (2010). Mondialisation. *Recherche & Formation, 65*, 89–104.

Malet, R. (2011). Borders, translation and difference recognition in research: The hermeneutic task of comparative education. *International Review of Education, 57*, 319–335.

Malet, R. (2012). Médiations en milieu scolaire. *Informations sociales, 170*, 74–81.

Malet, R. (2021). Constances et variations dans la construction des sciences de l'éducation comme discipline universitaire. In P. Guibert (Ed.), *Manuel de Sciences de l'éducation et de la formation* (pp. 65–78). de Boeck.

Malet, R. (2022). Comparatisme interculturel. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 440–455). Raison et Passions.

Malet, R. (2023). Une évaluation de l'action publique en éducation, en deux temps trois mouvements. *Administration & Éducation, 178*, 45–53.

Malet, R., & Garnier, B. (2020). Introduction. In R. Malet & B. Garnier (Eds.), *Éducation, mondialisation et citoyenneté* (pp. 7–20). Peter Lang.

Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. *Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9*(3), 443–456.

March, A. (2011). Speaking about Muhammad, speaking for Muslims. *Critical Inquiry, 37*(4), 806–821.

March, A. (2019). *The caliphate of man: Popular sovereignty in modern Islamic thought*. Harvard University Press.

Mar'i, S. (1985). The future of Palestinian Arab education in Israel. *Journal of Palestine Studies, 14*(2), 52–73.

Matthews, J., & Sidhu, R. (2005). Desperately seeking the global subject. *Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3*(1), 49–66.

Maurel, C. (2009). L'UNESCO aujourd'hui. *Vingtième siècle – revue d'histoire, 102*, 131–144.

Mauss, M. (1968), *Essais de sociologie*. Seuil.

Mauss, M. (2013). *La nation. Éléments de politique moderne*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1953)

Mauss, M., & Fauconnet, P. (1968). La sociologie : objet et méthode. In M. Mauss (Ed.), *Essais de sociologie* (pp. 6–41). Seuil.

McCrea, R. (2018). Squaring the circle: Can an egalitarian and individualistic conception of freedom of religion or belief co-exist with the notion of indirect discrimination? In H. Collins & T. Khaitan (Eds.), *Foundations of indirect discrimination law* (pp. 149–171). Hart.
Majhanovich, S., & Malet, R. (Eds.). (2015). *Building democracy in education on diversity*. Sense Publishers.

Malet, R. (2005). De l'État-Nation à l'espace-monde. Les conditions historiques du renouveau de l'éducation comparée. *Carrefours de l'éducation, 19*, 165–188.

Malet, R. (2010). Mondialisation. *Recherche & Formation, 65*, 89–104.

Malet, R. (2011). Borders, translation and difference recognition in research: The hermeneutic task of comparative education. *International Review of Education, 57*, 319–335.

Malet, R. (2012). Médiations en milieu scolaire. *Informations sociales, 170*, 74–81.

Malet, R. (2021). Constances et variations dans la construction des sciences de l'éducation comme discipline universitaire. In P. Guibert (Ed.), *Manuel de Sciences de l'éducation et de la formation* (pp. 65–78). de Boeck.

Malet, R. (2022). Comparatisme interculturel. In B. Albero & J. Thievenaz (Eds.), *Enquêter dans les métiers de l'humain* (pp. 440–455). Raison et Passions.

Malet, R. (2023). Une évaluation de l'action publique en éducation, en deux temps trois mouvements. *Administration & Éducation, 178*, 45–53.

Malet, R., & Garnier, B. (2020). Introduction. In R. Malet & B. Garnier (Eds.), *Éducation, mondialisation et citoyenneté* (pp. 7–20). Peter Lang.

Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. *Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9*(3), 443–456.

March, A. (2011). Speaking about Muhammad, speaking for Muslims. *Critical Inquiry, 37*(4), 806–821.

March, A. (2019). *The caliphate of man: Popular sovereignty in modern Islamic thought*. Harvard University Press.

Mar'i, S. (1985). The future of Palestinian Arab education in Israel. *Journal of Palestine Studies, 14*(2), 52–73.

Matthews, J., & Sidhu, R. (2005). Desperately seeking the global subject. *Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3*(1), 49–66.

Maurel, C. (2009). L'UNESCO aujourd'hui. *Vingtième siècle – revue d'histoire, 102*, 131–144.

Mauss, M. (1968), *Essais de sociologie*. Seuil.

Mauss, M. (2013). *La nation. Éléments de politique moderne*. Presses universitaires de France. (Original work published 1953)

Mauss, M., & Fauconnet, P. (1968). La sociologie : objet et méthode. In M. Mauss (Ed.), *Essais de sociologie* (pp. 6–41). Seuil.

McCrea, R. (2018). Squaring the circle: Can an egalitarian and individualistic conception of freedom of religion or belief co-exist with the notion of indirect discrimination? In H. Collins & T. Khaitan (Eds.), *Foundations of indirect discrimination law* (pp. 149–171). Hart.
Miller, D. (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A critique. *Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy*, 5(3), 80–85.

Miller, D. (2012). The idea of global citizenship. In S. R. Ben-Porath & R. Smith (Eds.), *Varieties of sovereignty and citizenship* (pp. 227–243). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Miller, D. (2020). The coherence of liberal nationalism. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *National liberalism and its critics* (pp. 23–37). Oxford University Press.

Montesquieu, C. (1949). *Mes Pensées. Œuvres complètes*. Gallimard.

Nussbaum, M. (2019). *The cosmopolitan tradition: A noble but flawed ideal*. Harvard University Press.

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. *British Journal of Educational Studies*, 61(3), 301–325.

Papastephanou, M. (2018). Why cosmopolitanism needs rethinking. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), *The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education* (pp. 179–192). Palgrave.

Piaget, J. (1949). *Le droit à l'éducation dans le monde actuel*. UNESCO.

Pettit, P. (2014). Three issues in social ontology. In J. Zahle & F. Collin (Eds.), *Rethinking the individualism-holism debate* (pp. 77–96). Springer.

Pettit, P. (2016). The globalized republican ddeal. *Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric*, 9(1), 47–68.

Pinson, H. (2020). The new civics curriculum for high schools in Israel: The discursive construction of Palestinian identity and narratives. *Education, Citizenship and Social Justice*, 15(1), 22–34.

Powers, T. (2002). Postmodernism and James A. Banks's multiculturalism. *Educational Theory*, 52(2), 209–221.

Pranchère, J.-Y. (2021). La théorie politique: entre philosophie de la politique et politique dans la théorie. *Revue française de science politique*, 71, 745–764.

Pranchère, J.-Y. (2023). Libéralisme et laïcité. *The Tocqueville Review*, 44(2), 125–148.

Rapoport, A. (2021). Human rights and global citizenship in social studies standards in the United States. *Human Rights Education Review*, 4(1), 112–132.

Rawls, J. (1999). *The law of peoples*. Harvard University Press.

Rawls, A. (2021). The structure of social facts: Self, objects and action as products of reciprocity and cooperation in constitutive practices. *Mauss international*, 1(1), 186–206.

Resnik, J. (2001). Le curriculum et la formation de sujets nationaux en Israël. *Éducation et sociétés*, 7, 169–189.

Rochex, J.-Y. (2020). Promouvoir la diversité et la reconnaissance ou l'égalité et le développement de la normativité ? In B. Garnier, J.-L. Derouet, & R. Malet (Eds.), *Sociétés inclusives et reconnaissances des diversités* (pp. 29–50). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Miller, D. (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A critique. *Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy*, 5(3), 80–85.

Miller, D. (2012). The idea of global citizenship. In S. R. Ben-Porath & R. Smith (Eds.), *Varieties of sovereignty and citizenship* (pp. 227–243). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Miller, D. (2020). The coherence of liberal nationalism. In G. Gustavsson & D. Miller (Eds.), *National liberalism and its critics* (pp. 23–37). Oxford University Press.

Montesquieu, C. (1949). *Mes Pensées. Œuvres complètes*. Gallimard.

Nussbaum, M. (2019). *The cosmopolitan tradition: A noble but flawed ideal*. Harvard University Press.

Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. *British Journal of Educational Studies*, 61(3), 301–325.

Papastephanou, M. (2018). Why cosmopolitanism needs rethinking. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, C. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), *The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education* (pp. 179–192). Palgrave.

Piaget, J. (1949). *Le droit à l'éducation dans le monde actuel*. UNESCO.

Pettit, P. (2014). Three issues in social ontology. In J. Zahle & F. Collin (Eds.), *Rethinking the individualism-holism debate* (pp. 77–96). Springer.

Pettit, P. (2016). The globalized republican ddeal. *Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric*, 9(1), 47–68.

Pinson, H. (2020). The new civics curriculum for high schools in Israel: The discursive construction of Palestinian identity and narratives. *Education, Citizenship and Social Justice*, 15(1), 22–34.

Powers, T. (2002). Postmodernism and James A. Banks's multiculturalism. *Educational Theory*, 52(2), 209–221.

Pranchère, J.-Y. (2021). La théorie politique: entre philosophie de la politique et politique dans la théorie. *Revue française de science politique*, 71, 745–764.

Pranchère, J.-Y. (2023). Libéralisme et laïcité. *The Tocqueville Review*, 44(2), 125–148.

Rapoport, A. (2021). Human rights and global citizenship in social studies standards in the United States. *Human Rights Education Review*, 4(1), 112–132.

Rawls, J. (1999). *The law of peoples*. Harvard University Press.

Rawls, A. (2021). The structure of social facts: Self, objects and action as products of reciprocity and cooperation in constitutive practices. *Mauss international*, 1(1), 186–206.

Resnik, J. (2001). Le curriculum et la formation de sujets nationaux en Israël. *Éducation et sociétés*, 7, 169–189.

Rochex, J.-Y. (2020). Promouvoir la diversité et la reconnaissance ou l'égalité et le développement de la normativité ? In B. Garnier, J.-L. Derouet, & R. Malet (Eds.), *Sociétés inclusives et reconnaissances des diversités* (pp. 29–50). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Rosanvallon, P. (2006). *Democracy past and future*. Columbia University Press.

Rougier, B. (Ed.). (2021). *Les territoires conquis de l'islamisme*. Presses universitaires de France.

Saada, J., & Antaki, M. (2018). Conscience and its claims: A philosophical history of conscientious objection. In S. Mancini & M. Rosenfeld (Eds.), *The conscience wars: Rethinking the balance between religion, identity, and equality* (pp. 23–57). Cambridge University Press.

Sabbagh, D. (2011). The paradox of decategorization: Deinstitutionalizing race through race-based affirmative action in the United States. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34*, 1665–1681.

Schaub, J.-F. (2021). Halte au feu ! *Esprit*, July, 18–21.

Searle, J. (1995). *The construction of social reality*. Free Press.

Shapiro, S., & Brown, C. (2018, February 21). *The state of civics education*. Report for the Center of American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-civics-education/

Sintomer, Y. (2011). Émile Durkheim, entre républicanisme et démocratie délibérative. *Sociologie, 4(2)*, 405–416.

Spector, C. (2021). *No demos? Souveraineté et démocratie à l'épreuve de l'Europe*. Seuil.

Spitz J.-F. (2005). *Le moment républicain en France*. Gallimard.

Steiner, P. (2018). *La sociologie de Durkheim*. La Découverte.

Tamir, Y. (2019). *Why nationalism*. Princeton University Press.

Tamir, Y. (2020). Why nationalism? Because nothing else works. *Nations and Nationalism, 26*, 538–543.

Tang, Q. (2015). Foreword. In *Éducation à la citoyenneté mondiale. Préparer les apprenants aux défis du XXIe siècle* (pp. 5–6). Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230062

Tarot, C. (2003). *Sociologie et anthropologie de Marcel Mauss*. La Découverte.

Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. (2016). *Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism*. Bloomsbury.

Thévenot, L. (1996). Justification et compromis. In M. Canto-Sperber (Ed.). *Dictionnaire d'éthique et de philosophie morale* (pp. 789–794). Presses universitaires de France.

Tolan, J. (2022). *Nouvelle histoire de l'islam, VIIe-XXIe siècles*. Tallandier.

Torres, C. (2015). Global citizenship education: A new educational, pedagogical and political narrative in the world system? *Blue Dot, 1*, 8–13.

Torres, C. (2017). *Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education*. Routledge.

Torres, C., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads. *Prospects, 48*, 99–113.

Truc, G. (2012). Le soi cosmopolite. *Cahiers philosophiques, 128(1)*, 59–70.
Rosanvallon, P. (2006). *Democracy past and future*. Columbia University Press.

Rougier, B. (Ed.). (2021). *Les territoires conquis de l'islamisme*. Presses universitaires de France.

Saada, J., & Antaki, M. (2018). Conscience and its claims: A philosophical history of conscientious objection. In S. Mancini & M. Rosenfeld (Eds.), *The conscience wars: Rethinking the balance between religion, identity, and equality* (pp. 23–57). Cambridge University Press.

Sabbagh, D. (2011). The paradox of decategorization: Deinstitutionalizing race through race-based affirmative action in the United States. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34*, 1665–1681.

Schaub, J.-F. (2021). Halte au feu ! *Esprit*, July, 18–21.

Searle, J. (1995). *The construction of social reality*. Free Press.

Shapiro, S., & Brown, C. (2018, February 21). *The state of civics education*. Report for the Center of American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-civics-education/

Sintomer, Y. (2011). Émile Durkheim, entre républicanisme et démocratie délibérative. *Sociologie, 4(2)*, 405–416.

Spector, C. (2021). *No demos? Souveraineté et démocratie à l'épreuve de l'Europe*. Seuil.

Spitz J.-F. (2005). *Le moment républicain en France*. Gallimard.

Steiner, P. (2018). *La sociologie de Durkheim*. La Découverte.

Tamir, Y. (2019). *Why nationalism*. Princeton University Press.

Tamir, Y. (2020). Why nationalism? Because nothing else works. *Nations and Nationalism, 26*, 538–543.

Tang, Q. (2015). Foreword. In *Éducation à la citoyenneté mondiale. Préparer les apprenants aux défis du XXIe siècle* (pp. 5–6). Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230062

Tarot, C. (2003). *Sociologie et anthropologie de Marcel Mauss*. La Découverte.

Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. (2016). *Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism*. Bloomsbury.

Thévenot, L. (1996). Justification et compromis. In M. Canto-Sperber (Ed.). *Dictionnaire d'éthique et de philosophie morale* (pp. 789–794). Presses universitaires de France.

Tolan, J. (2022). *Nouvelle histoire de l'islam, VIIe–XXIe siècles*. Tallandier.

Torres, C. (2015). Global citizenship education: A new educational, pedagogical and political narrative in the world system? *Blue Dot, 1*, 8–13.

Torres, C. (2017). *Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education*. Routledge.

Torres, C., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads. *Prospects, 48*, 99–113.

Truc, G. (2012). Le soi cosmopolite. *Cahiers philosophiques, 128(1)*, 59–70.
Unesco (2015). *Éducation à la citoyenneté mondiale. Préparer les apprenants aux défis du XXIe siècle*. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230062

Urbanski, S. (2022a). Is secularism too western? Disputes around offending pictures of Muhammad and the Virgin Mary. *Secularism and Nonreligion, 11*(2), 1–14.

Urbanski, S. (2022b). *La République à l'épreuve des nationalismes. École publique, valeurs communes et religions en Europe*. Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Urfalino, P. (2021). *Décider ensemble. La fabrique de l'obligation collective*. Seuil.

Urfalino, P. (2022). L'autorité des décisions collectives. *Igitur: Arguments Philosophiques*, 13(2), 47-74.

Viarengo, M. (2010). School reform and equal educational opportunity: Evidence from the United States. *Programma education FGA working paper*, 28, 3-43.

Vibert, S. (2004). La communauté est-elle l'espace du don ? *Revue du MAUSS*, 24, 353-374.

Vibert, S. (2015). *La Communauté des individus. Essais d'anthropologie politique*. Le Bord de l'eau.

Walzer, M. (1984). Liberalism and the art of separation. *Political Theory*, 12(3), 315-330.

Walzer, M. (2004). Involuntary association. In M. Walzer (Ed.), *Politics and passion: Toward a more egalitarian liberalism* (pp. 1–20). Yale University Press.

Weber, M. (1965). *Essais sur la théorie de la science*. Plon. (Original work published 1904)

Willaume, J.-P. (2015). Towards a recognition and dialogue: Secularism in Europe. *BYU Law Review*, 779.
Unesco (2015). *Éducation à la citoyenneté mondiale. Préparer les apprenants aux défis du XXIe siècle*. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230062

Urbanski, S. (2022a). Is secularism too western? Disputes around offending pictures of Muhammad and the Virgin Mary. *Secularism and Nonreligion, 11*(2), 1–14.

Urbanski, S. (2022b). *La République à l'épreuve des nationalismes. École publique, valeurs communes et religions en Europe*. Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Urfalino, P. (2021). *Décider ensemble. La fabrique de l'obligation collective*. Seuil.

Urfalino, P. (2022). L'autorité des décisions collectives. *Igitur: Arguments Philosophiques*, 13(2), 47-74.

Viarengo, M. (2010). School reform and equal educational opportunity: Evidence from the United States. *Programma education FGA working paper*, 28, 3-43.

Vibert, S. (2004). La communauté est-elle l'espace du don ? *Revue du MAUSS*, 24, 353-374.

Vibert, S. (2015). *La Communauté des individus. Essais d'anthropologie politique*. Le Bord de l'eau.

Walzer, M. (1984). Liberalism and the art of separation. *Political Theory*, 12(3), 315-330.

Walzer, M. (2004). Involuntary association. In M. Walzer (Ed.), *Politics and passion: Toward a more egalitarian liberalism* (pp. 1–20). Yale University Press.

Weber, M. (1965). *Essais sur la théorie de la science*. Plon. (Original work published 1904)

Willaume, J.-P. (2015). Towards a recognition and dialogue: Secularism in Europe. *BYU Law Review*, 779.
Index

anthropology 24, 27, 39, 57, 61, 63, 64, 96,
151, 207

autonomy 1, 7, 10, 13, 19, 29–32, 35, 48, 56,
69, 74, 96, 133, 140, 149, 150, 160, 163, 170,
176, 182

collective entities 1, 5–7, 15, 31, 33, 49, 69–72,
76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 98, 131, 149, 166, 167,
172, 181, 185, 186, 208, 210

comparative education 1, 7, 8, 10, 23, 30, 37,
40, 49, 50, 106, 164, 165, 167

conservatism 2, 13, 150, 168, 176, 180, 183, 185,
186, 205, 210

cosmopolitanism 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24, 27,
37, 39, 70, 91, 97, 99, 133, 136, 150, 158,
159, 164, 175, 177, 189, 205, 207–209

critical republicanism 2, 11–13, 20, 33, 37,
50, 56, 59, 77, 78, 149, 152, 176, 186, 190,
209, 210

democracy 1, 60, 70, 101, 109–111, 114, 118, 122,
123, 127, 130, 154, 163, 171, 204

Durkheim, Emile 1–14, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36,
39–42, 47–50, 57, 63, 67, 72, 73, 77, 78,
80, 81, 85–91, 97, 99, 100, 129, 130, 133,
137, 138, 148–151, 153–162, 167, 170, 175,
179, 181, 186, 188, 190, 191, 197, 203, 204,
206–210

Education and Training Sciences (ETS) 1,
3–5, 8–10, 19, 20, 24, 27–30, 40, 42,
45–50, 52, 67, 69, 76, 85, 86, 89, 101,
103, 105, 131, 132, 139, 161, 170, 176, 203,
205–208, 210

freedom 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20, 38, 51, 56–59, 61,
62, 64, 68, 74, 78, 79, 89, 91, 96, 107, 132,
135, 183, 207–210

Gilbert, Margaret 6, 11, 33, 72–75, 77, 81, 132

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) 8, 10,
12–15, 21, 22, 25–27, 42, 92, 93, 96, 97,
99–106, 110, 114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124,

128, 129, 131, 134, 137, 139–141, 143, 146,
158–161, 164–173, 175–177, 180–182, 184,
186, 188–194, 200–202, 204, 205, 207,
209, 210

globalization 12–14, 26, 50, 57, 103, 124, 139,
149, 150, 152, 160, 164, 166–171, 176, 182,
201

holism 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 31, 33–35, 37, 57, 72,
77–79, 81, 160, 162, 167, 176, 207, 208

human rights 8, 28, 38, 55, 56, 62, 96, 97, 120,
121, 123, 134, 139, 148, 171, 180

individualism 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12–14, 27, 30–32,
34–39, 44, 69, 81, 89, 99, 101, 103, 131,
133, 134, 138, 149, 151–153, 158, 160, 167,
178–181, 185, 187, 191, 194, 205, 207, 208

international pedagogy 3, 42

Laborde, Cécile 6, 33, 34, 37, 50, 53, 56–58,
63–68, 205

liberalism 6, 10–13, 20, 28, 33, 35–37, 39, 49,
51–54, 56–60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 77, 78, 80,
95, 100, 103, 129, 132, 136, 141, 150–152,
170, 172, 176, 177, 180

Marxism 36, 103

Mauss, Marcel 1–3, 7, 8, 24, 34–37, 39–42,
44, 67, 77, 78, 98, 99, 162, 175

modern societies 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 31, 32, 38,
48, 63, 69, 76, 77, 80, 87, 103, 131, 138,
152, 156, 158, 159, 161, 178, 181, 185, 187,
188, 190–192, 209

modernity 14, 34, 37, 38, 49, 63, 73, 74, 88,
138, 150, 160, 176, 183, 185–188, 205

nation-state 6, 11, 30, 39, 49, 62, 75, 78, 99, 134,
160, 169, 171, 178–180, 183–185, 202, 204

nominalism 13, 43, 70, 150, 167, 168, 176, 177,
180, 185, 186, 188, 209, 210

patriotism 13, 14, 89–91, 101, 120, 133, 157,
209, 210
Index

anthropology 24, 27, 39, 57, 61, 63, 64, 96,
151, 207

autonomy 1, 7, 10, 13, 19, 29–32, 35, 48, 56,
69, 74, 96, 133, 140, 149, 150, 160, 163, 170,
176, 182

collective entities 1, 5–7, 15, 31, 33, 49, 69–72,
76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 98, 131, 149, 166, 167,
172, 181, 185, 186, 208, 210

comparative education 1, 7, 8, 10, 23, 30, 37,
40, 49, 50, 106, 164, 165, 167

conservatism 2, 13, 150, 168, 176, 180, 183, 185,
186, 205, 210

cosmopolitanism 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24, 27,
37, 39, 70, 91, 97, 99, 133, 136, 150, 158,
159, 164, 175, 177, 189, 205, 207–209

critical republicanism 2, 11–13, 20, 33, 37,
50, 56, 59, 77, 78, 149, 152, 176, 186, 190,
209, 210

democracy 1, 60, 70, 101, 109–111, 114, 118, 122,
123, 127, 130, 154, 163, 171, 204

Durkheim, Emile 1–14, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36,
39–42, 47–50, 57, 63, 67, 72, 73, 77, 78,
80, 81, 85–91, 97, 99, 100, 129, 130, 133,
137, 138, 148–151, 153–162, 167, 170, 175,
179, 181, 186, 188, 190, 191, 197, 203, 204,
206–210

Education and Training Sciences (ETS) 1,
3–5, 8–10, 19, 20, 24, 27–30, 40, 42,
45–50, 52, 67, 69, 76, 85, 86, 89, 101,
103, 105, 131, 132, 139, 161, 170, 176, 203,
205–208, 210

freedom 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20, 38, 51, 56–59, 61,
62, 64, 68, 74, 78, 79, 89, 91, 96, 107, 132,
135, 183, 207–210

Gilbert, Margaret 6, 11, 33, 72–75, 77, 81, 132

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) 8, 10,
12–15, 21, 22, 25–27, 42, 92, 93, 96, 97,
99–106, 110, 114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 124,

128, 129, 131, 134, 137, 139–141, 143, 146,
158–161, 164–173, 175–177, 180–182, 184,
186, 188–194, 200–202, 204, 205, 207,
209, 210

globalization 12–14, 26, 50, 57, 103, 124, 139,
149, 150, 152, 160, 164, 166–171, 176, 182,
201

holism 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 31, 33–35, 37, 57, 72,
77–79, 81, 160, 162, 167, 176, 207, 208

human rights 8, 28, 38, 55, 56, 62, 96, 97, 120,
121, 123, 134, 139, 148, 171, 180

individualism 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12–14, 27, 30–32,
34–39, 44, 69, 81, 89, 99, 101, 103, 131,
133, 134, 138, 149, 151–153, 158, 160, 167,
178–181, 185, 187, 191, 194, 205, 207, 208

international pedagogy 3, 42

Laborde, Cécile 6, 33, 34, 37, 50, 53, 56–58,
63–68, 205

liberalism 6, 10–13, 20, 28, 33, 35–37, 39, 49,
51–54, 56–60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 77, 78, 80,
95, 100, 103, 129, 132, 136, 141, 150–152,
170, 172, 176, 177, 180

Marxism 36, 103

Mauss, Marcel 1–3, 7, 8, 24, 34–37, 39–42,
44, 67, 77, 78, 98, 99, 162, 175

modern societies 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 31, 32, 38,
48, 63, 69, 76, 77, 80, 87, 103, 131, 138,
152, 156, 158, 159, 161, 178, 181, 185, 187,
188, 190–192, 209

modernity 14, 34, 37, 38, 49, 63, 73, 74, 88,
138, 150, 160, 176, 183, 185–188, 205

nation-state 6, 11, 30, 39, 49, 62, 75, 78, 99, 134,
160, 169, 171, 178–180, 183–185, 202, 204

nominalism 13, 43, 70, 150, 167, 168, 176, 177,
180, 185, 186, 188, 209, 210

patriotism 13, 14, 89–91, 101, 120, 133, 157,
209, 210
Pettit, Philip 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 24, 33, 34, 50, 53, 56, 58, 67, 77, 78, 81, 97, 177, 207, 208

political philosophy 1, 4, 10, 14, 19, 21, 27, 30, 33-35, 48, 50, 52, 53, 57, 70, 79-81, 102, 157, 159, 170, 206, 207, 210

(post)colonialism 38

professional group(s) 12, 14, 87, 91, 145, 158, 159, 192, 193, 197, 204

Rawls, John 4, 56, 58, 59, 95, 140, 151, 155, 156, 177

realism 2, 158, 167, 168

religion and secularism 6, 10, 11, 30, 52, 67, 96, 113, 114

republicanism 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11-13, 20, 33-35, 37, 50, 52, 56, 58-60, 64, 77, 78, 103, 149, 152, 162, 176, 184, 186, 190, 191, 208-210

responsibility 24, 31, 39, 43, 59, 60, 106, 109, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 125, 128, 132, 139, 146, 171, 185, 205, 209

social philosophy 11, 27, 29, 34, 70, 72, 78, 81, 207

social sciences 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 20, 27, 28, 31, 33-35, 38, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 85, 95, 108, 113, 114, 151, 183, 188, 192, 200, 206, 207, 210

socialism 60, 150-152, 175, 176, 186, 188, 190, 209, 210

sociology 1-5, 8-11, 19, 24, 27, 29-37, 39, 45-48, 50-52, 62, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 80, 85, 86, 89-91, 96, 108, 126, 131, 139, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 167, 176, 185, 186, 188, 203, 206-209

teacher training 1, 2, 7-9, 13, 14, 29, 39, 45, 91, 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116, 121, 125, 129, 130, 139, 152, 155, 157, 167, 169, 173, 192, 193

transnational interpretations 14, 185

UNESCO 1, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23-27, 101, 134, 139-141, 148, 164, 206

United Nations (UN) 2, 21, 23, 25, 129, 134, 135, 140, 150, 160, 169, 175

utopia 3, 42, 186
Pettit, Philip 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 24, 33, 34, 50, 53, 56, 58, 67, 77, 78, 81, 97, 177, 207, 208

political philosophy 1, 4, 10, 14, 19, 21, 27, 30, 33-35, 48, 50, 52, 53, 57, 70, 79-81, 102, 157, 159, 170, 206, 207, 210

(post)colonialism 38

professional group(s) 12, 14, 87, 91, 145, 158, 159, 192, 193, 197, 204

Rawls, John 4, 56, 58, 59, 95, 140, 151, 155, 156, 177

realism 2, 158, 167, 168

religion and secularism 6, 10, 11, 30, 52, 67, 96, 113, 114

republicanism 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11-13, 20, 33-35, 37, 50, 52, 56, 58-60, 64, 77, 78, 103, 149, 152, 162, 176, 184, 186, 190, 191, 208-210

responsibility 24, 31, 39, 43, 59, 60, 106, 109, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 125, 128, 132, 139, 146, 171, 185, 205, 209

social philosophy 11, 27, 29, 34, 70, 72, 78, 81, 207

social sciences 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 20, 27, 28, 31, 33-35, 38, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 85, 95, 108, 113, 114, 151, 183, 188, 192, 200, 206, 207, 210

socialism 60, 150-152, 175, 176, 186, 188, 190, 209, 210

sociology 1-5, 8-11, 19, 24, 27, 29-37, 39, 45-48, 50-52, 62, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 80, 85, 86, 89-91, 96, 108, 126, 131, 139, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 167, 176, 185, 186, 188, 203, 206-209

teacher training 1, 2, 7-9, 13, 14, 29, 39, 45, 91, 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116, 121, 125, 129, 130, 139, 152, 155, 157, 167, 169, 173, 192, 193

transnational interpretations 14, 185

UNESCO 1, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23-27, 101, 134, 139-141, 148, 164, 206

United Nations (UN) 2, 21, 23, 25, 129, 134, 135, 140, 150, 160, 169, 175

utopia 3, 42, 186
# Global Citizenship Education

## Modern Individualism under the Test of Cosmopolitanism

Sébastien Urbanski and Lucy Bell

Global citizenship education is an essential topic in an increasingly interconnect-
ed world. Indeed the need for inclusive and globally conscious education, embed-
ded in cosmopolitanism, is recognised as a way to prepare individuals to navigate
diverse cultures, address global challenges, and actively participate in a globalised
world.

Being both scientific and political, these challenges require an interdisciplinary exploration of citizenship education, merging sociology, philosophy, as well as education and training sciences. To do this, *Global Citizenship Education: Modern Individualism under the Test of Cosmopolitanism* offers a framework that integrates Durkheim's holistic approach with critical republicanism.

The book is also rooted in the analysis of data collected through GlobalSense, a research project that focuses on preparing teachers to navigate the complexities of GCE within an international context. By presenting both a theoretical reflection and an analysis of an international training program within universities, this book can be of interest to academics, teacher trainers and (future) teachers themselves.

Sébastien Urbanski, Ph.D. (2012), Aix-Marseille University, is an associate professor at Nantes University. He has recently published a book on secularism and discrimination in school contexts, *Laïcité, discriminations, racisme: Les professionnels de l'éducation à l'épreuve* (with Françoise Lantheaume, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2023).

Lucy Bell, Ph.D. (2019), Nantes University, is a postdoctoral researcher at Nantes University. She is the scientific coordinator of the GlobalSense research, funded by the European Commission and the Pays de la Loire Region.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Yakobchuk

ISBN 978-90-04-70115-1

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

9 789004 701151

ISSN 2949-8805

CAIEFR 1

Sébastien Urbanski and Lucy Bell - 978-90-04-70117-5

Downloaded from Brill.com 04/24/2024 08:13:19AM

via Open Access.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
# Global Citizenship Education

## Modern Individualism under the Test of Cosmopolitanism

Sébastien Urbanski and Lucy Bell

Global citizenship education is an essential topic in an increasingly interconnect-
ed world. Indeed the need for inclusive and globally conscious education, embed-
ded in cosmopolitanism, is recognised as a way to prepare individuals to navigate
diverse cultures, address global challenges, and actively participate in a globalised
world.

Being both scientific and political, these challenges require an interdisciplinary exploration of citizenship education, merging sociology, philosophy, as well as education and training sciences. To do this, *Global Citizenship Education: Modern Individualism under the Test of Cosmopolitanism* offers a framework that integrates Durkheim's holistic approach with critical republicanism.

The book is also rooted in the analysis of data collected through GlobalSense, a research project that focuses on preparing teachers to navigate the complexities of GCE within an international context. By presenting both a theoretical reflection and an analysis of an international training program within universities, this book can be of interest to academics, teacher trainers and (future) teachers themselves.

Sébastien Urbanski, Ph.D. (2012), Aix-Marseille University, is an associate professor at Nantes University. He has recently published a book on secularism and discrimination in school contexts, *Laïcité, discriminations, racisme: Les professionnels de l'éducation à l'épreuve* (with Françoise Lantheaume, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2023).

Lucy Bell, Ph.D. (2019), Nantes University, is a postdoctoral researcher at Nantes University. She is the scientific coordinator of the GlobalSense research, funded by the European Commission and the Pays de la Loire Region.

Cover illustration: iStock.com/Yakobchuk

ISBN 978-90-04-70115-1

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

9 789004 701151

ISSN 2949-8805

CAIEFR 1

Sébastien Urbanski and Lucy Bell - 978-90-04-70117-5

Downloaded from Brill.com 04/24/2024 08:13:19AM

via Open Access.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0