The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)International | Intercultural | Interdisciplinary

Find us online
iafor.org

iaforjapan@iafor@iafor.official

iaformedia

support@iafor.org

Where will your ideas
take you next?

iafor.org

Contents
4

Introduction

6

Arts and Humanities Under Attack: Why Should We Save It? And How?

7

Cultures, Diversity, and Inclusivity in Universities

9

Sole Custody: History and Culture at a Turning Point10

Co-Parenting vs. Sole Custody: For Parents or the Child?

11

The Roots of Social Polarisation

13

How Different Interpretations of History Manifest in Societies

17

The Forum: Discussions on Global Citizenship

22

Conference Networking and Cultural Events

25

Appendix30

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024 Key Statistics

33

Conference Photographs

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

3

Introduction
In the wake of a global pandemic that exacerbated already existing crises, societies
have become increasingly polarised. Developed countries are fighting with a risingcost of living, developing countries are struggling with climate change and natural
crises, while war and conflict seem to plague all continents. All crises seem to beinterlinked and endanger social cohesion and democratic dialogue. Violent protests
are erupting all over the world for different reasons, as social polarisation reaches
new heights.
Often, we hear decision-makers discuss the ‘what’ and ‘hows’ of measures to combat
sources of conflict, such as sanctions and negotiations between warmongering
nations, social safety nets to shield the poor, or sustainable energy consumption andclimate change mitigation. Political leaders tend to take those reactive measures,
while failing to act in a preventive or mitigating manner. Contemporary societies canbe seen as lacking in fostering ethical thinking among their populations, replacing
the virtue of caring for others with individualistic thinking and sometimes violence.
Whether through formal or informal institutions, it seems that we have been wired tothink about what and how we do things, without asking why we do the things we do.
Social polarisation does not uniquely stem from differences in our definitions ofwhat and how we do things. It is also rooted in our different definitions of certain
values and the belief that ours is the only ‘correct’ definition. We might think that
we are doing ‘good’ things in the world, but what does the ‘good’ really mean?
Whether it is within practical applications in everyday life, or public and social
policies, misinterpretations and miscommunication of values can lead to conflict andpolarisation.
Societies are in desperate need of open-minded, respectful, inquiring, ethical, andcaring citizens, who engage in peaceful dialogue with each other and are accepting
4

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

of the different ‘other’. Traditionally, it has been the role of formal and informal
education to transmit such values to young people and mould them into responsible
citizens. Whether they learn it at home, mimicking parents’ behaviour, from engaging
with their social networks, both physical and digital, or at school, children are capableof learning from a young age what it means to be respectful and ethical.
While society, media, and political institutions have a responsibility to create
responsible citizens, they often fail to provide non-judgemental spaces that allow
for diversity and political dialogue. Instead, universities have, time and time again,
proven that they are capable of compensating for the lack in providing platforms
for discussion that the media and political institutions are displaying. University
campuses have seen young adults speaking up and discussing controversial sociopolitical topics, challenging a sometimes adverse status quo. Where societies, media,
and politics fail to alleviate social polarisation, the university can become a powerfulally to social cohesion.
Within the context of the university, the role of the Arts and Humanities has been
paramount in educating future citizens to see the world with an open and curious
mind, unbiased by the learnings of social ties and kinship. Foreign languages,
literature, and various forms of art can be excellent examples of how different words
have different meanings, and how one’s work can be interpreted in various ways.
It is these crucial curricula of the Arts and Humanities that the current corporate
universities are threatening to eliminate. Especially in countries that inherited theAnglo-Saxon education system, the corporate-style university is overtaking allother forms in offering commercially viable courses at the cost of ‘non-essential’
programmes. In a haste to feed the labour market with graduates of specialised
expertise, universities are turning into a non-critical, unethical, and profit-oriented
factory, capable of furthering the already existing rift among members of society.
There is a need for education to revert to cultivating an ethic of care among current
and future citizens, who will critically think about social issues, question unethicalpublic and social policies, and participate actively in political discussions for a better
future.
The keynote speeches and plenary presentations at the IAFOR Asian Conference on
Arts & Humanities (ACAH2024), Cultural Studies (ACCS2024), and Social Sciences(ACSS2024) that took place in May 2024 in Tokyo, Japan, have highlighted theimportance of cultivating within society an ethic of care based on aspirational values
and respect for diversity. The newly introduced Forum discussion at the end of theplenary days cemented the argument for policy-makers to pay attention to, and carefor citizens’ actual needs by exercising responsible global citizenship.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

5

Arts and Humanities Under Attack: Why
Should We Save It? And How?
Across universities, the arts, humanities, and social sciences are undermined as‘superfluous,’ impractical and disconnected from reality. ‘The Work of the University
in Perilous Times,’ Professor Donald E. Hall (Binghamton University, United States)
presented the pressing situation in the United States where funders and politicians
influence universities to undermine the significance of these subjects. Thesephenomena disrupt the integrative learning process essential in today’s socio-politicallandscapes and reflect the concerning situation on academic freedom. Drawing fromhis own experience, Hall delivered his keynote addressing how the arts, cultural
studies, and languages gave him a livable life as a ‘misfit kid,’ offering perspectives
that the status quo of a person’s life is not the only life possible. In summation,
the changes in sentiment in universities’ administration to shut down language
departments are not only selective in what students should or should not learn but
also a reductive intention to limit the students’ horizons to learn only what exists
within the context of the United States.
Hall calls for ‘academic allies’ and interdisciplinarity to save the arts, humanities,
and social sciences in universities; universities should offer not only knowledge
or vocational training but also the space to educate students to broaden theirconsciousness and deepen their understanding of the world’s complexities. The
ability to think beyond what happens in their classrooms and campuses builds
the potential capacity for future interventions in global crises effectively. Beyondcommercially viable courses such as engineering and business, the arts andhumanities offer different global perspectives that equipped students with practicalskills. For example, subjects like modern languages and history teach how to read,
write, and communicate, which are essential skills in the current workforce andhelp students adapt to wider opportunities. Academic allies are needed in building
bridges between the arts and humanities and social sciences to the ‘tech-bound’
fields to emphasise their contributions to society and reduce employment anxiety
among parents and students. This will prevent the shutting down of the subjects thatare deemed less commercially viable departments, and keep the opportunity forstudents to learn and broaden their perspectives.

6

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

Cultures, Diversity, and Inclusivity in Universities
Universities and conferences are spaces and places where people from diverse
backgrounds meet and explore differences in perspectives, thoughts, and cultures.
Citing the work by Hans-Georg Gadamer, ‘Truth and Method,’ Hall highlights how
humanity grows through encountering different worldviews and exploring thesedifferences. Universities today should train students to be able to see the world fromdifferent viewpoints, raise awareness, and consider the needs of people other thanthemselves. Learning about the world widens students’ perspectives in realisingbiases, limitations, and how the self is bound by their cultures and pasts.
Hall argues that the recent trend of ‘diversity reversal’ is killing the process of learning
through differences. Diverse thoughts and ideas generated through the arts andliterature of different cultures challenge what one knows and affect how one views
the world. The interpretative learning process decenters learners from existing beliefs
and knowledge and challenges the ‘One Truth’ concept of political fundamentalism.
In the United States, politicians are influencing the shutting down of diversity offices,banning discussion of differences, and silencing dissent, leading to the incremental
return to negative conservative ideas such as sexism, racism, and homophobia. The
need to maintain the status quo, or return to the past, is derived from the fear ofchange and uncertainty of those in power. Hall argues that this critical time of threat
to diversity and inclusivity resembles that of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, where
authority leads and controls what the truth is, limiting diversity and possibilities
on how one views and interprets the world. Similarly, the keynote presentation‘Possibilities of Change: Surviving the Times of Conflict’ by Dr Ishmeet Kaur
Chaudhry (Central University of Gujarat, India) demonstrates the overlapping ofmultisectoral and multi-level efforts in addressing world issues, highlighting theimportance of respect for human rights, in addition to the respect and awareness ofdiversity and inclusivity.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

7

Understanding diversity and differences helps in creating an inclusive, better future.
In his keynote presentation ‘Can Today’s Universities Contribute to a Better
Future?,’ Professor Umberto Ansaldo (The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)
points to a society with less poverty, less violence, and a better climate as thedefinition of a ‘better future’. The question is whether universities today are in aposition to offer future generations what they need to contribute to such a future.
Professor Ansaldo points out that students want institutions that are ethical andjust. Corporate academic culture emphasises hierarchy and homogeneity. Crucially,
corporate universities exploit staff and students in the interest of profit. In addition, in
profit-driven institutions, the humanities and social sciences have been steadily culledin the interest of maximising revenue. In this sense, corporate universities are notin the best position to contribute to a better future. Professor Ansaldo argues thatbeyond teaching and embodying diversity and ethics, universities must train students
in collaboration and conflict resolution. In addition to teaching what the historical,
cultural, or economic differences of human societies mean, universities should
train students to navigate through diverse interpretations of these contemporary
issues critically. Echoing Professor Hall’s presentation on the importance of thearts, humanities and social sciences, Professor Ansaldo highlights the importanceof language and culture programmes, among others, which have also been victimsof corporate thinking in academia. Students in these classes learn not only to becompetent in other languages but also to understand different viewpoints, ways ofthinking, and reasoning. Such insights provide students with the intellectual curiosityand framework to then approach and engage in wider global issues. Professor
Ansaldo underscores the importance for institutions to ‘walk the walk’ and be truly
not-for-profit, and use their resources for the core activities of academia, namely
teaching and research, as well as a fair treatment of students and staff to minimise
student debt and precarious workforces.

8

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

Sole Custody: History and Culture at a Turning Point
The panel discussion on ‘Ethics and Care in Sole Custody Policy’ shows historicaland cultural norms pivotal in Japanese society that led to the change in familial
structure and the trend of sole custody. The Japanese family holds to the value of
koseki, meaning the ‘membership of a household,’ and a child must be attached
to one household or the other in the case of divorce. Prior to World War II, themale householder had the right to control household members, including children
and wives. At that time, in the case of divorce, custody generally fell to the father.
However, the transition from an agricultural-based society to one of urban modernity
brought a change to Japanese families. Dr Ayako Harada (Nagoya University, Japan)
observed that the gender division of labour in which males work outside and womenare stay-at-home housewives leads to more women getting child custody as it is thewomen’s duty to take care of the children. In addition to the gender perspective,
rapid urbanisation during the 1960s led women to become more economicallycapable to provide for their children. The koseki value holds strongly in the psycheof the Japanese, so much so that Mr Timothy Langley (Langley Esquire, Japan)
suggests that even today, in about 80% of the cases neither parent wants joint
custody as they believe the child should only belong to one household. Responding
to the title of the panel ‘Ethics and Care,’ Langley argues it is not right to take a child,the product of the union of two people, into sole custody.
However, a new change in the law (May 2024) will allow joint custody within thenext two years. Amidst this hopeful and positive development, the panel points topossible limitations on cultural values and the lack of government commitment andeffective law enforcement. Dr Harada views that while this law is a good development
in allowing ‘options’ for the divorced couple, it does not solve the parental conflicts
and their effect on the child. The change to ‘Western-style’ parenting is neededin Japanese society, all for the sake of the children. Langley is pessimistic that
this law will change anything. He views Japanese society as still holding onto thefamily tradition and the judicial systems are still all geared towards sole custody.
From the international perspective, Japan is the only country in the G7 that has
the sole custody regime, and it has become problematic for foreign nationals who
were not aware of this law before undergoing the custodial process. The change
in allowing joint custody is partly due to international influence, as Japan is one of
the signatories of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction.
Additionally, Professor Grant Black (Chuo University, Japan) states that there is
not yet a state mechanism to enforce visitations, compensations, or agreements
between the parents. Although the law will be implemented within two years, it will
be superficial unless the government introduces supportive measures to induce thispolicy change. He argues that Japan should fulfil its commitment to international
conventions of which it is signatory, not only the Hague Convention but also theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Langley concludes that thepolicy is moving slower than society in Japan, and an effective mechanism shouldbe implemented to drive this change, so as to ensure ‘sole custody’ does not turninto ‘parental kidnapping.’ The current change, Langley views, is only to ‘calm thetemperature’ of international pressure, as Japanese lawmakers care a lot about how
Japan is perceived overseas.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

9

Co-Parenting vs. Sole Custody: For Parents or
the Child?
When discussing ethics and care in divorces, most discussion focuses on who getschild custody, but not on the effects the divorce has on the child. The panellists
highlighted the importance of including the child’s voice and well-being into
consideration. Professor Rokuro Tabuchi (Sophia University, Japan) proposedthat joint custody can enhance the child’s well-being, by facilitating visitation or
child support, in contrast to the complete cut-off of one of the parents. Dr Harada
suggests that since the single-custody-only policy has been enforced since 1947,
90% of mothers get custody of the child, which leads the child to lack meaningfulconnection with the non-custodial parent. In addition to co-parenting, Professor
Noriko Odagiri (Tokyo International University, Japan) proposes that the government
should require the completion of a mandatory parenting programme before thedivorce is finalised. This parenting programme is a tailor-made family therapy
programme specifically designed to support children involved in parental conflicts.
Ensuring the child’s voice is heard by professional psychologists, legal, and mental
health professionals, and not influenced by the custodial parent, is crucial in
identifying the best interest of the child. Professor Tabuchi points out in addition thatchildren’s voices are missing from the divorce process as they were viewed as thehousehold’s property, neglecting that children have the right to keep in touch withboth of their biological parents after divorce.
However, co-parenting is not always the best option for children involved in parental
conflict. Professor Odagiri proposed that joint custody has a better outcome forchildren’s well-being than single custody if no domestic violence is involved. The
custodial parent will act as the gatekeeper in keeping the violent parents away fromthe child. Similarly, Dr Harada views that sole custody may be a better option forchildren in households with a history of domestic violence and child abuse. Black
added to the discussion that while domestic violence can be an issue of concern,
it has been used as a tool to gain sole custody. Black and Odagiri proposed that aproper mechanism for assessing domestic violence should be in place to allow joint
custody and visitation.

10

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

The Roots of Social Polarisation
In his keynote presentation “Navigating Polarising Discourses: Cultivating ValuesBased Literacies in a Multimodal Society”, Professor Johan Edelheim (Hokkaido
University, Japan) discussed how we can deal with the increased polarisation within
our contemporary societies by focusing on why we do certain things, as opposed towhat and how we do them.
Echoing the ideas expressed by panellists Professor Howe and Professor Da Silva
during IAFOR’s March conference in Tokyo, Professor Edelheim also attributed social
polarisation to the process of ‘othering’. While the panel at the March conference
focused on the abstract socio-psychological meaning of ‘othering’, Professor
Edelheim focused on the practical mechanism behind this division. There arevarious modes (linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, and spatial) of meaning-making
used by all information producers and consumers, this is called ‘multimodality’.
As meaning-making entities, we all use multiple modalities and often prefer one
mode over another. This means that there can be a discrepancy between whatsomeone broadcasts and the meaning that the recipient constructs. Therein lies
the reason for much conflict within society which is based on misunderstandings
or a misconstruction of realities. It is exactly this ambiguity that media and theentertainment industries are leveraging to manipulate society’s behaviour.
Edelheim continued that in our contemporary societies, we tend to give precedence
to some modalities over others, thereby signalling that there is more value to somethan others. Values are expressed through action, so whatever our choices or actions
may be, they are based on the values we hold. The problem with societies today isthat we focus too much on the action itself, instead of looking at what shaped that
action.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

11

In more abstract terms, Edelheim said we tend to focus more on the ontology (‘how’
we do something) and the epistemology (‘what’ we do) of actions, instead of theiraxiology (‘why’ we do something). Universities, for example, place a lot of emphasison ontology and epistemology: what is being taught and how it is being taught areof importance, especially to the corporate university. It is not a surprise that many
corporate universities around the world are attempting to remove Humanities fromtheir programmes altogether, in the name of efficiency and financial gain. Students
are supposed to become experts in their fields and go on to tackle environmental,socio-political, and financial crises as they arise in their professions, but nobody isquestioning why these crises arise in the first place. For example, ‘why’ are we overconsuming? ‘Why’ do we choose to move by car rather than public transport? Thoseare choices that contribute to climate change, and they are based on axiologicalcriteria (pertaining to values/the ‘good’), not ontology or epistemology. Universities
and society at large forget to look at the root cause of the problem: why we do what
we do.
This is evidently observed in the fact that young graduates entering the job market
lack the basic skills that employers desperately seek: critical and creative thinking,problem-solving skills, negotiation and conflict-resolution skills, and interpersonal
skills. And whilst graduates are literate they are not taught to be multiliterate; tointerpret messages in multiple modalities. Universities that are increasingly focusedon becoming profitable corporations are endangering the future of young people byneglecting to teach them these skills, which are best taught through the Humanities,
that teach us why we act in a certain way.
For this reason, Professor Edelheim argues that there should be more emphasis on
axiology - the ‘why’ of things. To tackle the increased polarisation within society, weneed to foster a values-based society. Polarisation does not happen because we havedifferent values. It happens because we have different ontological worldviews, andbecause of epistemological conservatism. We need to look at how other people view
‘goodness’. If we presume that everyone has the same perception of what is ‘good’,
then we will only talk within our own echo chamber. This does not encourage active
listening and dialogue, which is required to mitigate polarisation. When we realisethat other people have different definitions of ‘goodness’, that is when we start
making meaningful changes.

How Different Interpretations of History
Manifest in Societies
The impact that differences in ontological and epistemological worldviews have onsociety can also be observed in socio-political and economic situations of ‘othering’created by satellite communications. In his keynote presentation on “Satellite
Constellations and National Communities”, Professor Thor Kerr (Curtin University,
Australia) discussed how the introduction of satellite constellations relates tonational communities, pertaining to a wider discussion on social imagination aroundnational communities and telecommunications. Specifically, the recent introductionof SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, an American-owned telecommunications provider,in Indonesia has raised concerns around authorisation, regulation, and monopolyof telecommunications in the country. Several prominent figures in Indonesia areworried that Starlink has not only the potential to bankrupt the national companies
in the ICT industries but also lead to separatism. It is seen by some as a threat to theIndonesian national community. However, these developments can also reinforce thenational community, in a sense that it forces the national community to define itself
and make decisions on what and how to regulate.
There is, however, a more important question of whether to regulate or not toregulate at all, and this decision should be seen from the perspective of why there
is a need to regulate. Within this question lies the answer as to why the introductionof a foreign-owned telecommunications provider causes such a rift within Indonesiansociety. To make his point, Professor Kerr contrasts the introduction of satellite
communications between two countries with a colonial history, namely, Indonesia andAustralia; while in Indonesia the introduction of Starlink is frowned upon, it has beencelebrated in Australia.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

13

The difference in response to this can be attributed to the different understandingsof the history of telecommunications between Australia and Indonesia, fromtelegraph, then radio, and now satellite communication. Although both countries
have experienced colonisation, they had very differing experiences as the colonised.
Telecommunications heritage tends to be recognised in Australia, because thecolonised Indigenous people were treated as part of the colonial project. Women of
Aboriginal and Asian heritage at radio stations were treated as important because
they controlled domestic and international communications and situations ofemergency coordination. On the other hand, in Indonesia, telecommunications areassociated with oppressive colonisation, during which Indonesians were not includedin the development process. Indonesia’s success in the struggle for independence
relied at least in part on access to radio communications, as the Declaration of
Independence was broadcast nationwide. Therefore, telecommunications andnationalism go hand-in-hand in Indonesia.
Circling back to Professor Edelheim’s argument on understanding different
ontological and epistemological worldviews through examining people’s values, it
is important to understand what ‘freedom of speech’ and what ‘inclusiveness’ mean
to both Indonesia and Australia, but also to SpaceX as a multinational company
engaging with different worldviews. The recent use of Starlink satellites by Ukraine
as a means for military action against Russia, for example, is a way in which thecompany engages in ‘controversial’ political issues. Russia’s interception of Starlink’s
signals, as well as SpaceX blocking this unauthorised access, willingly or unwillingly
assisting Ukraine in its military operations, may reveal how multinational companies
get involved with contested notions of national narratives and territories. Regulation
as an action, and authorised access within a national territory, can be contentious
topics that are best negotiated through understanding the complex perspectives thatpeople of a nation come from.

14

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

15

The Forum: Discussions on Global CitizenshipThe complex debate on how to foster dialogue and understanding between
people within national and international boundaries was further discussed during
the inaugural session of The Forum. For the first time during IAFOR’s Asian
Conference on Arts & Humanities, Cultural Studies, and Social Sciences in Tokyo,
IAFOR introduced a new project that is meant to harness the intellectual insights
and expertise of our diverse community of academics, educators, practitioners, andpeople ‘on the ground’ to speak up and share their insights on Global Citizenship.
Motivated by the current contentious landscape of the world, be that armed conflict,genocide, ecological crisis, food insecurity, or the rising cost of living, it is evident
that we, academics, educators, and practitioners, need to open up a different roundof discussions to that of policy-makers, on how we can work together towards
building more peace and harmony. Peace education has been a focal point in these
discussions, and is a significant theme that is running through our conferences as
well.
In fact, at our March conference in Tokyo (ACEID/ACP/AGen2024), we hosted a panel
discussion on Communication & Education for Peace. During the Q&A session, adelegate raised the point that ‘global citizenship education’ is an essential part ofpeace education, but the ‘how to’ remains a complex issue. With this as a starting
point, IAFOR chose the topic of ‘Global Citizenship’ as the topic of the first-everForum session, where we asked delegates to discuss the following: what a global
citizen is, what the attributes of responsible global citizenship are, what some threats
to exercising global citizenship are, and what they do in the classroom or in theirrespective fields, as educators and practitioners, to foster a global identity within
their students.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

17

While the initial questions guiding The Forum discussion focused on the ‘what’ and‘how’ of global citizenship application, it is astounding how discussants naturally
directed the flow of the debate towards the ‘why’ without any prompting. Thisfurther underscores the importance of axiology and the cultivation of critical thinking,while also making a case for the repositioning of the Humanities within the core of
education. For a transcript of the responses recorded at The Forum at ACAH/ACCS/
ACSS2024, please see the Appendix.
In sum, our IAFOR community expressed both aspirational but also notably realistic
views of what a global citizen is, and what attributes such a person would have
while showing a clear understanding of what the limitations to the exercise of
global citizenship are. A quite controversial perspective shared among experienced
delegates in both developed and developing countries is that the concept of ‘global
citizenship’ is overused, misused, inefficient in fostering a global identity, andalienated from the worldview of the everyday person.
The Forum participants’ discussions were aligned with the main themes that IAFOR
identified back in February through the dissemination of a survey regarding emerging
issues and trends. When discussing global citizenship, delegates referred to conceptsof humanity and human intelligence, such as tolerance, empathy, care, ethics, andinclusivity; political identities and responsibilities for an interconnected and peacefulco-existence, such as active participation, national versus global identities, sensitivity
to global issues, and environmental sustainability; the interference of technology
and AI in human relations; and the role of education in fostering a global andcosmopolitan identity.
A global citizen has humane characteristics, and global citizenship should aspire toserve humanity. Understanding and accepting cultural differences, showing respectfor diversity, being intercultural and inclusive, and showing kindness, tolerance, andempathy are all aspirational attributes that a global citizen should have. Delegates
underlined the importance of the relationship between people, fighting prejudice,and following inclusive processes, especially between the Global South and the
Global North. In today’s world, all people and countries are inevitably interconnected.
In the words of an Italian delegate, ‘Every big problem is everybody’s problem’.
Therefore, a global citizen should be sensitive and curious about world problems andcrises.
This human intelligence, defined by all the aspirational characteristics that makea human human, is posited against Artificial Intelligence (AI). The advancement oftechnology and the recent proliferation of AI can endanger our human identity, whichis essential for the exercise of responsible global citizenship. Delegates have statedthat ethical conduct, transparency, and trust are important elements not only in thedevelopment process of technology but also during their political regulation, so as toensure that technological advancement does not affect our sense of relating to eachother.
Aside from the aspirational values of global citizens, participants also touched upon
the perspective that only being a global citizen is not enough. One must also act asa global citizen to ensure that global citizenship is effective. As citizens, we also haveobligations to fulfil as part of a greater community: for example, active participationand decision-making through voting are essential parts of democratic systems. No
aspiration or imagination of a global community can become a reality if it is notfollowed by action.

18

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

However, political participation presupposes the assumption of a political identity.
In the case of global citizens, political identity is a complex issue. According to thediscussion, global citizens have a dual identity as global citizens who are also part ofa self-governed national territory. Navigating between a national and global identity
is not always easy, as conflicts of interest may arise. This has been an ongoing issue
that supranational institutions have had to grapple with since their inception, leading
to political deadlock and issues of misrepresentation. In reality, ‘for a lot of people,
Global Citizenship is an unavoidable reality that they have to deal with… and can’t
opt out of’, as a delegate from the United Kingdom mentioned. Problems of political
identity do not arise out of the exercise of global citizenship but are what define andshould be solved by exercising responsible global citizenship.
Global citizenship should also be about combating poverty, promoting social
justice and the common good, and contributing to economic development throughsustainability. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cannot be separated fromany discussion on global citizenship. A global citizen is aware of the environmental
consequences of his or her actions, is sensitive to his or her consuming patterns,
and promotes sustainability. However, we should be careful how we use the term‘sustainability’. According to an experienced educator, curricula tend to focus
too much on sustainability without making a conscious effort to understand whatsustainability looks like in real life. Contemporary discussions on sustainability
practices within the global citizenship framework tend to forget that indigenous
or local communities have, for ages, practised sustainability. ‘It looks like we are
reinventing the wheel’, but, in actuality, sustainability is already being practised. Thisis rooted in exclusive applications and definitions of global citizenship, denying thevery foundation of inclusiveness, upon which global citizenship is being built.
This issue is closely related to the process of ‘othering’, viz. who is considered‘cosmopolitan’ and who is not, which, according to the participants’ discussions, is
imposed upon the average person by policy-making entities. The Forum yielded acontroversial perspective on global citizenship as being an elitist concept, imposedfrom the ‘top-down, outside-inside’ that leaves many people feeling left behind anddisengaged from the global community.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

19

“I’ve been developing global
citizenship programmes for years
now. It is becoming such an
overused concept. It is what I callglobal-citizenship-washing (likegreen-washing), because many
programmes are developed for thesake of labelling global citizenshipand SDGs. We did surveys, andstudents replied ‘oh I just finishedthis module, I’m done, check. I
did my part of sustainability’...
Students [mostly in more developed
countries], claim that global issues
are so far away from their experience…that for them it’s like ‘if it doesn’t
bother me, why should I care?’ Thisis a common trend in Europe”– a delegate from the Netherlands

Another delegate from the United Kingdom asserted that ‘among policy-makers
and academics, the argument for global citizenship is considered already won, but
among a lot of members of the populace, the argument hasn’t even been madeyet’. So, instead of looking at ‘globalisation’, delegates have proposed looking at‘cosmopolitanism’. Cosmopolitanism is seen as a grounds-up, inside-out process
cultivated through education and touching upon the mentality of being a global
citizen rather than the labelling. It is possible to maintain a cosmopolitan identity
and care for the world, without the rigidity and political load that ‘global citizenship’comes with. In fact, it was asserted that what we are witnessing in the world now isa phenomenon of ‘de-globalisation’ and ‘de-risking’, whereby countries move awayfrom one another. Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are seeking
ways to decrease exposure to risk by not depending on each other, when it comesto their supply chains, especially to pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the aspirational
argument for global citizenship is happening within a reality of de-globalisation andde-risking.
Within this context, the role of education is of paramount importance in ensuringthat a global mindset is instilled within students who may otherwise feel alienatedfrom the rest of the world. Despite the realisation that education holds the key tothe actualisation of global citizenship, educational systems, especially in the global
South, are narrowly defined and detrimental to the exercise of global citizenship.
Many delegates from developing countries have expressed their apprehension
towards their institutional practices and their lack of vision, as they do not feel
supported financially and academically to become part of a global campus.
Especially in the lower levels of education, teachers often do not have the freedom
to teach their own curricula, with national governments imposing limitations and theirown national interests.

20

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

Despite these pessimistic perspectives regarding the effectiveness of labelling ‘global
citizenship’ as such and teaching it in the classroom, our community of educators haslisted creative ways in which they teach the concept of global citizenship and fostera global identity within their students. For example, some referred to actual projects
they conduct, like encouraging students to participate in international conferences,field trips and fieldwork, or teaching them about contemporary issues and ethnic
conflicts. Others mentioned teaching methods and content they use to sensitise theirstudents, such as making them ponder about how their life, what they eat, and what
they consume on social media is connected to a war-stricken country. Our IAFOR
community of educators is finding ways to teach global citizenship without naming it
as such.
The Forum at the ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024 conference has generated very insightfulcomments on the concept of global citizenship, and sparked a provocation for
future discussion: how do we get people to care? Before we establish the ‘what’
and the ‘how’ of being a global citizen, how can we ensure that future generations
understand ‘why’ it is important to be a global citizen? As the plenary presentations
and keynote speeches have also exemplified, there seems to be a discrepancy
between what is taught and felt on campus and what is practised outside theuniversity in society. A reorientation of educational goals, methods, and practices
may be necessary to sensitise students and future citizens to pay attention to world
problems and recognise the interconnectedness of the world. Education needs
to touch upon the humanity of individuals. What better way is there than to giveprominence to the Humanities and allow students to broaden their minds? These
are leading thoughts that will be discussed during the next Forum session at theEuropean Conference on Education (ECE), Language Learning (ECLL), Arts &Humanities (ECAH), and Aging & Gerontology (EGen) in London this July.

“Perhaps this is a bit controversial,
but I think ‘Global Citizenship’ is nota good way to start this conversation.
The term ‘Global Citizenship’ can bequite off-putting to a lot of people.
Teaching from a phenomenon-based
approach or from the perspectiveof the individual issues over time
has the effect of creating a sense of
global citizenship, even if we don’tname it as such. So, I think, global
citizenship as a concept is bestreserved for academics outside of theactual practitioner side of things.”– a delegate from the United Kingdom

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

21

Conference Networking and Cultural Events
Networking events within our conference programmes provide designated spaces foropen discussion, forming professional connections, and inspiring collaboration within
and outside the conference venue. The ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024 itinerary featured
a variety of such spaces, sharing them alongside returning delegates and newmembers alike, as well as local artisans and cultural practitioners.
The Conference Welcome Reception was held on Thursday, May 23, after our firstday of plenaries at the Public Red Akasaka. As always, the Welcome Reception isdesigned as a networking event open for all registered delegates to attend, and
the Public Red was packed with delegates eager to discuss their thoughts on theconference’s premier talks, and meet new friends and old colleagues.
The Conference Dinner concluded the second day of plenaries on the evening
of Friday, May 24 at Shunju Tameike Sanno in Tokyo’s midtown, a venue we havepartnered with the previous March for ACEID/ACP/AGen2024. The dinner provided
a more relaxed space for keynote speakers, presenters, and delegates to sit down
together and rekindle topics introduced and discussed during ‘The Forum’, a newforum-style discussion panel introduced in May’s conference programme, over a
course meal. The second day of plenaries provided more interactive presentations
such as The Forum and the Haiku Workshop, resulting in groups already establishedduring those events to join together at tables to continue conversations and musingsfrom earlier in the day.

22

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

The conference had two separate cultural events interwoven within its itinerary:a Haiku Workshop with haiku instructors Hana Fujimoto and Emiko Miyashita on
Friday, May 24, and a Kimono Dressing Demonstration with kimono instructor Satoko
Yamada on Saturday, May 25. Delegates, who are more often than not educatorsthemselves, were invited to participate as students of traditional Japanese culture,
diving hands-first into the art of haiku poetry by composing and gracing the IAFOR
stage to share their own writings in the renowned style. The Kimono Dressing
Demonstration provided an insightful and thorough look into the history, rules,
and intricacies of kimono, a traditional Japanese form of dress, for both men’s andwomen’s wear in a gala style. The audience was engaged and able to pose questions
during the live demonstration. IAFOR is humbled to have made connections withlocally-renowned instructors who are happy in turn to share their craft with us, as theircontributions aid us in creating a well-rounded programme itinerary for delegates topresent their research, share ideas, and learn together.

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

23

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

24

Appendix

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

25

Transcripts from The Forum discussion, divided by questions:

1. What is a Global Citizen?
‘When it comes to the survey results, most of the things people mentioned are
aspirational… but for a lot of people, Global Citizenship is an unavoidable realitythat they have to deal with. There are lots of people who have dual nationality… or
who have to go abroad for family or work purposes. For some people, being a global
citizen is not something they can opt out of…’
– a delegate from the United Kingdom‘You can see cosmopolitanism as an elitist thing, but also as a grounds-up, inside-out[thing], whereas globalisation is top-down, outside-in. I see cosmopolitanism as athing that comes from education and also from the individual, whereas globalisation
is something that is forced upon us, whether we want it or not.’– a delegate from Finland‘Citizenship is a relational concept. You cannot be a citizen all by yourself... You haveto have an idea of what the globe is. Even if you are not educated in a cosmopolitan
way, you have an innate capacity to feel that you are part of the world.’– a delegate from The Philippines

2. What are (three) attributes of responsible global
citizenship?
‘The most important thing is the relationship between [people]. We must build
the relationship first, [then we can proceed to the next step]. I come from China.
In Chinese philosophy we have an important concept of rēn [ Chinese: 仁 ], whichmeans that the relationship between two people is to love each other. Based on thisrelationship, we can move forward.’– a delegate from China‘Having good and moral ethics is essential. Everyone should be disciplined andunderstand other people’s differences and accept them [as they are].’– a delegate from Mongolia‘Making a conscious effort in dealing with prejudice. All of us grew up in a society
with a certain type of information. Today, the world is sharply divided between the
Global South and the Global North. I am from the Global South. Anybody who seesme automatically has some attitude [towards me]: ‘oh that’s someone from that poor
region’. How we prepare our own minds to face such kinds of information… and how
we nullify them… to see the world from a practical point of view, should be the way
to go.’– a delegate from Ghana‘I work with Indigenous people in the United States, and their way of thinking about
relations and kinship is very cosmopolitan, but it’s not included in the notion of‘cosmopolitanism’.’– a delegate from Japan

26

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

Technology and AI, the satellite communications, [follow] their own developments.
We, as humans, need to have more of a sense of humanity, so that this technology
will not affect our sense of [relating] to each other…’– a delegate from Indonesia‘Global Citizenship does not necessarily mean ‘nationless’. We are still part of anation, but [at the same time, we are part of another global nation].’– a delegate from Japan‘I struggle with the notion of ‘global citizenship’ - it is the ‘citizenship’ part that
bothers me because it has very particular connotations. I wonder, also, whether inorder to get away from the ‘globalisation’ aspect that can be problematic to many,
it would make sense to think of something like ‘globalism’ as a mindset. Yes, wehave nations and countries, but climate change teaches us this lesson very well:
one nation cannot fix its own climate… [in the same sense,] you can’t fix your own
poverty, because other nations will get poorer, then they will migrate to yours andcause chaos. And just like that, you can’t fix your own security. This to me is global
citizenship. Every big problem is everybody’s problem.’– a delegate from Italy‘Global citizenship is not only about the open-mindedness of people or their
responsibilities. It’s more about empathy: [having empathy towards people fromanother country]. When you have conflict that can potentially lead to war, forexample, you can send even a small message and spread positivity in the name ofhumanity, because we live in a world of globalisation.’– a delegate from Indonesia“Global citizenship means participation, decision-making, obligations. We should be
able to participate, which means voting. We have a global mindset and a thousandthings that we want for Earth. But you are not a global citizen [unless you act upon
those wishes and visions]. There has to be voting, and there has to be acting - it’s not
only being.’– a delegate from The Philippines

3. What are some threats to exercising global citizenship?
‘I am from an area in the United Kingdom, which is known for having particularlysocially conservative political views. It would be wrong to say that people from there
are inherently bad people or that they inherently don’t care about things that are
happening in the world. They come from a perspective of [not having] interacted
much with people from the outside, or that they have been told off by policy-making
elites and academics for saying things that would be considered not appropriate.
Among policy-makers and academics, the argument for global citizenship isconsidered already won, but among a lot of members of the populace, the argument
hasn’t even been made yet. I feel like a lot of people feel left behind and that global
citizenship is an elitist concept. We have to find ways to overcome that before it canbe widely adopted.’– a delegate from United Kingdom

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

27

‘I think global citizenship is happening within a more general debate now aroundwhat we call ‘de-globalisation’ and ‘de-risking’, whereby countries move [away]from one another. COVID-19 has been a big [driver of] de-globalisation. Countries
are trying to get more control over their supply chains and pharmaceuticals. I thinkpeople are starting to question [global citizenship] as the world tends to de-globaliseand de-risk.’– a delegate from the United Kingdom

4. What do you do in your classrooms/fields to further
Global Citizenship?
‘As an educator, I don’t feel that I am supported in showing my contribution tosociety. On campus, we are required to do our research, but the indicator for successis a Scopus-indexed journal. Sometimes the importance or the benefit for society
is denied [by those journals]. It’s stressful. The government, or anyone who has theauthority, must care, especially in Indonesia. The indicator for the development of thesociety is no longer [the benefit from research], but an indexed journal. It would bebetter to collaborate, via this Forum, for example.’– a delegate from Indonesia‘Perhaps this is a bit controversial, but I think ‘Global Citizenship’ is not a good way tostart this conversation. The term ‘Global Citizenship’ can be quite off-putting to a lotof people. Teaching from a phenomenon-based approach or from the perspective of
the individual issues over time has the effect of creating a sense of global citizenship,even if we don’t name it as such. So, I think, global citizenship as a concept is bestreserved for academics outside of the actual practitioner side of things.’– a delegate from the United Kingdom‘The concept of ‘global citizenship’ [in the classroom] seems a bit too much. I havebeen trying to push and motivate my students to understand that they are part ofthis global world. Indonesia is a quite left-behind country. My university especially is
not trying hard to be part of a global or international campus. So, I have been trying
to create a community among my students and encourage them to join international
conferences like this. For [this ACAH/ACCS/ACSS conference], I actually appliedwith my students, but due to financial constraints, I was the only one who received asponsorship to attend. But last March, I managed to get my students to the Istanbul
Youth Summit in Turkey, [where they won the gold medal for best research]. So, I
believe that the educator has a really important role to encourage their students tocollaborate and become global citizens by going out into the world.’– a delegate from Indonesia‘What we do in our classrooms to foster a global identity is that we teach ourstudents to think and act locally, nationally, internationally, and globally. We also
expose them to fieldwork and field trips. I also teach my students Ethnicity and Peace
Studies. I teach them about the Holocaust, the Myanmar issue with the Rohingya,
issues with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims, etc.’– a delegate from The Philippines

28

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

‘I am interested in the notion of ‘interconnectedness’ and how our lives are entangledwith each other. We often use this word without knowing what it means. So, in theclassroom, I try to ask my students to think about how their life is interconnected withthose who are not in the United States. We can do that with many different things:
things we use, things we eat, or how my peaceful life is related to a war somewhere
else.’– a delegate from United States‘We all are educators here, and we talk about how we are going to teach ourstudents what we are going to demonstrate to them. But, what we do as lecturers
matters a lot, not what we say. I was shocked by an experience I had yesterday. I
asked a lady for directions, and the first thing she did when she saw me was to clutch
her bag. Me, going to my classroom to teach my students how to be global citizens,and [meanwhile] reacting to someone else negatively, matters a lot. I think we should
start with ‘what do WE do as global citizens’ before we go out there to teach ourstudents how to be global citizens. If we cannot accept ourselves or deal with our
feelings towards each other, whatever we say out there does not make any sense.’– a delegate from South Africa‘When we talk about the classroom or education, we have to look at what level. At
the highest, tertiary educational level, professors and lecturers have the freedom todesign their own curriculum. However, at the basic level, the elementary or juniorhigh school level, sometimes the contents of the curriculum are highly regulated bypoliticians. What the state wants future citizens to know is probably sealed there. The
teacher at that level may not have the freedom to teach just anything. [But there arealternative ways to bypass this issue.] I work at an English school, and I am trying tointegrate SDGs into an English conversation curriculum. Even parents are interested
in these programmes, and they realise how their work [relates to SDGs and theworld]. Integrating modern problems into an English conversation curriculum [is an
option]. So, educators have an important role to play, but sometimes the limitation is
how much freedom they have to teach what they want.’– a delegate from Japan‘I’ve been developing global citizenship programmes for years now. It is becoming
such an overused concept. It is what I call global-citizenship-washing (like greenwashing), because many programmes are developed for the sake of labelling global
citizenship and SDGs. We did surveys, and students replied ‘oh I just finished thismodule, I’m done, check. I did my part of sustainability’. We have been working
more on not the knowing about global citizenship, but on the identity-building first.
Identity should be going first, because the students claim that global issues are so
far away from their experience, mostly in more developed countries, that for them it’s
like ‘if it doesn’t bother me, why should I care?’ This is a common trend in Europe.
Another issue I want to raise is about sustainability. Sustainability is a big global
citizenship concept that has been overused and misused. We forget to look at
communities that for ages have been working on sustainability. It looks like we are
reinventing the wheel, but sustainability is there already, actually. We forget to look at
communities that are really practising it.’
– a delegate from The Netherlands

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

29

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

31

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

32

Conference
Photographs

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

33

34

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

35

36

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

37

38

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

39

40

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

ACAH/ACCS/ACSS2024

41

2024-III
ISSN: 2759-4939