The art of self-making: identity and citizenship education in late-modernity

Abstract

Taking the English National Curriculum as its main example, this article argues that an overly nationalistic, normative and ‘fact-based’ citizenship education curriculum is failing to engage the dimensions of young people’s identities which they experience as deeply meaningful. There is thus a chasm – albeit a false one – between official discourses and pedagogies of citizenship and what young people consider to be their ‘real’ selves. I argue that citizenship education must develop a more sophisticated understanding of the complexities of how identities are formed and performed, especially in light of globalisation and increasing migration. I also make a somewhat unorthodox argument for conceptualising ‘relating-to-otherness’ in the same way that we think of music consumption. This has implications for how we experience, interpret, value and create ‘others’. The article also makes some recommendations for how these ideas can begin to be implemented in educational settings.

Keywords:

• Citizenship education
• self-making
• performativity
• consumption
• identity
• global citizenship

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mr Prakash Daswani and his staff at Cultural Co-operation for supporting the project from which this article derives intellectually and logistically. They will no doubt continue to play an important role in the provision of citizenship education in London and beyond. The author also expresses gratitude to Prof. Richard Fardon at SOAS, University of London, whose guidance throughout the project was indispensable. Last but not least, the author wishes to thank all of the young people who gave their time and participated in the study.

Notes

1. Each of the four areas is broken down into more specific points. See Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1998, 44).

2. The project was partly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

3. Five were students at a Russell Group institution and 10 were at a post-1992 university.

4. The survey was done in the same post-1992 UK institution that the interviewees studied at.

5. Pseudonyms used throughout.

6. For a variant of this model, see Kubow et al. (2000).