International Football Teams and Judgement

I saw that one of our football teams was made up of one of the following nationalities: Malaysian, Irish, Dutch, Canadian, American, Australian, South Korean, Japanese, British, Indian, Norwegian, Indonesian.  It’s rather unusual that there were not two of any single nationality – but as in many schools these days under globalisation, this type of mix is a daily reality, and one that can be seductively appealing as a sign that we are more international, more multi-cultural, more… well, something. 

But our recent accreditation visit from the Council of International Schools has thrown this into sharp focus for me; as it was pointed out that we did not have a tight definition of internationalism, rather that we implicitly defined it in a number of ways.

So we did define it – but metrics like those from our football team, or the mix of nationalities in any classroom, are dangerous.  Easily measured, they oversimplify, for many reasons.  You only have to ask the footballers how long have you lived in the country for which you hold a passport? (some have never done so) to realise that internationalism is a complex beast.

Another measure might be to look at the team and see how the individuals from different backgrounds get on despite their differences (you might argue that children of the globally mobile may share much in terms of socio-economic background, but leave that aside for now – because there are cultural differences, for sure).  Broadly speaking, the players get on as well as any competitive group of players on a football team might; despite their individual differences and rivalries, they have a common purpose and they thrive under that tension – just like most teams.  But even if they were the model of peace and harmony, there has to be more to it than that –  because we are seeking to prepare students for a world which is far, far from perfect, and where peace and harmony is very much a work in progress; in workplaces, in societies, and in international affairs.  So international education has to be about more than just about being friendly; a quick glance at world events or any historical analysis shows that friendliness cannot be the only tool we have.  Lionel Elvin, first Chairman of Amnesty International, and Director of Education at UNESCO, argued that at root, international education is not about liking or disliking at all, but about liking or disliking for the right reasons:

It is not true that all members of UNESCO’s secretariat love each other.  Naturally they do not. But that is not the point.  The point is that they do not like or dislike each other, on the whole, for the right reasons: that is not because of the colour of their skin or the religion or their politics but as persons. This is a considerable advance in international human relations, enabling fellow-members of the secretariat to work together as they could not if they liked or disliked each other for the wrong reason.

I think there is wisdom here, and it chimes with what all schools know – that we need to ensure that individuals do not get lost in the group.  For all schools, this should mean learning to judge each other as individual people and not because of skin colour, gender or sexuality.  For international schools, we can add nationality to this list.  We seek to build communities that have concern for individuals as real people, not as representatives of their country.

Our definition of internationalism does, therefore, focus on the skills, qualities and values of individuals in our community, not on more visible, but ultimately misleading attributes.