Advancing Global Education and Democracy through the Practice of Value-Creating Education

This blog post is an outcome of a panel discussion held at the ANGEL Conference 2025 in Berlin, Germany between 4-6 June. It discusses the need for political education, sustained critical reflection, and an emphasis on human development as essential for advancing the aims of global education.

Authors: Namrata Sharma (State University of New York); Takao Ito, Tetsuko Watanabe, and Stephanie Kukita (Soka University Japan). Email for correspondence: namrata.sharma@oswego.edu.

ANGEL_Blog_Sharma_Ito_Watanabe_Kukita.jpg

Global Education for human development and a participatory democracy

Soka, or value-creating education, is an approach to curriculum developed by Japanese educators Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944), Josei Toda (1900-1958), and Daisaku Ikeda (1928-2023). At a time of societal transformation in the early twentieth century, and in opposition to increasing militarization by an authoritarian regime, Makiguchi articulated a radically different vision of education aligned with democratic values and fostering independent thought. In more recent years, this approach has been instrumental in shaping global citizenship education across Soka institutions worldwide. These institutions are established by Ikeda with the purpose of framing education as a transformative process aimed at cultivating capable citizens.

Building on Makiguchi’s vision, Ikeda’s proposals and thoughts on education for global citizenship are aimed at fostering empathy, a sense of shared humanity, and a commitment to peace (Ikeda 1996). Research studies suggest the practical application of these ideas within selected Soka institutions (Watanabe 2025). Such emerging scholarly works in the growing field of Soka studies in education contribute to current themes related to the discourse on global education and democracy. For example, the need for global education within the educational system that is focused on human development (Ito 2008) and preparing learners for democratic engagement at national and global levels (Sharma 2025).

As critical thinkers such as John Dewey, Makiguchi and Ikeda envisaged, the true test of democracy is the development and growth of the individual citizen. Such as emphasized through Dewey’s concept of participatory democracy. Whereas in a representative democracy people elect representatives to do all of the active work of governing, in a participatory democracy, as Dewey envisaged, people need to engage directly in the ongoing work of democratic life. As has also been argued by other scholars, a sustainable world without participation and democracy is unthinkable (Wals and Jickling 2009: 78), highlighting the importance of sustainability education to human development. This places a greater emphasis within global education across nation-states that is focused on human development to create a sustainable world with the full and democratic involvement of all, including young members of society. 

The influence of such thought processes has begun to influence Soka and non-Soka educational settings with a greater emphasis being placed on human development within programs focused on enhancing education for global citizenship. For example, research on key initiatives in Soka University Japan examines students’ university experiences and personal growth through formal and informal learning within diverse environments, such as interactions between Japanese and international students, and among international students themselves in cultivating a global mindset (Kukita 2025). 

Politicization and depoliticization of progressive thought

At the same time, broader studies engaging the ideas and relevance of Soka progenitors and other such critical thinkers also raise key questions, including, what does it mean to be an active citizen?; and under what social, political, or educational scenario does a person become a citizen? (Sharma 2020, 2025). Questioning for example, the socio-political context within which the Soka progenitors advocated their ideas as active citizens – a context of authoritarianism similar to other revolutionary thinkers such as Paulo Freire (1970), bell hooks (1994), and Mahatma Gandhi (1958) who have offered deeply political critiques of oppression and transformative visions for liberation (see Bourn 2022). In modern democratic educational contexts, however, their ideas are subject to two competing processes: politicization and depoliticization.

To explain, politicization highlights the disruptive potential of progressive thought. For example, Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed is taken up as a manifesto for critical pedagogy, mobilizing teachers and students to see education as a practice of freedom (Giroux 2020). Depoliticization, however, strips these thinkers of their radical force. Their writings are reduced to universal “inspirational” lessons, disconnected from the political struggles that gave rise to them. Freire becomes merely a symbol of “student-centered learning”; Gandhi becomes a spokesperson for “peace” without reference to colonial resistance; hooks is invoked as an advocate of “love” without her critique of patriarchy and white supremacy. This process makes radical thought palatable within mainstream curricula but undermines its transformative intent (Apple 2006). The fate of such progressive thinkers is not dissimilar to the claim Herbert Marcuse makes on the “classics” of literature, philosophy and politics which, in becoming available in paperbacks in local bookstore 

A vital implication of the above examples of the politicization and depoliticization of dissident thinkers is that their ideas and values tend to lose their creativity and efficacy when they are used in a way that does not contend with the existing power structures of society. This argues the need for political education and addressing the impediments related to learning for social participation. 

Implications for global education across formal and non-formal learning spaces

Advancing global education and democracy through the practice of value-creating education and similar critical pedagogical approaches include the following:

• Engage with creative modes of thinking and acting: Curriculum development in global education can be enhanced through engaging students in the creative modes of thinking, behaviors, and beliefs of citizens such as Friere, hooks, Makiguchi, and Gandhi, who did not provide a single, linear and reductive prescription for the needs of their respective societies, but instead, contended with the complexity of their respective social and educational contexts (Sharma 2020).
   
• Embrace controversy for political education: In the face of rising narrow nationalism across nation-states, the need to equip educators with the ability and confidence to teach controversial political issues, such as immigration and climate change within the classroom is becoming increasingly relevant. As Hess and McAvoy’s work on The political classroom suggests, teachers are being confronted with the “political education paradox” of the contrast between “the need to provide students with a nonpartisan political education on the one hand with the need to prepare them to participate in the actual, highly partisan political community on the other” (Hess and McAvoy 2015: 4; see also Council of Europe 2014; and Oxfam 2018 for relevant resources).
   
• Emphasize a normative, reflective approach to learning: Global education can also be enhanced by taking into consideration students’ values and interests that inform their actions. As pointed out by the British sociologist, Basil Bernstein (1970), it is inadequate to “politically” educate the learner within the closed brick walls of schools where in most cases the learner is expected to drop their identity, way of life, and its symbolic representations at the school gate. Further, guidelines and recommendations for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers can also help challenge our own values and assumptions in undertaking the task of Education for sustainability and global citizenship so that it is reflective, dialogic, and inclusive (Sharma 2025: 155-194; for details visit https://drnamratasharma.com/).

References

• Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: Routledge.
• Bernstein, B. (1970). Education cannot compensate for society. New Society, 15(387), 344–347.
• Bourn, D. (2022). Education for social change: Perspectives on global learning. London: Bloomsbury.
• Council of Europe. (2014). Teaching controversial issues: Developing effective training for teachers and school leaders. https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/charter-edc-hre-pilot-projects/teaching-co...
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1958). Hind swaraj or Indian home rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
• Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury.
• Hess, D. E. and McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York: Routledge. 
• hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
• Ikeda, D. (1996). Thoughts on education for global citizenship. Daisaku Ikeda Website. https://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/resources/works/lect/lect-08.html
• Ito, T. (2008). Readings from Daisaku Ikeda’s youth: Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in the early development of Daisaku Ikeda’s educational thought. Soka Kyo‍̄iku, 1, 141–7.    
• Kukita, S. (2025, June 4-6). Works at IRISE: Initiatives and research on value-creating education and global citizenship [Conference presentation]. ANGEL Conference, Berlin, Germany. https://angel-network.net/ANGELconference2025
• Marcuse, H. (1972). One Dimensional Man. London: Abacus.
• Oxfam. (2018). Teaching controversial issues: A guide for teachers. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/teaching-controversial-issue...
• Sharma, N. (2020). Value-creating global citizenship education for sustainable development: Strategies and approaches. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 
• Sharma, N. (2025). Education for sustainability and global citizenship: Intercultural, ethical, and justice-based approaches. London: Bloomsbury.
• Wals, A. and Jickling, B. (2009). A framework for young people’s participation in sustainability. In P. B. Corcoran and P. M. Osano (Eds.), Young people, education, and sustainable development: Exploring principles, perspectives, and praxis (pp. 77–84). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.
• Watanabe, T. (2025, June 4-6). The present-day practice of value-creating education [Conference presentation]. ANGEL Conference, Berlin, Germany. https://angel-network.net/ANGELconference2025