3 minute read
Time for an IB mission review?, Carol Inugai-Dixon
Time for an IB mission review?
Carol Inugai-Dixon looks at some alternatives
The International Baccalaureate (IB) celebrates its fiftieth anniversary in 2018. It is a very different organization now from when it was inaugurated, and the world is a very different place from how it was in 1968. I propose that it would be timely, in order for the IB to avoid showing signs of aging and losing the cutting edge of its youthful years, to reconsider its mission statement.
One declaration in particular within the mission statement that has bothered me for some time is the following:
This sentiment was no doubt admirable in declaring an attitude of tolerance after two world wars when nations committed to hegemony and intolerant of difference decimated millions. But on closer examination the underlying attitude expressed is surely not to be admired in terms of how we have come to think today. Let’s look at the declaration more closely.
In suggesting that other people with their differences can also be right, the statement subtly, through the use of the word ‘can’, implies that they can also be wrong. That might seem perfectly reasonable. However, another implication made by the statement through the use of the word ‘also’ is that we, who are declaring the statement and who are not the ‘other people’, are assumed to be right without any question of us ever being wrong. Although exactly what is being referred to as ‘right’ has not been made explicit, the context of the mission statement is about education for a better and more peaceful world – which therefore suggests to me that ‘right’ is related to this concept and perhaps to different world views. I don’t believe it is referring to whether, for instance, a simple mathematical formula is right or wrong. I imagine post-colonial analysts might very easily detect traces of the self-satisfied righteousness of the old imperialism woven through this declaration.
Perhaps the following might be an improvement: ‘Other people with their differences can also be right. They can, of course, also be wrong. And so can we.’ This modification at least introduces some humility and flattens dominant claims to right and wrong. Nonetheless it stays in a field of ‘othering’. It dichotomizes people into ‘us and them’, and judges. Post-modern writers have pointed out in great detail the problems that can result from dichotomizing and then judging in (mostly) western thinking. Some possible results are irrational hierarchies, hegemonies and elitism.
The IB, however, makes claims to be inclusive. There is ample documentation that describes how the IB values diversity and considers it, along with intercultural awareness and multilingualism, for instance, as active components for developing international mindedness and global citizenship. The language of inclusion does not dichotomize and judge the other, but instead talks of diverse multiple perspectives and frequently uses the pronoun ‘we’. So, instead of framing the mission statement with language that talks of ‘us’ and ‘the other with differences’, it might be better to talk about us all as a diversity of global citizens who have different (local) world views but who at this time share common global concerns.
Consideration of what is right and what is wrong is, of course, extremely important. But one ultimate aim of an IB education is international mindedness, and although this is a difficult term to define, it most certainly does not include the self-satisfaction that arises from knowing beyond doubt that one is ‘right’.
