Globalisation can dismantle religious traditions and national institutions, often with
devastating results on individuals, nations and groups.
Christopher Lasch ( 1995 ) claims that there is a threat to democracy and the
nation state from modern elites that refuse to accept traditional limits being inflicted
upon them. New economic and meritocratic elites create their own networks and
intuitions, often with competing ambitions and goals for the nation, their culture
and their people. The challenges of globalisation on the nation state are a concern
needed to be considered carefully. As analysed by Benedict Anderson ( 1983 )inhis
classicImagined Communities, the nation, on the one hand, has created disasters
like no other institutions in history. On the other, it has handled challenges of mass
education, economy, health, identity, culture and community with a success like no
other institution. A globalisation dismantling of nation-state institutions could have
a devastating impact on important public welfare systems, identity and community
makers.
Formulating our global experience so far: we have had a global discourse
without necessary institutionalisation to deal both with its full potential and the
problems it brought. The nation-state reacts to it in quite a schizophrenic way. Elites
can misuse it. It can create an unbalanced and inharmonious globalisation, with the
potential to leave large groups behind—challenging cultures, identities and nations
—in a potentially destructive way. This is the challenge for creating global edu-
cational cooperation, sharing and understanding between countries, educationalists
and cultures. A strong belief in globalisation underestimates the still important
functions of the nation state. On the other hand, nation states react in a quite
schizophrenic and insufficient manner to the many facets of globalisation.
Robertson ( 1995 ) introduces the concept of glocalisation in his classic
Glocalisation: Time, Space and Homogeneity–Heterogeneity. According to
Robertson the term“glocal”is a blend of both the local and the global. It sprung out
of the business jargon of the 1980s. The idea of glocalisation is connected to
micromarketing—tailoring and advertising goods on a global basis to increasingly
differentiated local and particular markets. Robertson criticises the polarised con-
cept of the global and the local, and invites the reader to a more dynamic under-
standing of the concept. I am here inspired by his challenge to see the local in the
global and the global in the local.
A glocal educational teacher agency and philosophy must be built upon respect
for the individual and the local, with an understanding and respect for the history,
and the political and cultural institution of a country or state, while, at the same
time, realising a common universal understanding, interconnectedness and the
humanistic potential of globalisation. All these elements are necessary in an
international corporation of education.The Glocal Teacheris a vision of such an
educational institution. The philosophy of glocal teaching draws its influence from
the bildung tradition in European educational philosophy, from public theory and
from ancient roots in Greek philosophy.
The bildung tradition focuses on education along three normative lines (Slagstad
et al. 2003 ). Thefirst was the thought of an education that enabled the pupil to
develop himself when encountering means that could have good educational effect
368 T.A. Trippestad