Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The utopia of lifelong learning : an intellectual history of UNESCO's humanistic approach to education,… Elfert, Maren 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2016_may_elfert_maren.pdf [ 1.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0228054.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0228054-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0228054-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0228054-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0228054-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0228054-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0228054-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0228054-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0228054.ris

Full Text

THE UTOPIA OF LIFELONG LEARNING: AN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF UNESCO’S HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO EDUCATION, 1945−2015  by Maren Elfert   M.A., Freie Universität Berlin, 1992  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   Doctor of Philosophy in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Educational Studies)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  March 2016  © Maren Elfert, 2016 	   ii	  Abstract  The scholarly literature has emphasized the strong humanistic tradition that characterizes the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). This study, which draws on archival research and interviews, traces the origins, features and shifts of UNESCO’s educational humanism from the creation of the organization in 1945 to the present day, with a particular focus on the concept of lifelong learning. I argue that the tensions between the humanistic worldview and the pressures placed on the organization by multifaceted changes in the political economy and the landscape of global governance in education have forced UNESCO to depart from its comprehensive lifelong learning approach, while still maintaining a claim of continuity. Employing Gadamer’s (1975) concept of tradition and Bevir’s (1999; 2003) concepts of tradition and dilemma and neo-institutional theories that emphasize the role of ideology and social meanings in explaining changes in organizations, the study examines the shifts that UNESCO’s educational concepts and programs have undergone as changing actors continually renegotiated and reclaimed its humanistic tradition as a reaction to the dilemmas they faced. I argue that UNESCO’s humanistic tradition has been challenged by competing ideas, in particular the concept of human capital, which presented a dilemma for the organization, contributing to internal and external tensions. Each of the symbolic documents that are at the centre of this study – UNESCO’s constitution, Learning to be (aka the Faure report, 1972) and Learning: The treasure within (aka the Delors report, 1996) – are windows into the ideological struggles carried out at their time. They tell us a great deal not only about the beliefs and ideologies of the actors involved, but also about the “competing” ideologies with which they interacted. They further shed light on the shifting position of UNESCO in the system of international organizations and multilateral development.  At a time when the humanistic perspective of education has been crowded out by the increasing marketization of education and UNESCO faces a severe existential crisis, this study contributes to the understanding not only of the intellectual history of lifelong learning, but more broadly of the changes in educational multilateralism over the past 70 years.  	   iii	   Preface  This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, M. Elfert. The study received the UBC Research Ethics Board's Certificate of Approval H14-00391.  Preliminary findings from this dissertation have been published in the following papers: Elfert, M. (2015, July). Learning to live together: Revisiting the humanism of the Delors Report. Paris, UNESCO Education Research and Foresight (ERF Working Papers Series, No. 12; also available in French and Spanish). Elfert, M. (2015). UNESCO, the Faure report, the Delors report, and the political utopia of lifelong learning. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 88-100. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12104 Elfert, M. (2015, December 23). Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good? UNESCO’s New “Humanistic Manifesto.” NORRAG NewsBite.     	   iv	  Table of Contents  Abstract	  .......................................................................................................................................	  ii	  Preface	  .......................................................................................................................................	  iii	  Table	  of	  Contents	  ....................................................................................................................	  iv	  List	  of	  Abbreviations	  ...........................................................................................................	  vii	  Acknowledgements	  ................................................................................................................	  ix	  Prologue	  ......................................................................................................................................	  1	  Chapter	  One:	  UNESCO’s	  Humanism:	  The	  Challenge	  of	  “Unity	  in	  Diversity”	  .........	  2	  Introduction	  .........................................................................................................................................	  2	  My Motivation for This Study	  .........................................................................................................	  4	  Purpose of Study and Research Questions	  ....................................................................................	  7	  “Unifying the World Mind:” The Origins of UNESCO’s Humanism	  ....................................	  8	  The Tensions Underpinning UNESCO’s Mandate	  ...................................................................	  19	  Conclusion	  ..........................................................................................................................................	  23	  Chapter	  Two:	  Conceptual	  and	  Theoretical	  Framework:	  Interpretive	  Contextual	  Understanding	  .......................................................................................................................	  28	  Gadamer’s Hermeneutics and the Concept of Tradition	  .........................................................	  29	  Tradition and Change	  ......................................................................................................................	  33	  Intellectual and Conceptual History	  .............................................................................................	  36	  The “Neo-institutional” Approach	  ................................................................................................	  39	  Definition of Key Concepts	  .............................................................................................................	  41	  Methodology	  ......................................................................................................................................	  46	  Interviews	  ...........................................................................................................................................	  48	  Conclusion	  ..........................................................................................................................................	  51	  Chapter	  Three:	  UNESCO’s	  Early	  Years:	  Human	  Rights,	  High	  Hopes	  and	  Harsh	  Realities	  ...................................................................................................................................	  55	  Introduction	  .......................................................................................................................................	  55	  Universalization and Individualization: The Principle of Human Rights	  ...........................	  56	  UNESCO and Human Rights	  .........................................................................................................	  59	  Dignity, Fulfillment, and International Understanding: Views on the Right to Education	  ...............................................................................................................................................................	  62	  Article 26: The Right to Education	  ...............................................................................................	  68	  Adult Education as Priority	  ...........................................................................................................	  75	  Fundamental Education	  ..................................................................................................................	  79	  Conclusion	  ..........................................................................................................................................	  87	  Chapter	  Four:	  Éducation	  Permanente	  and	  the	  “Crisis	  of	  Education”	  ...................	  90	  Introduction	  .......................................................................................................................................	  90	  Peuple et Culture	  ...............................................................................................................................	  91	  Éducation Permanente in the Context of May 1968	  ..................................................................	  93	  International Adult Education	  .......................................................................................................	  95	  	   v	  Lifelong Education and the “Human Condition”	  ......................................................................	  98	  The Rise of Development and Human Capital Theory	  .........................................................	  101	  The Crisis of Education	  ................................................................................................................	  110	  Conclusion	  .......................................................................................................................................	  113	  Chapter	  Five:	  Learning	  to	  be:	  The	  Faure	  Report	  .......................................................	  117	  Introduction	  ....................................................................................................................................	  117	  Implementation of the Commission	  ...........................................................................................	  118	  Key Messages of the Faure Report	  .............................................................................................	  121	  The Influence of Critical Theory and “Humanist Radicalism”	  ..........................................	  124	  A Sense of Crisis	  .............................................................................................................................	  128	  Progressivity with a Blind Spot	  ..................................................................................................	  132	  The “Complete Man:” Placing the Individual at the Centre	  ...............................................	  134	  Reception of the Faure report	  ......................................................................................................	  137	  A Catalytic Agent of Lifelong Learning	  ...................................................................................	  144	  Critique of Lifelong Education	  ...................................................................................................	  149	  Conclusion	  .......................................................................................................................................	  152	  Chapter	  Six:	  The	  Delors	  Report	  and	  the	  1990s	  ..........................................................	  159	  Introduction	  ....................................................................................................................................	  159	  The Crisis Years	  .............................................................................................................................	  162	  Towards Education for All	  ...........................................................................................................	  168	  Challenges to Education on the Eve of the 21st Century	  .......................................................	  170	  Establishing the Delors Commission	  .........................................................................................	  173	  Delors’ Social Agenda	  ...................................................................................................................	  177	  The Tension between Universality and Diversity: Learning to Live Together	  ................	  180	  The Delors Report’s Approach to Education	  ...........................................................................	  186	  The Dilemmas of Globalization	  ..................................................................................................	  192	  Appraising the Influence of the Delors Report	  ........................................................................	  197	  The Disenchantment of the Delors report	  .................................................................................	  201	  Conclusion	  .......................................................................................................................................	  203	  Chapter	  Seven:	  The	  Struggle	  of	  Ideologies	  .................................................................	  209	  Introduction	  ....................................................................................................................................	  209	  EFA and The Push Towards “Accountability”	  .......................................................................	  210	  “Education as Cultural Imperialism”	  .......................................................................................	  213	  Lifelong Learning Under Neoliberalism	  ...................................................................................	  215	  The Depoliticization of Lifelong Learning	  ...............................................................................	  220	  The “Post-political”	  .......................................................................................................................	  223	  The Struggle Over the Authority for Education	  .....................................................................	  225	  Isomorphic Processes	  ....................................................................................................................	  230	  Tradition and Legitimacy	  ............................................................................................................	  233	  The Struggle Over Ideas	  ..............................................................................................................	  239	  A Matter of Ideology	  .....................................................................................................................	  241	  Conclusion	  .......................................................................................................................................	  244	  References	  .............................................................................................................................	  253	  Appendices	  ............................................................................................................................	  284	  Appendix 1: List of Interviews	  ....................................................................................................	  284	  Appendix 2: Sources of Evidence	  ...............................................................................................	  286	  	   vi	  Appendix 3: Publications on Lifelong Education Published by the UNESCO Institute for Education, 1970 to 1980	  ...............................................................................................................	  288	  Appendix 4: Comparing the Faure report and the Delors report	  ........................................	  290	  Appendix 5: Shifting Contexts and Meanings of the Concept of Lifelong Learning from the Perspective of UNESCO	  ........................................................................................................	  291	  	  	    	   vii	  List of Abbreviations  ADG Assistant Director-General AUREFA   Associations universitaires régionales d’éducation et de formation des adultes CAME Conference of Allied Ministers of Education CERI Centre for Educational Research and Innovation CONFINTEA  International Conference on Adult Education (Conférence international sur l’éducation des adultes) CUCES Centre universitaire de coopération économique et sociale DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) DG Director-General EC European Commission ECOSOC Economic and Social Council  (of the United Nations) EFA Education for All EFD Educational Financing Division ERI European Roundtable of Industrialists  EU European Union EWLP Experimental World Literacy Programme FAO Food and Agriculture Organization  FTI Fast-Track-Initiative (World Bank) IBE International Bureau of Education IIEP International Institute for Educational Planning IIIC International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund INFA   Institut national pour la formation des adultes IR International relations IWGE International Working Group on Education NGO Non-governmental organization NIEO New International Economic Order NWICO New World Information and Communication Order OECD  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper SDG Sustainable Development Goal 	   viii	  UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UIE UNESCO Institute for Education UIL UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNESCO  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNDP United Nations Development Program U.S. United States of America USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics WCEFA World Conference on Education for All WHO World Health Organization    	   ix	  Acknowledgements  Finally the time has come to write the acknowledgements for my dissertation, the project that has bundled much of my energy over the past four years. First of all, I want to thank my husband Yvon Laberge, who has continually supported me in every possible way and has been my refuge and bastion in the loneliness of PhD studies. If it had not been for him, I would have never come to Canada to study at UBC in the first place.  I tremendously enjoyed every day that I spent in the PhD program at UBC. I marveled at the beautiful ocean-view campus and at the luck I had to work with a group of extraordinary people. I have had the most wonderful supervisors, André Elias Mazawi and Kjell Rubenson, who both went far beyond the call of duty in their unfailing support of me. I cannot thank them enough for all the advice they gave me, the tireless reading of and commenting on my papers and the various drafts of my dissertation and the many letters of reference they had to write for me. I am indebted to them for the enormous amount I learnt from them and I hope I can continue to do so after this dissertation is complete. I am also very grateful to Jessica Wang, the historian on my supervisory committee who gave me some excellent pieces of advice. I learnt a lot from the very thorough feedback she gave me on my second and third drafts, which greatly helped me improve the dissertation. I owe gratitude to my interviewees Nicholas Burnett, Roberto Carneiro, Arthur Cropley, Sir John Daniel, Ravindra Dave, Jacques Hallak, Henri Lopes, Adama Ouane, Ulrika Peppler Barry, Colin Power, Stamenka Uvalić–Trumpić and Peter Williams. All of them took time out of their busy schedules to respond to my questions and e-mails and graciously offer me advice. I am particularly grateful to two of my interviewees, Alexandra Draxler and Klaus Hüfner, who have made time for me on several occasions. The memories of my interviews with all of these outstanding individuals will always stay with me. I owe thanks to Georges Kutukdjian who established the contact with Henri Lopes, on Alexandra’s initiative. Others have kindly met or corresponded with me to help me grapple with certain questions, such as Joachim Knoll, Warren Mellor and Clinton Robinson.  	   x	  I could have not completed this study without the help of librarians and archivists, in particular Imke Behr and Lisa Krolak from the library of the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Imke patiently dug out documents I requested time and again. Jens Boel, Adèle Torrance, Alexandre Coutelle and Sang Phan supported me during my research at the UNESCO archives. Thanks also to my former colleague and friend Ulrike Hanemann for always responding when I write to her to tap her expertise. There are many others I would like to acknowledge, such as Paul Bélanger, Greg Brooks, Adama Ouane (again) and Gabriele Rabkin, who wrote reference letters for me to support my application to UBC, and the members of my doctoral cohort with whom I had the pleasure to share many stimulating discussions: Omer Aijazi, Jim Bigari, Angela Contreras Chavez, Dwayne Cover, Marissa Munoz, Alejandra Sanchez, Yao Xiao, and especially Lilach Marom who has been my friend and confidante. I had the privilege to collaborate and engage with many people in the Department of Educational Studies (EDST) and the Faculty of Education, such as Ali Abdi, Lesley Andres, Anthony Clarke, Jason Ellis, Don Fisher, Brigitte Gemme, Erin Graham, Garnet Grosjean, Carrie Hunter, Carolina Palacios, Kapil Regmi and Michelle Stack. I owe thanks to the present and former staff of EDST for always helping me with logistics and administrative issues: Chris Adams, Sandy Abah, Roweena Bacchus, Erin Hagen, Ryan Matheuszik, Shermila Salgadoe, and Jeannie Young. I greatly benefitted from the course on historical consciousness and the Gadamer reading group with Peter Seixas as well as the class on Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich with Sam Rocha and the other “liberation theologists” Adi Burton, Dan Clegg and Zack Wiener. I owe a special thanks to Shauna Butterwick and Jude Walker with whom I had the pleasure to collaborate on different occasions and who offered me generous help. I should like to acknowledge my best friend Claudia Ziegler who constantly encourages and inspires me during our weekly phone calls, my parents Reinhild Elfert and Heino Elfert, my aunt Anke Teepe, my son John Horstmann, Rolf Horstmann, as well as my step-children Jane Berg and Jonathan Laberge for their support and friendship. I am particularly indebted to my daughter Julia Elfert who accompanied me to Paris on one of my archival “trips” and has shown much endurance and patience in keeping the family together across the continents. 	   xi	  I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding my doctoral research. The SSHRC doctoral grant was a wonderful recognition and made a big difference.  Last but not least, I thank Adelheid Ude, my history high school teacher, and the late Manfred Göske, my English high school teacher at the Gymnasium Johanneum in Lüneburg. They always made me feel special and instilled in me the love of knowledge. I had to think of them a lot in the past years.   	   1	    Prologue       “UNESCO is an organization concerned with man and his destiny.” (René Maheu, 1965)1   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1	  cited by Berrêdo Carneiro, 1976.	  	   2	   Chapter One UNESCO’s Humanism: The Challenge of “Unity in Diversity” Introduction When I came to the University of British Columbia (UBC) as a PhD student in 2011 after having worked for many years for the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL),2 I thought I knew a lot about lifelong learning. In my first term at UBC I took a course on the “Foundations of Adult Education.” One of the first papers I read for this course was Shahrzad Mojab’s (2006) chapter “Adult education without borders,” which contained the sentence “Lifelong learning is the educational response to the new market order” (p. 353). I was very confused about this statement as it did not correspond in any way to the idea of “lifelong learning” I had developed during my time at UNESCO.  In the course of my studies I quickly came to understand what Mojab meant. I learnt about neoliberalism and the influence of the market order on education. When I carried out research on Canadian adult education policies, I encountered and internalized the neoliberal discourse of “lifelong learning” as driven primarily by economic rationales (Elfert & Rubenson, 2013). But in the context of my research for this study I went back to the UNESCO perspective. I studied how the predecessor of lifelong learning, éducation permanente, emerged in the context of UNESCO around the mid-1960s (UNESCO, 1966a). Éducation permanente was very much infused with the organization’s humanistic approach to education, which is anchored in its constitution and underpinned by its view of education as a human right. I examined many of the key documents coming out of UNESCO, such as the reports Learning to be, otherwise known as the Faure report, published in 1972 (Faure et al., 1972), and Learning: The treasure within, otherwise known as the Delors report, published in 1996 (Delors et al., 1996). For Paul Lengrand, the earliest theorist of éducation permanente in UNESCO, the concept marked the “first time [when] an element of freedom has been introduced into the educational universe” (1986, p. 9). He referred to the adult as a new kind of learner, 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  2	  Until 2007, the UNESCO Institute for Education (UIE). 	   3	  “unique in his personality” and “rich in experience” (p. 9) and free to steer her or his own learning and “pursue their education beyond the limits of school or university” (p. 8),  without “compulsion” (p. 9). I realized that the concept of lifelong learning as put forward by UNESCO had very little to do with the neoliberal interpretation of lifelong learning. Today, Mojab is one among many scholars for whom lifelong learning denotes the responsibility of individuals to obtain the skills that make them fit for the labour market. In his study of the competing views of lifelong learning between UNESCO and OECD, Rubenson (2006) invoked the image of the Janus face, showing us its economistic side more often than its humanistic side. Bagnall (2000), in his analysis of the contemporary lifelong learning discourse, came to the conclusion that it was predominantly driven by economic determinism.  Lifelong learning undoubtedly became a global educational paradigm. There are hardly any educational policies and strategies, be it at the global, country, regional or local level that do not refer in one way or the other to the principle of lifelong learning (see Commission of the European Communities, 2000, for an example of a regional strategy; Lee, 2010, for the country level; City of Vancouver, 2008, for the local level; Jakobi, 2009, for a global overview). But what does the concept stand for? Why has the meaning of lifelong learning changed so radically over the past decades, from being “an element of freedom” to “the educational response to the new market order”? This study will contribute to answering these questions by tracing the history of lifelong learning in the United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It is fair to say that UNESCO represents the international organization that, since its inception in 1945, has made the most important philosophical and theoretical contributions to the concept. But it is important to note that in parallel to UNESCO’s intense engagement with lifelong learning, especially during the 1970s and the 1990s, the idea was much discussed in educational circles more broadly, and other international organizations played an important part in bringing it to prominence under different names, such as the OECD’s recurrent education (Kallen, 1979). This study will focus on UNESCO’s view of lifelong learning, which shone a spotlight on the humanistic side of its Janus face. I argue that lifelong learning represents an expression of the humanistic ontology that UNESCO has constructed through the involvement of individuals who – while coming 	   4	  from different backgrounds and cultures – shared a certain humanistic ethos, which I will further define later in this chapter. The humanistic worldview provides a sense of continuity and identity to the organization in a constantly changing environment. Focusing on the concept of lifelong learning as a case in point, I will show how this idea has emerged, and how it has been kept alive while being impacted by internal, external, local and international influences in the context of global politics. In particular in the last 25 years the pressure placed on UNESCO’s tradition by competing educational concepts has increased. As a consequence, UNESCO became implicated in developments which entailed a quite radical departure of its humanistic interpretation of lifelong learning, while still maintaining a claim of continuity.  My Motivation for This Study During the years I worked for UIL, I was increasingly troubled by the gap between UNESCO’s humanistic discourse and the reality of “results-based management.” I had the privilege of being involved in the conceptualization and development of a family literacy pilot project in Hamburg, in which UIL collaborated with Hamburg’s teacher training institute, which is a part of Hamburg’s education authorities.3 My counterpart in the teacher training institute, Dr. Gabriele Rabkin, was a student of the late Gottfried Hausmann, the first Professor of Comparative Education at the University of Hamburg. After his retirement in 1974, he continued to be a close friend and adviser of the UIL, where a room in the premises of the institute is named after him, the “Hausmann room,” which is equipped with a number of desks for interns and international fellows.4 Especially in the first years, Gabriele and I struggled to secure funding for the family literacy project, and we had many discussions about the difficulty to convince funders to invest in a project that showed no immediate results or the results of which were difficult to measure and to pin down. Gabriele told me that Hausmann very much opposed this kind of instrumental approach in education and that he believed in a hermeneutic approach that left room for open processes and followed the development of a project the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  3	  This project, called “FLY” has later been successfully expanded and mainstreamed by the Hamburg education authorities and celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2014. For more information, see http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002295/229506M.pdf 4 For more information about Gottfried Hausmann, see Elfert (2002), p. 29. http://www.unesco.org/education/uie/pdf/50yearseng.pdf 	   5	  way it unfolded. This is very much what we tried to do with the family literacy project. I realized that a project that involved so many people – parents, children, teachers, administrators – and institutions (schools, the two coordinating institutes, the authorities etc.) was like a living organism. It had a character and a certain dynamic. It could be given direction and framing, but it may unfold differently than originally planned. I have observed these processes also in a two-year European family literacy project which I coordinated. One of the partners was a Turkish organization running various literacy and family literacy programs.5 Over the years that I followed their work, I noticed that one of their key programs that had started off as a program to enhance the reading and writing of children, was later identified as an empowerment program for women as they had come to realize that the program had its strongest effect on the children’s mothers. The funding schemes prescribed by the donor agencies with which UNESCO works, such as the World Bank, don’t allow for this kind of openness. Most funding agencies want to see immediate and measurable results for projects that have very specific goals, such as the increase in literacy levels, possibly already after the first year. Results-based educational planning treats human beings as means rather than ends in the teaching and learning process. I always felt that this approach contradicted UNESCO’s humanism and the concept of education as a human right, but it took me a long time to figure out why, and this study reflects my ongoing struggle with this question.  Many times – in the interviews I conducted for this study, at conferences and in discussions – I heard the argument that the dichotomy between the instrumental perspective of education and the human rights perspective is pointless or even detrimental to debates on education. One of my supervisors, Kjell Rubenson, and some of my interviewees pointed out that initially, the human rights approach and the “human capital” approach to education, which became influential in the early 1960s, complemented each other. I acknowledge that there are many reasons for governments to provide education and for individuals to pursue it, and most people, from literacy learners to PhD students, regard education as an investment. But there is a fundamental difference between the instrumental perspective and the humanistic approach taken by UNESCO. For the founders of UNESCO, such as the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, and for 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  5	  AÇEV (The Mother Child Education Foundation), http://www.acev.org/ 	   6	  others who occupy a central role in this study, such as Jacques Delors, the purpose of education consisted in the development of the human person – “making man truly human” (Maritain, 1943, p. 113). In the instrumental perspective, the purpose of education is to convey skills that are “useful” for some other purpose, changing “the means into ends” (p. 114). These two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they represent divergent ontologies, which will be examined in this study. On my journey through my PhD program, I experienced several key moments that advanced my understanding of this – one of those moments was when my other supervisor, André Mazawi, talked about the “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” value of education. Another important discovery was the work of Zeev Sternhell. His staunch partisanship for the values of the Enlightenment had a powerful effect on me. In marked contrast to critiques of the Enlightenment, such as Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1973) Dialectic of Enlightenment, Sternhell (1996) fervently argues that turning away from the Enlightenment’s emphasis on the value of the individual and the key idea of modernity that “men are able, in a rational manner, to create a better future” (p. 13) leads to antidemocratic, fascist and totalitarian tendencies. Sternhell’s research on the origins of fascism comes to the conclusion that we must emphasize what unites human beings, and not what differentiates them, such as religion, nationalism, language, ethnicity, and cultural identity. Sternhell seems to be speaking out of Maritain’s statement that “the preface to fascism and Nazism is a thorough disregard of the spiritual dignity of man” (1943, p. 114). I argue that the Enlightenment concept of dignity constitutes one of the pillars of UNESCO’s humanism, which remains consistent even under the influence of the anti-humanist stance of the French 1968 “revolution.” Sternhell has been criticized for simplifying things, because he presents the story of modernity as basically an ideological struggle between two different camps – the proponents of the “Franco-Kantian Enlightenment” on the one hand, and the “communitarians,” the representatives of identity politics, on the other. I do not always agree with some of his conclusions, but his work greatly advanced my understanding of the influence of the Enlightenment on UNESCO’s humanism, which is underpinned by the belief in the possibility of peace and progress under the condition that human beings follow their capacity for rational agency. 	   7	  Purpose of Study and Research Questions The UNESCO ontology is reflected in the emblem of the organization, the Parthenon temple, a nod to the Greek credentials of humanism (Singh, 2011, p. 36; UNESCO, n.d.a, p. 2), which symbolizes an attachment to a Western worldview. I refer to this humanism as a “tradition” in UNESCO. The humanistic ontology is a continuity in UNESCO, but at the same time UNESCO’s educational concepts and programs have undergone shifts as that tradition was continually renegotiated and reclaimed in the changing context of global politics and the political economy in which the organization operated. Each chapter of this study will focus on a specific period that held significance in terms of the (re-)emergence of UNESCO’s key educational concepts, from the foundational years to the present time. Each period is characterized by a different political, social and economic context, in which the tradition of UNESCO’s humanism has been (re)formulated by a variety of actors who were driven by motivations related to their situatedness, their biographies, beliefs and experiences. The research questions guiding this study are: How has the concept of lifelong learning grown out of UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education and how has the concept developed, between 1945 and the present time? How has lifelong learning been shaped by multiple actors situated in a plurality of contexts who entered into dialectical relationships with UNESCO to contribute to its articulation in the tension between UNESCO’s humanistic tradition and the wider social, intellectual and political developments? Three years before the right to education was proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, it was enshrined in UNESCO’s constitution in the formulation “education for all.” UNESCO’s first flagship program, “fundamental education,” was followed by éducation permanente (lifelong education), which later developed into “lifelong learning,” and which constitutes UNESCO’s most successful educational paradigm. Since 1990 the Education for All (EFA) initiative has dominated UNESCO’s work, leading to a narrowing of the lifelong learning approach. The intellectual history of lifelong learning in UNESCO reflects shifting social and economic discourses and ideological tensions that have shaped debates about education in all societies. One important ideological tension that will run like a thread through this study is the tension between the humanistic approach to education on the one hand and 	   8	  the economic-utilitarian view of education on the other. This tension comes out strongly in contemporary debates about education, marked by concerns about an overly instrumental approach to education and its increasing marketization and privatization (Marginson, 1997).   “Unifying the World Mind:” The Origins of UNESCO’s Humanism Against the backdrop of the Second World War, the founding of UNESCO rested on the belief that relations between states should be based to a much greater extent than before on strong multilateral institutions that could act as guarantors of peace. UNESCO exemplifies the conviction held by many at the time that cooperation limited to the political and economic realm was not sufficient to secure peace in the world, but that states and people around the globe needed to collaborate in the fields of education, science and culture in order to achieve lasting peace. The ideology behind UNESCO can be traced back to inter-war movements of intellectual cooperation as embodied in the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation (IIIC) of the League of Nations and even further to the tradition of idealism and belief in progress, which derives from the Enlightenment (Sluga, 2007, pp. 57-58).  UNESCO emerged from the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education (CAME), which met between 1942 and 1945 in London to discuss issues relating to the reconstruction of education in Europe after the Second World War. Delegates from 44 countries attended UNESCO’s founding conference, called by the British and French governments and held in November 1945 in London. Latin American countries constituted the largest group, followed by Western-European and Asian countries. Only two African countries were present, Liberia and South Africa. Three Eastern European states associated with the “Soviet bloc” attended the conference, namely Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia. Initially, UNESCO was very much a creation of the three Western powers that had won the war, Britain, France, and the United States. Those three countries claimed the symbolic insignia of the organization. A British national was appointed first Director-General; France obtained the site of the organization, and the 	   9	  United States could claim the constitution.6 At the beginning some countries feared that the organization would fall under American influence, a fear that was reinforced by the absence of the USSR. The latter had refused to join as it regarded collaboration in educational matters as intrusion in its internal affairs (Krill de Capello, 1970, p. 5) and because it rejected the ideational principles (“wars begin in the minds of men”) on which the organization was founded, which were incompatible with its materialist-structuralist ideology (Morel, 2010, p. 111; Fourcade, 2007, p. 144). Especially France saw with suspicion that the United States was trying to make UNESCO an agency of “American cultural imperialism” (Asher, 1950, p. 19; Fourcade, 2007, p. 144). However, early on it became apparent that UNESCO was not very receptive to American influence.  In his report from the 1948 UNESCO General Conference held in Beirut to the French foreign ministry the head of the French delegation, Jacques Maritain, proudly pointed out that the French delegation had managed to gather a “Latin-European-Arab” group which had greater voting power than the “Anglo-American” group. He applauded that UNESCO was “probably the only international organization in which France could still play a front role” (Fourcade, 2007, p. 145; my translation from French).7 He also described how in Mexico, where the General Conference had been held the year before, “our country, or rather our culture, crystallized oppositions which make themselves felt everywhere in the world with regard to the increasing spread of ideas and methods of thought and American vulgarization” (p. 145), while presenting France as the defender of the “vieilles civilisations” (p. 145; see also Morel, 2010, pp. 102-103). In a similar vein, the Canadian John Humphrey, the secretary of the UN Human Rights Commission, described a heated discussion at a dinner party attended by several high-ranking Frenchmen, including Henri Laugier, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations in charge of Social Affairs, his executive assistant Stéphane Hessel, and the French socialist leader Pierre Mendès-France. Discussing the role of France in the post-war world, some of the Frenchmen claimed a role for France as the “troisième colosse” that would unite the world against the two superpowers (Humphrey, 1984, pp. 58-59). 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  6	  The poet and Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish wrote the preamble to UNESCO’s constitution.	  7	  Throughout the study, when I put “my translation” after a quote, I refer to a translation from French, except for one instance where I translate from German, which I have specified. 	   10	  Jacques Maritain, the French Catholic philosopher, served as head of the French delegation at the second and third sessions of the General Conference, taking over at the last minute for Léon Blum who was sick (Barré, 2005, p. 393). Blum, the French politician and former Prime Minister, who had been imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp for his opposition to the Vichy régime, had represented France at UNESCO’s founding conference held in London in 1945, and at the first session of the General Conference, held in 1946 in Paris. Maritain was French Ambassador to the Vatican at the time, a job he never wanted but felt unable to reject when offered by the then French President, General de Gaulle (Barré, 2005, p. 384). He had spent the war years in exile where he taught at different North-American universities. He was one of the leading French intellectuals and had been a powerful spokesperson of condemnation of anti-Semitism, the Nazi racial doctrines and the Vichy regime for collaborating with the Nazis. He developed a philosophy he called “integral humanism,” which differed from the secular “humanism” in that it acknowledged the spiritual dimension of human nature, which he saw as a fundamental dimension of human beings. A leading exponent of Thomism, his epistemology was person-oriented and based on the experience of divine love (Weindling, 2010, pp. 219-220). The actively political and worldly form of Christian faith he advocated has greatly influenced many Christian-oriented intellectuals and politicians in France and elsewhere, such as Jacques Delors who will play a major role in this study. Maritain had always been interested in the idea of a “world political society,” and he had been favourable towards the League of Nations (Barré, 2005, p. 254; 392). After and in parallel to his involvement with UNESCO, he emerged as one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A very different figure was Julian Huxley, the central Englishman in those early years of UNESCO, who was appointed as the organization’s first Director-General. An atheist scientist, he represented a very different worldview than Maritain. He had made a name for himself with research on genetics and animal behavior and as a strong opponent of Nazi racial theories. The Americans resisted his appointment as they believed him to be “soft on communism” (Weindling, 2010, pp. 178; 185), and his term as Director-General was limited to two years, from December 1946 to December 1948. The Catholics were suspicious of his secular and materialistic worldview (p. 182). Many preferred 	   11	  Alfred Zimmern, former Deputy Director of the IIIC and first Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission of UNESCO, as the “obvious choice” (Toye & Toye, 2010, p. 308) for the position of Director-General. Zimmern’s illness at a crucial moment in the preparatory process played in favour of Huxley, but, as Toye and Toye (2010) argue, Huxley’s appointment stems from the “two cultures” controversy between Britain’s literary and humanities-oriented intellectuals, represented by Zimmern, and the proponents of a scientific worldview, represented by Huxley. In fact, the proposal for the new organization, drafted by CAME, foresaw a “United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization” (UNECO) that turned into “UNESCO” at the founding conference held in 1945, after the British had pushed for inclusion of “scientific” into the name of the organization (pp. 319-324).  While the Director-General was a concession to Britain, and the headquarters in Paris a concession to France, it was an American who wrote the preamble of the UNESCO constitution, Archibald MacLeish, the long-term Librarian of Congress who held the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Cultural and Public Affairs in the Roosevelt government before he was seconded to the founding conference of UNESCO. “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” This much cited phrase from the UNESCO constitution rested on the statement “wars begin in the minds of men,” from the speech by Clement Atlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, at the UNESCO founding conference in London in 1945. MacLeish later used the phrase when he drafted the preamble of the constitution (Laves & Thomson, 1957, p. 359, n. 5; Cowell, 1966, p. XIX; Karp, 1951, p. 36).  It is worthwhile to take a closer look at how the wording of the UNESCO constitution captured the spirit with which the organization was founded. The first part of the preamble deplored that the emphasis on the “differences” between human beings and “the doctrine of the inequality of men and races” had caused “the great and terrible war.” The second part promised a brighter future in which the focus on differences would be overcome by the “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.” UNESCO’s humanism, based on the universality and equality of human beings, is anchored in this text, which 	   12	  also contains the concept of “full and equal opportunities for education for all.” The purpose of the organization was defined as: to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations. (UNESCO Constitution, Article 1(1); see UNESCO, 2004) The UNESCO idea reflected a particular post-World War II moment which emphasized “equality,” “mutual respect” and “solidarity” over “suspicion,” “mistrust,” “ignorance” and “prejudice,” all terms the constitution put in juxtaposition to each other. A word that stands out, as it appears twice in the preamble, is “dignity.” In one instance it is being used in a negative formulation, referring to the war which “was made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men,” and in the next paragraph it appears in a positive formulation stating that “the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man.”  Given the diversity of UNESCO’s member states, the claim of the dignity of every human being and mutual respect among all human beings called for unifying principles. The challenge of achieving universality in a world characterized by diversity was a key topic in the discussions of the delegations to UNESCO, and in those early years, some of the delegates saw this diversity as a “problem” that needed to be overcome. Reinhold Niebuhr, the United States delegate to UNESCO at the 4th General Conference in 1949, deplored “the hopelessly pluralistic world,” which constituted “a problem so great, so perplexing, that it might actually…drive us to despair” (UNESCO, 1949a, p. 119). To overcome this pluralism, Julian Huxley considered it of vital importance that the organization pursued the “task of unifying the world mind” (Huxley, 1946, p. 17). He aspired for UNESCO to work towards “a unified way of life and of looking at life” (p. 62) and “to help the emergence of a single world culture,” with the ultimate aim of “world unification” (p. 61). Huxley proposed “scientific humanism” as a 	   13	  principle that would emphasize the unity of all human beings no matter their cultural or ethnic background. Huxley’s scientific humanism was based on the belief in science and rationality as the vehicle of progress (Huxley, 1946; Pavone, 2008). Huxley was convinced that “a purely humanist tone would have antagonized the world’s major religious groups” (1973, p. 16). He defined his vision of humanism as a world humanism, both in the sense of seeking to bring in all the peoples of the world, and of treating all peoples and all individuals within each people as equals in terms of human dignity, mutual respect, and educational opportunity. (Huxley, 1946, p. 7) Huxley was further the proponent of a cosmopolitan worldview, and he believed that the organization could achieve world peace by creating a “world community” (Huxley, 1946, p. 44; Sluga, 2010). He saw UNESCO’s role in “constructing a unified pool of tradition for the human species as a whole” (Huxley, 1946, p. 17) and maintained that “political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment of this stage” (p. 17). Huxley proposed “the advance of world civilization” as UNESCO’s central role, which was based on the idea of world citizenship, driven by the sharing and multiplication of knowledge and the belief in evolutionary progress (Sluga, 2010). In his view, the concept of world civilization implied peace at the global level and transcended nationalism and its offspring, internationalism (UNESCO, 1948a, p. 6). Huxley’s cosmopolitan view of international relations was built on cooperation not only of nations and states, but of people, which traces back to inter-war internationalist movements that promoted international understanding through the cooperation of intellectuals, such as the IIIC (Renoliet, 1999) or the New Education Fellowship (Brehony, 2004). Many delegates to UNESCO in the early years expressed their confidence that science could contribute to the understanding of the people of all nations, as “scientific truth is a universal possession” (Mr Zérega Fombona for Venezuela, UNESCO, 1949a, p. 124). One of the delegates put it in a nutshell by citing Pasteur: “Though the scientist may have a country, science has not” (p. 125). Huxley’s approach towards unification of knowledge based on a belief in reason and science driven by a secular humanism was a common feature of the scientific community of that time, and it goes back to the inter-	   14	  war period. Against the backdrop of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the name of their racial theories, decolonization and the Apartheid system in South Africa (which was politically established in 1948), a group of scientists, in particular anthropologists, furthered by UNESCO, attempted to dismiss “race” as a category to distinguish human beings. In 1950, UNESCO published a Statement on Race, which contended that race discrimination was not scientifically justified and declared that “race is less a biological fact than a social myth” (UNESCO press release, cited by Duedahl, 2007, p. 12; see also UNESCO, 1950a). UNESCO also commissioned studies on the question of race, which were published in a collection of essays titled “The race question in modern science” (UNESCO, 1961), including the essay “Race and history” by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss (1953) rejected racial distinctions on genetic, anatomical or physiological grounds and argued that cultural differences of civilizations derived from geographical, historical and sociological circumstances. Lévi-Strauss’ position differed from Huxley’s insofar as the former asserted the equality of all cultures, while the latter’s universalism presupposed the imposition of scientific rationality and the idea of evolutionary progress on all cultures. Huxley (1946) claimed that one of UNESCO’s major goals should be the “lightening of the ‘dark zones’ of the world…because literacy is a prerequisite for scientific and technical advance” (p. 29). Lévi-Strauss (1955/1976) rejected literacy as one of the “criteria which have been put forward to distinguish between barbarism and civilization,” because “nothing we know about writing and the part it has played in man’s evolution justifies this view” (pp. 391-392). Given Huxley’s commitment to eugenics and his affiliation with the British imperial élite, his cosmopolitanism was tainted with “late nineteenth-century conceptions of evolution and empire” (Sluga, 2010, p. 397).  Science was a driving force behind the push to denounce Nazi “pseudoscience” (Weindling, 2010, p. 128), in particular Nazi ideas about race. The implication of science in the atrocities committed during World War II, be it the medical experiments carried out by the Nazis in the concentration camps or the development and use of the atomic bomb, brought science to the forefront as a matter of concern and debate. One of Julian Huxley’s collaborators was the Canadian psychiatrist John W. Thompson. Huxley initially hired him as a special consultant for matters of re-education, and in 1949, under Huxley’s successor Jaime Torres Bodet, he was appointed UNESCO’s permanent 	   15	  commissioner for Germany. As a wing commander in the Royal Canadian Airforce, he had been involved in the care and relocation of the survivors of the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen. He had further come into close contact with Nazi science as chief of the scientific and technical branch of the British Field Information Agency Technical (FIAT). Thompson was a key figure in promoting the “moral” responsibility of science, and he had been instrumental in the classification of medical experiments as crimes at the Nuremberg Trials (Weindling, 2010). After having pursued the establishment of the three UNESCO institutes (on education, social sciences, and youth) in Germany – the only one still in existence, the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, will play a role in this study – he left UNESCO in the early 1950s to devote his life to the spiritual Catholic community of Eau Vive in France, where Jacques Maritain was a frequent guest (Weindling, 2010). Thompson would remain deeply affected by his experiences in Bergen-Belsen and Nuremberg. He believed that the instrumentalization of human beings needed to be prevented: He recalled that in a two-year written exchange with one of the defendants at Nuremberg, the issue was whether “finite values could be ascribed to individuals.” Disaster became inevitable “when the shift has been made from attributing an infinite value to attributing a finite value to a single person. (p. 311) Selcer’s (2009; 2011) studies on UNESCO’s crucial role in creating a post-war community of internationalist scientists confirm that in its early years, the organization aspired to a world community characterized by the “ideal of ‘unity in diversity’” (Selcer, 2011, p. v). Selcer (2009) refers to the UNESCO approach as the “view from everywhere,” which diverged from the God’s-eye “view from nowhere” of the natural sciences in that it did not aim at detaching knowledge from particular values, but on the contrary entailed an engagement with these values. While the “view from nowhere” represented a universal scientific perspective, the “view from everywhere” put greater emphasis on the diverse local and national perspectives. As Selcer (2009) put it, “the challenge of multiple subjectivities was an opportunity to achieve a more perfect objectivity…a unity in diversity” (p. 310).  Another project along those lines was the History of Mankind, promoted by 	   16	  Huxley with the aim of providing a unifying perspective of world history. Huxley (1973) envisaged this project to differ from other such histories in that it would turn away from the common Euro-centrism and focus on “the cultural achievement of the human race, …dealing with war and politics only in so far as they influenced cultural and scientific progress” (p. 69). The project aimed at emphasizing cultural interchanges between different societies as the precondition for cultural advancement, an idea promoted also by Lévi-Strauss.8 Huxley’s main ally in the advancement of this project was Joseph Needham, a scientist from Cambridge University who had been instrumental in including the “S” for “science” in UNESCO’s name. Huxley hired Needham to build up UNESCO’s science section. Needham and Huxley convinced UNESCO’s General Conference in 1947 to adopt a resolution to move forward the project of the History, putting an emphasis on the “understanding of the scientific and cultural aspects of the history of mankind, of the mutual inter-dependence of peoples and cultures and of their contributions to the common heritage” (cited in Duedahl, 2011, p. 107). The project suffered many setbacks, and the last volume was only published as late as in 1976. While the History of Mankind has not left a lasting impression among historians as a model of historiography, its significance lies in being “a monument of a universalism that did not quite succeed” (Duedahl, 2011, p. 132). The “unity in diversity” approach is embodied also in UNESCO’s cultural heritage program, which has been enshrined in the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and which UNESCO is best known for today.9 The project of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is situated in the same idealist and unifying tradition. Its purpose consisted in formulating a universal protocol of normative claims that applied to all human beings, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity, culture and nationality. The UDHR, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations three years after UNESCO’s constitution, draws on a similar unifying discourse and appeals to “the inherent dignity and the equal and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  8	  Later, Lévi-Strauss moved away from this position. In a lecture he held at UNESCO in 1971, he argued that too much cultural interchange between peoples, coupled with the demographic explosion, led to the impoverishment of cultural diversity and was ultimately to be avoided (Stoczkowski, 2008). 9	  See Laves & Thomson, 1957, Chapter XI, for more early examples of UNESCO’s “search for unity in diversity” (p. 244). 	   17	  inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” The right to education was enshrined in article 26 of the UDHR and constitutes an important normative pillar of UNESCO’s educational work. Habermas (2012) points to the implicit conceptual connection between the Enlightenment concept of dignity and the more recent concept of human rights (pp. 64-65). He sees “the inviolability of the dignity of the individual person as a source of normative claims” (p. 71). The concept of human rights always entails a universalization, an application to the whole of humanity. Human rights as a normative claim are “grounded in universalistic moral notions” (p. 77). But there is an interplay between universalization and individualization. In the human rights logic dignity is universalized because it “accrues to all persons equally” (p. 70). A decisive stage in the genealogy of the concept of human rights is the individualization that must follow universalization:  The issue is the worth of the individual in the horizontal relations between different human beings, not the status of “human beings” in the vertical relation to God or to “lower” creatures on the evolutionary scale. Second, the relative superiority of humanity and its members must be replaced by the absolute worth of any person. The issue is the unique worth of each person. (Habermas, 2012, p. 72) UNESCO’s humanism emphasized this unique worth of every human being and at the same time aspired to universalization by stressing what united people rather than what divided them. As the head of the French delegation at the General Conference in 1949, Maritain’s friend Georges Bidault (Barré, 2005, p. 384), a member of the French Résistance and two-times French Foreign Minister, posited, “Man exists in all men; and that is one thing I think Unesco might proclaim: that differences are not fundamental and that all men can be found in the mind and heart of every man” (UNESCO, 1949a, p. 117). In the early years of the United Nations and UNESCO, many hoped that this unity in diversity could be achieved by a system of international organizations that would eventually lead to a world government. Georges Bidault affirmed that “the French delegation…believes that international organizations will one day become organizations representing the peoples without the intervention of States” (UNESCO, 1949a, p. 115). 	   18	  He warned against the risk of nationalism, “which is much more convenient,” and he claimed that “the State must transcend itself.”  UNESCO’s delegates frequently discussed the causes of nationalism and excessive patriotism and how they could be overcome. Several delegates expressed their suspicion of the state as a breeding area for nationalism and their regret about the fact that UNESCO was conceived as an organization of states. Other speakers, however, stressed that “nothing is more human or worthy of respect than the sacred feeling of patriotism” (Fombona, UNESCO, 1949a, 4C/2 Venezuela, p. 2). For many colonies seeking independence the nation state was an aspiration, not something to leave behind. Nationalism was still going strong, and the UN and UNESCO were by no means projects that would undermine nationalist tendencies (Mazower, 2008; 2012, p. 422). The UNESCO Constitution stated that “the Organization is prohibited from intervening in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction” (Article 1, item 3). While UNESCO set out to generate norms for a universal humanity, such as the notion of human rights, which transcended the boundaries of nation states, it was clear at the outset that the implementation of these norms would be hampered by the fact that the organization operated as an alliance of states. The cosmopolitan aspiration of unity in diversity, or “universality plus difference” (Appiah, 2008; Tawil, 2013) is a recurring topic in the history of UNESCO’s educational humanism. Difference is celebrated, but only insofar as it underpins the unity of all human beings. Diversity was perceived as the main cause of war, and the belief that the emphasis on difference needed to be overcome in favour of the solidarity of mankind was enshrined in UNESCO’s constitution (Stoczkowski, 2009). The claim to universality of UNESCO’s educational paradigms, from “fundamental education” to “lifelong learning” to “Education for All,” is rooted in this line of thinking. Universalization of educational principles and individualization in terms of the focus on the dignity of every human being are interrelated in this ontology, which also entails the belief in the idea of progress and the “betterment of the world.” The “unity in diversity” approach bears at least two risks. First, that UNESCO’s recommendations to its member states remain at the level of generalization and may not be “specific enough to be useful” (Jones, 1988, p. 63). Second, and far worse is the risk that, in the name of “unity,” certain norms will be 	   19	  proclaimed as “universal” and imposed on countries with detrimental effects. This is an aspect I will come back to, in particular in the last chapter when I will discuss the Education for All initiative, which I qualify as an aberration of the “unity in diversity” ideology. The Tensions Underpinning UNESCO’s Mandate In the archival documents I examined on UNESCO’s early years, in particular the debates at the 1945 founding conference and the first General Conferences, I was surprised to find quite a high level of agreement among the delegates on the universal humanism that should guide the spirit of the new organization, driven by a sense of urgency to build a better understanding between peoples against the backdrop of the devastating dehumanization witnessed during World War II and in the face of the threat of the atomic bomb (Wanner, 2015, p. 10). In the third chapter I will further illustrate this agreement on the importance of international understanding through the example of the views on education as a human right. However, the particular post-war humanistic moment cannot obscure the many tensions that made themselves felt in the early years of the organization. Divergent views on UNESCO’s mandate, and the lack of clarity of the constitution in defining this mandate are relevant for the argument made in this study that UNESCO, throughout its history, was forced to depart from its universal humanistic perspective on education because it was not equipped with the mandate, the resources and the legitimacy required to function as the world’s main intellectual international organization. In its struggle to survive in the growing arena of multilateral and bilateral organizations, it took a “technical turn,” which led to the decline of UNESCO’s intellectual capacity to advocate its humanistic educational ethos and entailed the narrowing of UNESCO’s educational concepts. Opinions about UNESCO’s role and mandate in the post-war world were divided. On the one hand the early debates reflected high hopes pinned on the founding of the organization. At the same time there were several indications that the circumstances would not allow the organization to live up to its potentialities. This is what William Benton, vice-chairman of the American delegation to the founding conference in London in 1945, likely meant when he claimed that UNESCO was the “most underrated organization in history” (Preston, Herman, & Schiller, 1989, p. 33). It could be argued 	   20	  that UNESCO’s potential was weakened from the beginning by the Great Powers which were in no mood to give up national sovereignty. An example of this was the decision taken by the United States and several Western countries in 1944 to channel funds for post-war reconstruction bilaterally rather than through UNESCO, which meant that UNESCO’s budget would remain very limited (Sewell, 1975, pp. 41; 65; Jones, 1988, pp. 36-37; Chabbott, 1998, p. 210), a factor that impaired the organization from the outset. In a similar vein, the U.S. State Department had already undermined UNESCO’s role by opting for other institutions to take over two important functions that potentially ranged within UNESCO’s mandate: the exchange of scientific information and mass media activities. Alaistair MacLeish, the chairperson of the American delegation to the London conference, reacted with dismay when he became aware of the State Department’s actions. In a letter dated 30 December, 1945 to Dean Acheson from the State Department, MacLeish asked for immediate clarification of these matters: “I don’t like to be made a fool of, and I don’t like to make a fool of myself” (Winnick, 1983, p. 339).  Even before the organization was founded, two competing proposals regarding its mandate had been put forth, one by CAME, based on a proposal by the American government, the other by the French government. While the CAME draft proposed an intergovernmental organization engaged in work of a technical and functional kind, the French proposal represented a vision for an organization based on the collaboration among intellectuals, following the model of the IIIC (Krill de Capello, 1970). Two divergent perspectives competed to define the role and mandate of UNESCO. The first stressed a broad political mandate, involving activities contributing directly to peace. The second was a more limited and technical mandate, involving indirect contributions to peace such as operational projects (Laves & Thomson, 1957, pp. 29-36; Laves, 1951, p. 164; Sewell, 1975, p. 81). The Constitution of UNESCO leaves room for both interpretations of UNESCO’s mandate – the technical/functional and the intellectual/political. Laves (1951), a Chicago political science professor and Deputy Director-General of UNESCO from 1947 to 1950, deplored the ambiguity of the UNESCO constitution – the preamble stands for a maximalist (and political) position of UNESCO’s mandate, which it presents as contributing to peace through education, science and culture, whereas the body of the constitution mentions activities that promote 	   21	  education, science and culture for their own sake and stands for a minimalist (and non-political) position (see also Karp, 1951, chapter 2). Laves (1951) further blamed the UNESCO member states for cultivating their own interpretations of UNESCO’s mandate and voting for activities that were rather unrelated to the achievement of peace (p. 164).  Julian Huxley advocated a broad mandate for the organization. But Huxley’s humanism based on a scientific evolutionary worldview was very controversial in the organization. When Huxley presented his pamphlet UNESCO: Its purpose and philosophy to the Preparatory Commission of UNESCO, resistance was so high that his text could not be printed as an official document, but had to be presented as “a statement of personal attitude” (Cowell, 1966, p. XXIX). Many felt that no specific philosophy could do justice to an organization composed of such diversity in its membership. The Catholic group as well as other religious groups could not accept a secular basis for UNESCO. As Sewell (1975) explained, the document’s “anthropocentrism shocked various kinds of theists, including pantheists” (p. 107). The anti-Marxists were put off by Huxley’s (1946) statement that “dialectical materialism was the first radical attempt to an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), but the Marxists disapproved of his critique of dialectical materialism as being “based too exclusively upon principles of social as against biological evolution” (p. 11). Other controversial issues were Huxley’s references to birth control and population management (Sewell, 1075, p. 108) and his neglect of the nation state (p. 109). The Americans probably disliked his reference to the “exaggerated individualism found mostly in the U.S.A” (Huxley, 1946, p. 16). In his Memories, Huxley recalled that the attack on the document was launched by Sir Ernest Barker, a historian and “ardent churchman” (Huxley, 1973, p. 16) who had quarreled with Huxley before over his “attitude to established religion” (p. 16) and “argued forcibly against UNESCO’s adopting what he called an atheist attitude disguised as humanism” (p. 16).  The Cold War also cast its shadow over the future of the organization. One of the main critics of a grand utopian scheme for UNESCO was Reinhold Niebuhr, the United States delegate to UNESCO at the 4th General Conference in 1949. Niebuhr was a Christian protestant theologian who had little sympathy for Huxley’s areligious and cosmopolitan leanings. He was suspicious of UNESCO’s “too simple universalism” (Niebuhr cited in Sathyamurthy, 1964, p. 43) and questioned the organization’s grand 	   22	  intentions to secure peace (Niebuhr, 1950). In his view, the rationalist objectivity promoted in Huxley’s “scientific humanism” was unable to overcome “ideological corruptions” (p. 8) and the “religious divergences” (p. 9) that divided cultures. Niebuhr did not believe that the conflict between the free world and communism could be resolved just by international understanding, and he considered the primary task of the United Nations to “relate American power to a weakened world and American prosperity to an impoverished world” (cited in Sathyamurthy, 1964, p. 38). Along these lines, UNESCO’s main role should be to promote the position of the “free world” against communism (p. 45). Niebuhr saw the role of UNESCO as an indirect one in terms of “the contributions it makes to the integration of the emergent world community rather than in its supposed but illusory contributions to ‘peace’” (p. 41).  Jacques Maritain, who acted as President of the French delegation at the second General Conference of UNESCO in Mexico, occupied a middle ground between Huxley’s utopian and Niebuhr’s minimalist perspective. Maritain represented the polar opposite of Huxley’s disembodied and empirical scientific worldview, and in his speech before the General Conference he indirectly responded to Julian Huxley’s attempt to impose a “philosophy” on UNESCO. He expressed his belief that agreement on UNESCO’s “paradoxical” task, in that “it presupposes unity of thought among men whose conceptions are different and even opposed” (UNESCO, 1948b, p. 1), could be achieved through a pragmatic approach, not on the basis of  “a common speculative philosophy, but from a common practical philosophy” (p. 1; see also UNESCO, 1948c, pp. 3; 6; Fourcade, 2007, p. 146). This pragmatic view was shared by many who rejected Huxley’s attempt to provide UNESCO with a common philosophy based on “scientific humanism” (McKeon, 1948; Karp, 1951, pp. 59-61), and it offered a compromise that would allow delegates to agree on universal principles despite the many religious, cultural and ideological divergences represented in UNESCO’s member states, not least the Cold War antagonism reflected in Niebuhr’s statements.10 Maritain’s speech was reiterated by the second Director-General, Jaime Torres Bodet, in his inaugural speech at the third session of the General-Conference in 1948 (Karp, 1951, p. 72).  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  10	  Although the Soviet Union became a member of UNESCO only in 1954, some communist countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia had joined the organization before (for their views on UNESCO; see Sathyamurthy, 1964, pp. 163-169; Karp, 1951, pp. 53-58).  	   23	  Maritain, Niebuhr and John Thompson represented the strong movement seeking religious renewal after World War II, combined with a deep mistrust towards science. Huxley, Needham and others considered science rather than religion to be the best ontological basis for post-war peace-building. Across both groups, overall agreement existed on UNESCO’s universal outlook and the “unity in diversity” approach. Laves (1951) anticipated that the dichotomy between the intellectual and technical interpretations of UNESCO’s role would have far-reaching consequences on program building, staff structure and “appraisals of the organization’s effectiveness” (p. 165). UNESCO’s humanistic ontology is closely tied with its intellectual-political mandate. The diverging viewpoints on the mandate of the organization and the tension between its technical and intellectual role have contributed to weakening the organization and opening up a vacuum that was filled by other organizations. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter is to lay the groundwork for this study. Apart from explaining my motivation and the rationale behind it, I have in particular sought to define UNESCO’s humanistic ideology, which I will refer to as a “tradition,” and to lay out the disparate viewpoints – “intellectual-political” versus “technical” – on the purpose and mandate of the organization and the tensions inherent in UNESCO’s constitution. In the remainder of the study, I argue that the technical came to predominate over the intellectual approach, which has affected UNESCO’s ability to spread and propagate its educational ideology.  UNESCO’s constitution was the first normative and symbolic expression of the organization’s humanistic-idealistic ontology that ascribed the causes of peace and war to the ideas that were constructed “in the minds of men.” While some organizations may diverge from their founding mandates, I have observed that the constitution has a very special symbolic meaning among UNESCO staff, and many of my interviewees have referred to it. I would argue that few international organizations have such a great attachment to their constitution, and, as I will show in this study, the people who shaped UNESCO’s educational work would continuously reclaim the humanistic principles stipulated in this document. When proceeding to UNESCO’s educational work, I will emphasize the 	   24	  commonalities and continuities between the actors who contributed to shaping the meaning of education in UNESCO, as I have observed ideological affinities that are common to most of them. They were driven by a concern about the dehumanizing effects of an overly economic focus on education, as well as a suspicion of other alienating features of human society that had shown their devastating effects during and after the war, such as the use of machines and technology. In this respect, they were champions of UNESCO’s humanistic tradition, based on the dignity of the human being, the intrinsic value of education, and modernity’s claim that human beings can change their world for the better.  The tensions underlying UNESCO’s founding and the opposing ideas that prevailed as to the mandate of the organization are important in so far as they put pressure on the actors who were involved in shaping UNESCO’s educational concepts. Reducing UNESCO to a technical role impacted the organization’s ability to engage with larger political questions and forced it into competition with other technical organizations, such as the OECD and the World Bank. The latter organizations were equipped by the powerful industrialized countries with much better resources and greater legitimacy and they operated under a competing educational ontology, human capital theory. UNESCO stayed faithful to its universal humanism and opened its doors to the newly independent countries of the South. But the “technical turn” and the constant challenge to its educational authority seriously undermined the organization’s capacity to assert its educational ideas. When the process of decolonization made development into an important domain for multilateral organizations, UNESCO had to demonstrate its functionality as an operational agency, in order to compete with the other agencies that gained influence in the multilateral arena. This “retreat into the technical” (Hoggart, 1978, p. 93) stems to a certain extent from the resistance of some of UNESCO’s member states against a political mandate for the organization. As I will show in the next chapters, in the course of the following years and decades, UNESCO’s programmatic focus on literacy and adult education gave way to arguments favouring primary education. Many UNESCO functions were taken over by other international and supranational organizations. In education, UNESCO has yielded a lot of influence to the World Bank, which is the most 	   25	  important funding agency for education in developing countries,11and to the OECD, which dominates the education discourse among the Western industrialized countries and is also increasingly involved in development.  The two “forces” that have impacted UNESCO’s educational ideas are, on the one hand, the continuity of the organization’s humanistic tradition; and on the other hand the pressure exerted on this tradition by tensions deriving from different sources: diverging interpretations of UNESCO’s mandate, other organizations that operated with similar roles but competing ideologies, and changes in the global political economy. Maritain pointed to another source of tension in his report from the 1948 General Conference when he referred to the “Latin-European-Arab” and “Anglo-American” groups. The rivalries between these two groups in UNESCO, which perceived themselves as culturally and ideologically distinct from one another, is not to be underestimated. Most of the people I will refer to in the first chapters are nationals of one of the “big three,” Britain, France, and the United States, and especially the French influence will play a major role in this study. French thought, culture and politics very much influenced UNESCO, and the concept of lifelong learning, which initially emerged as éducation permanente, has a distinctly French flavor. This is certainly due to a large extent to the location of UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris, and to the large amount of French intellectuals that joined UNESCO after the war.  This study will trace the development of UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education, with a focus on lifelong learning, from the inception of the organization in 1945 to the present day, by looking in particular at the early years of UNESCO (1945 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  11	  A comment about the use of “developing countries” in this dissertation is in order. According to Iriye (2002, p. 103),	  it was at a meeting of the newly independent nations in Cairo in 1961 that they defined themselves as “developing countries.” However, especially in the Cold War years, when the “developing countries” had formed the “Non-Aligned movement” and the Group 77, they often used the term “Third World countries.” In the absence of a better term, I will use the terms “Third World,” especially when it fits into the historical context, and “developing country,” but I dislike them for reasons expressed in the Faure report: “There is …a logical snare in the very expressions ‘developed country’ and ‘developing country,’ for they may suggest that the condition towards which nations in the ‘third world’ aspire is by definition what is found today in allegedly developed countries, as if they too were not involved in a process of continual development” (Faure et al., 1972, p. 49). UNESCO uses the terms “North” and “South.” I briefly considered to use Dave Hill’s (2009) terms “rich world” and “poor world,” but both UNESCO’s and Hill’s terminology do not always fit into the context. 	  	   26	  until the 1950s), the 1960s and 1970s, the 1990s and the present time. Chapter two will present the theoretical framework and define the main concepts that will be employed in this study. Chapter three on UNESCO’s foundational years will focus on the historical conditions from which UNESCO’s humanistic ontology emerged, with a particular emphasis on the ideological underpinnings of the view of education as a human right, which is the backbone of UNESCO’s educational philosophy and of the concept of lifelong learning. In that chapter, I will also discuss UNESCO’s first educational flagship program, fundamental education, and the priority the organization attributed to adult education. Chapter four will discuss the context of the emergence of éducation permanente in UNESCO. It will shed light on the French and international influences on the concept, its close relation to adult education and its existentialist underpinnings. In parallel to the humanistic notion of éducation permanente, the economic perspective on education gained influence in the new Cold War domain of development, exemplified in the concept of human capital. The economic approach to education put pressure on another UNESCO priority, literacy, which could not be pursued to the extent the organization had hoped for. Chapter five will examine the context of the work of the International Commission on the Development of Education, chaired by Edgar Faure, which was carried out between 1970 and 1972, marked by the crisis of education systems both in the industrialized world and in the newly-independent developing countries. The Faure Commission launched the report Learning to be (otherwise known as the Faure report), which proclaimed “lifelong education” as the global educational master concept. The chapter will further discuss the key messages of and the reactions to the report. Chapter six will focus on the 1990s, in particular on the second UNESCO education report, Learning: The treasure within (the Delors report), which was the product of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century, chaired by Jacques Delors. The Delors report reiterated lifelong learning as the global educational vision in a very different political and economic climate and for different reasons than its predecessor. While the Faure report was situated in the “revolutionary” spirit of the late 1960s, which called for a profound change of education systems in the context of societal transformation, in the Delors report lifelong learning connoted a notion of resistance against the rise of neoliberalism. Chapter seven will offer some reflections on the 	   27	  contradiction between UNESCO’s claim of continuity and the turning away from its “tradition” in the context of the Education for All initiative, which has dominated UNESCO’s work since 1990 up to the present day. It will reflect on the transformation of the meaning of lifelong learning under neoliberalism and on the question why UNESCO’s humanistic approach took a back seat in the arena of global educational governance, by recapitulating and drawing conclusions from the previous chapters. In the final section of chapter seven, I will present the main findings of this study.   	   28	  Chapter Two Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: Interpretive Contextual Understanding  This is a study about how educational ideas, in particular the concept of lifelong learning, were shaped by individuals and global politics throughout the history of an organization in the context of their time. Given my central concern for the shift in the meanings of educational concepts, I have framed the study with theories related to the understanding and interpretation of utterances and statements made in the past. Interpreting the shifting meanings of ideas requires the consideration of changing political, social and economic conditions as well as individuals who shaped these meanings with their experiences and beliefs. These actors interacted in one way or the other with the institutional culture of UNESCO, which is infused with a humanistic ideology. From my current vantage point, it is not always easy for me to relate to the experiences and beliefs of those actors. This is why I have been drawn towards interpretive-constructivist approaches to the study of ideas and institutions. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the conceptual and theoretical assumptions that underpin this study. It is broadly organized in three sections. The first section will start by presenting Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach to contextual understanding, in particular his key concept of “tradition,” which I will continuously come back to and by which I mean the consistency of UNESCO’s humanism. In terms of explaining the behavior of the actors in this study, I rely on theoretical approaches to historical change, in particular on Mark Bevir’s concept of “dilemma,” as I argue that the individuals that play a key role in this study reclaimed UNESCO’s humanistic tradition as a reaction to a “dilemma” they faced. At the same time I trace changes in the meaning of educational ideas by examining the shifts in what Quentin Skinner calls the “normative vocabulary.” Finally, I will define concepts that are central to this study, such as “global governance,” “neoliberalism” and “globalization.” The second section of this chapter will discuss the methodology and methods I have employed in order to collect and analyze the 	   29	  data. The third section will briefly address the limitations and the significance of the study. Gadamer’s Hermeneutics and the Concept of Tradition In the context of my work in an international UNESCO institute, I was used to balanced and consensus-oriented discussions about foreseeable issues in which differences of opinions only occurred within boundaries that were known to all stakeholders involved in these deliberations. Certain assumptions were taken for granted and the given economic and political order and the institutions that represent this order were rarely questioned. When I opened the Faure report, which was drafted by a group of men who, despite their different regional and ethnic backgrounds, were all educated in European and North-American universities and belonged to an elite of international diplomats, former ministers and heads of states, I expected to find the picture of a situation I could “read” and foresee. But my expectation was shattered when I found ideas that from my current perspective seem either astonishingly old-fashioned or refreshingly radical, ideas that would not be uttered in discussions or public documents in the UNESCO context today because they do not belong to the common acceptable discourse: ideas about the “complete man,” about a society without school, the claim for “solidarity” with developing countries (not “development”), the possible enslavement of human beings (who are always referred to as “men”) by machines. Although the Faure report is “only” 43 years old and was written at a time when I was already born, it is not accessible to me from my current standpoint, because it comes from a context very different from the one I know. My inability to understand the context in which people have acted in the past, has sparked my interest in theories of contextual understanding, in particular in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutic approach to the study of history. Gadamer’s philosophy is concerned with how human beings situate themselves historically and how they engage with the study of the past. He argued that we approach the past on the basis of our “fore-understandings,” or our “prejudices.” In his view, “the true locus of hermeneutics” lies in the “in-between” between the historical distance and the familiarity of tradition (1975/2013, p. 306). Coming back to the Faure report, I approach this document like every historical source coming from a distant past, in a hermeneutical manner, by mediating between the meaning this document may have had 	   30	  in the terms of its time and the meaning that it has to me today, taking into account my fore-understandings and my positionality. Maybe the ideas and discourses that seem very radical and new to me, or in other cases totally archaic, were not so radical or archaic at the time. Henri Lopes, one of the Commissioners of the Faure report, told me that the humanistic worldview of the report was “normal” at the time. His statement makes me wonder, what happened between then and today? My theoretical approach to this study, which draws on theories relating to the understanding of historical context, in particular hermeneutics, helped me tackle this question. Following Gadamer, I am not limiting hermeneutics to an epistemological and methodological approach to the interpretation of texts. I see hermeneutics as an ontology, as the way human beings make sense of “being in the world” (Gadamer used Heidegger’s term “Dasein”), which is very much conditioned by the temporality of their existence. This is what I meant in the previous chapter when I referred to Gottfried Hausmann’s hermeneutic worldview, which is at odds with today’s “results-based” management practices. Proponents of a hermeneutic worldview believe in the lessons of experiences, which are always linked to the biographies of the individuals involved. Every learner will learn differently, because every person has different characteristics and experiences. Every project will evolve differently, depending on the social and cultural context in which it is embedded. I will come back to this point in my last chapter, when I will discuss some of the downsides of “one-size-fits-all” interventions, such as the export of the Western school system and structural adjustment programs to developing countries, which contradict the hermeneutic worldview.  The concept of tradition is central to Gadamer’s thought. This important explanatory category also appears in other fields of social sciences, such as in sociology in Max Weber’s concept of “traditional governance,” or in Pierre Bourdieu’s “doxa,” or in Émile Durkheim’s “collective consciousness.” All of these concepts denominate an attachment of people to shared conventions, which shape their behaviour and their society. Most people consider tradition a condition for the unity and the cohesion of a society or of a community. The historian Jörn Rüsen (2004) defines traditions as “indispensable elements of orientation within practical life” (p. 71). In his view, “historical consciousness functions in part to keep such traditions alive” (p. 71). As one 	   31	  of his four categories of historical consciousness,12the “traditional type” is defined as “the temporal whole, which makes the past significant and relevant to present actuality and its future extension as a continuity of obligatory cultural and life patterns over time” (p. 71). Seixas (2005) defines this type of historical consciousness as “the conservation of sameness over time” (p. 145). Certain rules, assumptions and norms are unquestionably accepted and carried from generation to generation. As concepts of historical understanding, the concept of change complements that of tradition. Historians are interested in how change occurs and how knowledge is being altered throughout time.  In the German originals of his writings, Gadamer (1975/2013) sometimes used the word “tradition,” which has the same meaning as the English word, and sometimes the word “Überlieferung.” “Überlieferung” means “something that is being handed down (or passed on) from the past.” It can be a story or a belief, a custom, or an institution. He defined tradition as “the authority of what has been handed down to us” (p. 292), and this authority “has a justification that lies beyond rational grounding and in large measure determines our institutions and attitudes” (p. 292). He drew on the German idealist romanticist movement in that it accepted no authority (something it shared with the Enlightenment) and “takes tradition as an object of critique” (p. 285), but at the same time brought back into the picture the role of tradition in determining our behaviour (pp. 285-287), which was a category rejected by the Enlightenment. Gadamer ascribed to tradition an “element of freedom” (p. 293), because tradition aims at preservation, and “preservation is as much a freely chosen action as are revolution and renewal” (p. 293): The fact is that in tradition there is always an element of freedom and of history itself. Even the most genuine and pure tradition does not persist because of the inertia of what once existed. It needs to be affirmed, embraced, cultivated. It is, essentially, preservation, and it is active in all historical change…Even where life changes violently, as in ages of revolution, far more of the old is preserved in the supposed transformation of everything than anyone knows, and it combines with 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  12	  The four categories are: the traditional type, the exemplary type, the critical type, and the genetic type.	  	   32	  the new to create a new value. At any rate, preservation is as much a freely chosen action as are revolution and renewal. (p. 293) In this study I consider the humanistic approach to education as a tradition within UNESCO, in the Gadamerian sense, not as a “permanent precondition” (p. 305), a given transhistorical notion which endures throughout time, but as a tradition the actors in this study participate in and determine, something they are constantly in dialogue with, something that they reclaim, renegotiate and reinterpret in light of the changing times and in the context of their lived experiences, which explains how and why meanings are generated, debated, sustained and altered.  According to Gadamer (1975/2013), our prejudices qualify us for the hermeneutic endeavor. By doing historical research, we relate to tradition, to what we know. This is why every historian will interpret a text in her own way, depending on the time and context in which she lives. The gap between the historian and the past is not a “yawning abyss, but it is filled with the continuity of custom and tradition” (p. 308). There is a productivity that lies in this continuity. For Gadamer, tradition constantly changes as does the meaning it has for us. The historian engages in a dialogue with the past, in which the “past and present are constantly mediated” (p. 302). Understanding involves bringing the horizon of the historian and the horizon of the past together: “Understanding is always the fusion of these horizons…” (p. 317). The “hermeneutic situation” in which I find myself vis-à-vis the documents and interviews that have informed this study is the situation in which I am trying to understand the past with the “fore-understandings” that constitute my “horizon.” I endeavor to find the “right horizon of inquiry” (p. 313) towards the past, which has a lot to do with “finding the right questions to ask” (p. 312). For Gadamer, “the hermeneutical task becomes of itself a questioning of things” (p. 281). When in 2009 the current Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, built her inaugural speech on the “new humanism,” she reclaimed a tradition in the organization. She showed “a consciousness of something enduring, of significance that cannot be lost and that is independent of all the circumstances of time” (Gadamer, 1975/2013, p. 299).13 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  13	  Ms Bokova was not the first Director-General to invoke “new humanism” in an inaugural speech. The second Director-General Jaime Torres Bodet had done the same (Karp, 1951, p. 72; UNESCO; 1948e, p. 169). Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, Director-General from 1974 to 1985, also used the concept (M’Bow, 1977, p. 21). 	   33	  As Gadamer put it, actually in relation to the same term, “every ‘new humanism’ shares with the first and oldest the consciousness of belonging in an immediate way and being bound to its model” (p. 301). I argue in this study that actors that engaged with UNESCO reclaimed humanism as a tradition, while constantly altering it. Tradition and Change This study examines how the humanistic tradition of education emerged in UNESCO and how its meaning was shaped in the course of its history when the tradition was passed on by different actors throughout time. For Gadamer, tradition is a key concept that explains historical change; our attitude towards tradition is what brings about change. Historical consciousness is “filled with a variety of voices,” which are the voices of tradition (p. 296).  For Mark Bevir (1999) the central concepts for explaining change in history are those of tradition and dilemma. Bevir, Rhodes and Weller (2003) define tradition as “a set of understandings someone receives during socialization” (p. 6). But like Gadamer, they do not see it as an essentialist concept that determines the actions and beliefs of human beings for the rest of their lives. Traditions are “a starting point, not a destination” (p. 8), and people can chose to move away from them. Bevir’s concept of tradition explains change through the capacity of individual agency, in contrast to explanations that focus on changes of discourse, as in Foucault’s “episteme.” In Bevir’s view, changes occur when agents are faced with dilemmas that arise in the form of new knowledge that challenges traditions and inherited beliefs. Bevir and Rhodes (2006) use the concept of “belief” instead of “language” or “discourse” to make clear that beliefs are “the properties of situated agents” (p. 7). Bevir argues that political practices can only be understood through the beliefs on which people act. He claims that the historian can only understand the intended meaning of an author by relating the expressed beliefs to the author’s “wider web of beliefs” (Bevir, 1999, p. 29) and to the wider “intellectual traditions” (p. 29) we assume have influenced the author. In identifying this “wider web of beliefs,” Bevir emphazises the subjectivity of understanding. Rather than focusing on abstract concepts and structural matters, he insists on focusing on the understandings held by the individuals involved in the examined processes, in order to provide an “authenticity that can only come from the main characters involved in the story” (Bevir & 	   34	  Rhodes, 2004, p. 136). Bevir calls this approach “procedural individualism” (1999, p. 323); it “implies that hermeneutic meanings exist only for individuals: they do not exist autonomously” (p. 232). He writes history in terms of the dilemmas certain developments constituted for different actors and how these dilemmas contributed to change. In that way, he emphasizes the interaction of tradition and agency:  Historians study people who held webs of belief against the background of traditions, where these traditions themselves must have derived from people holding webs of belief against the background of earlier traditions, and so on. (1999, p. 195) Quentin Skinner’s method of understanding texts combines “the study of their social context” and their “illocutionary force” (1969, p. 46). For Skinner, the emergence of new vocabulary is “the clearest sign that a society has entered into the self-conscious possession of a new concept” (1978, p. x). His much-cited article Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas (1969) was a reaction to the debates of historians about the meaningfulness of the so-called “classic texts” (such as Macchiavelli’s Prince) in contemporary history. At the heart of this debate stood the question of whether these classic texts addressed “perennial issues” in history. Skinner, in the 1969 article, argued for a more historical approach to history by claiming that “earlier thinkers may have been interested in a range of questions very different from our own” (p. 3), a view that recalls Kuhn’s (1962/1996) historical approach to the history of science. Skinner critiques the traditional “textualist” method of focusing on the classic texts because  it is hard to see how we can hope to arrive at...historical understanding if we continue...to focus our main attention on those who discussed the problems of political life at a level of abstraction...unmatched by any of their contemporaries. (2002, p. xi) Instead, he proposes to “surround these classic texts with their appropriate ideological context” (p. xi) in order to connect political theory and practice. In Skinner’s historical view, theory and practice, as well as language and action, determine each other. Therefore, it is indispensable for a historian to “recover the terms of the normative vocabulary available to any given agent...as one of the determinants of his action” (1978, p. xiii). Skinner (1969) proposes the study of the “relations there may have been between 	   35	  various different statements even within the same general context” (p. 47); this is what contemporary discourse analysts call “intertextuality” or “interdiscursivity”.  Skinner explains change through the intentions of actors expressed in linguistic action. He often uses the word “moves” as a metaphor for how ideas and concepts are being put into action in order to bring about change:  There is a sense in which we may need to understand why a certain proposition has been put forward if we wish to understand the proposition itself. We may need to see it not just as a proposition but as a move in argument. To understand it, we may need to grasp why it seemed appropriate to make just that move, and hence to issue just that utterance. (Skinner, 1996, p. 146, cited in Palonen, 2000, p. 304) I rely on the above scholars for the contextual understanding of the texts that are central to my study. For example, the Faure report, which is the central document in chapter five, “is but a fragment of meaning” (Gadamer, 1975/2013, p. 349), which I seek to interpret by drawing on different ways of contextual interpretation. I embark on hermeneutic understanding, which involves examining the socio-political context of the report, the motivations of the people involved in creating it, the linkages to other texts that these people have written, the vocabulary that was at their disposal at the time and new vocabulary or linguistic “moves” that they introduced. I follow the above scholars in their view that the intentions (Skinner) or beliefs (Bevir) of actors have a very important role to play when it comes to explaining change. The ideas examined in this study have certainly been strongly influenced by the beliefs of the involved individuals who, for their part, were situated in a “wider web of beliefs” in a very specific historical context. Change here happened as the result of dialectical relationships of actors who were involved in a struggle over authority in the definition of education, and often these actors faced dilemmas that motivated their actions. I will also relate the key documents and concepts of this study to each other, by looking at the changing context they reflect in the “normative vocabulary” they use – concepts such as the “learning society,” the “complete man,” or “solidarity,” that need to be put into “their appropriate ideological context.” When comparing UNESCO’s normative documents throughout time, such as the Faure report of 1972 and the Delors report of 1996, some of the vocabulary stays the same, and 	   36	  others changes. What does that tell us? What are the “moves” that the actors who created these documents have made by reformulating concepts, by proclaiming, for example, “lifelong education” as the new global master concept, or shifting from “learning to be” to “learning to live together,” and what was their intention behind these moves? In what way were these shifts influenced by the wider socio-economic and (geo-)political context in which the actors were situated, such as the emergence of the “Third World” as an influential political group, or the end of the Cold War?  Intellectual and Conceptual History  I see this study, which traces the continuity as well as the shifts in the meaning of UNESCO’s educational concepts, as an intellectual and conceptual history of UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education, with a focus on the concept of lifelong learning. In what follows, I aim to clarify intellectual and conceptual history as theoretical and methodological approaches. Sternhell (2010) defines intellectual history as aspiring to  bring out…the continuity of a tradition, the lineage of ideas…the translation into politics of processes of change…considering the intimate connections between philosophical reflection, historical research, literary production and politics. (p. 31)  Conceptual history (the German Begriffsgeschichte) is strongly related to intellectual history, but focuses more on “the central place of language and translation in political and social discourse” (Richter, 2012, p. 1). Conceptual history aims at shedding light on the relationship between concepts or discourses and political and social activity. Common concepts such as “democracy” are central to social life, and people (re-) introduce and (re-)interpret concepts in order to push political agendas. Basic concepts are always contested and ambiguous, and this contestation partly derives from their translation between different contexts and languages. Reinhart Koselleck, who is one of the main proponents of Begriffsgeschichte, classified concepts into three categories: 1) those whose meanings have stayed more or less the same so that they remain understandable throughout time; 2) those whose meanings have substantially changed over time and whose usage in earlier periods can only be understood by reconstructing their meaning in historical documents; 3) neologisms such as “Marxism”, which have 	   37	  been shaped in periods of social transformation (Richter, 2012, p. 11). I would argue that lifelong learning belongs into the second category – as I have pointed out in the first chapter and will return to in the last chapter of this study, its meaning has been transformed considerably in a short period of time, depending on the context and the actors who have used it. Lifelong learning in the context of the Keynesian social-democratic welfare state of the 1960s and 1970s had a different meaning than it has in neoliberal employability policies today. If I simply applied Mojab’s (2006) understanding of lifelong learning as “the educational response to the new market order” (p. 353) to the meaning of the term in the Faure report, I would stumble into the pitfall of anachronism, one of the major sins a historian can commit (Condren, 1997, pp. 51-58). Without knowledge of the history that leads up to a certain usage of a concept, we tend to see only the outcome or the snapshot of a longer development. In her dialogue with the past the conceptual historian undertakes “translations” from the past to the present and the other way around with the ultimate aim of engaging critically with the contemporary context. Conceptual and intellectual history can therefore be seen as a style of political theorizing as it questions the taken-for-granted assumptions in the use of concepts (Palonen, 2002). This kind of political theorizing can be observed in the work of Zeev Sternhell and Mark Mazower whom I draw on throughout this study. These intellectual and conceptual historians trace the history of concepts and ideas with the purpose of bringing across a message relating to the present. In one of his articles Mazower (2011) refers to his historiographic approach as a “conceptual trajectory” (p. 44). He writes history by giving the accounts of the debates of contemporaries who reflected about the time in which they lived. Rather than telling history by describing historical events, Mazower tells history by rendering and interpreting the voices of those who were involved, putting a lot of emphasis on language and how it expresses ideologies. Mazower traces concepts and ideas, such as “civilization” (2011), the ideological origins of the United Nations (2008), or the idea of international cooperation and global governance (2012). In the latter book, he follows the trajectory of internationalism from “an era that had faith in the idea of international institutions to one that has lost it” (p. xiii), and his primary interest lies in the relevance of this message for the present time. This approach addresses the three-dimensionality of narrated time. 	   38	  Mazower intertwines the present, the past and the expected future when he lets a person of the past say something which is relevant in the present and seems prophetic for the future. What the reader takes away from this way of writing history is an understanding that historical facts, events and ideas were never given or self-understood, but that they were always contested. Divergent worldviews not only emerged as a result of looking back at historical events and periods, but already formed part of the historical period we are looking back upon. When Henri Lopes maintains that the humanistic approach to education was “normal” in the early 1970s, he certainly has a point in that the “humanistic vs. utilitarian” dichotomy was not as strong as it is today. However, it was already highly contested at the time by the changing political economy and by the post-modern challenge to the principles of modernity, which I will try to show in chapters four and five.  Quentin Skinner often refers to the “history of ideologies” rather than the “history of ideas,” and indeed through this study I have come to understand UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education as an ideology. At the level of the ideas and the discourse, this ideology, which is characterized by a cosmopolitan worldview, an Enlightenment belief in the value of every human being, in progress and the ability of human beings to shape their world, remained relatively consistent in UNESCO over time. What changed were the motivations of the actors to reclaim and reinvent this ideology as a reaction to the social and political contexts in which they were situated and the dilemmas they faced. Certain terms and vocabulary changed slightly, reflecting shifts in meanings and understandings of education and learning, as did relationships and partnerships which shaped these meanings. The pressure on its ideology was a permanent factor throughout UNESCO’s history, but the leading idea − what Sternhell (2010, p. 30) calls the “idée-mère” − is still kept alive in UNESCO at this moment, because there are still people who safeguard the tradition and resist the pressure placed on it.   Relating the above to my study, I conduct an intellectual history of lifelong learning in so far as I am interested in shedding light on “the continuity of a tradition” and “the lineage of ideas” in the context of a shifting intellectual, political and economic climate, and by taking into account the intellectual and ideological background and “wider webs of belief” of the actors involved in shaping the concept of lifelong learning. 	   39	  I equally conduct a conceptual history as I pay attention to the emergence of new concepts such as “lifelong education,” “lifelong learning,” and “learning throughout life” and to the interrelation between the semantic shifts and the shifts in the meaning and interpretation these concepts have undergone. The ultimate aim of this intellectual and conceptual history is to comment critically on the present and to raise questions for the future. Especially in the last chapter, I will discuss the change in the meaning of lifelong learning, and its contemporary and future implications for the purpose of education and learning, which has shifted from a humanistic to a utilitarian and instrumental purpose. The “meta-narrative” of this study is the concern about the dramatic economization, marketization and dehumanization of education we are witnessing today. The “Neo-institutional” Approach This study further draws on the constructivist approach to organizations and institutions, often referred to as neo-institutionalism. The breakthrough of constructivism in international relations (IR) theory in the 1980s occurred with the end of the Cold War, which presented a dilemma (to use a Bevirian term) to the dominant realist and neoliberal school in IR theory, which regarded power interests of actors as the central causes of change. This event led scholars to believe that the material (in terms of economic and military) interests of states could not anymore be regarded as the main factors in IR theory (Finnemore, 1996). The constructivist turn entailed a greater awareness of the usefulness of a historical and contextual perspective (Reus-Smit, 2008) as well as a more ideational perspective (Goldstein & Keohane, 1993) for understanding change. It further led to a reconsideration of the role of institutions and organizations in shaping social meanings (March & Olsen, 1989; Scott, 2008). Chabbott (1998) demonstrated that organizational features such as competition for resources and professionalism are the main drivers of the actions of international organizations in education, rather than nation states. Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore (1999; 2004) shaped a new interpretation of international organizations in that they no longer see them as the long arms of states that have created them as instruments of foreign policy to pursue their own interests, as the “realists” in IR theory had posited. Instead they emphasize the role of symbolic meanings and norms, and the concepts of legitimacy and ideology to explain the behavior of international organizations. Barnett and Finnemore argue that international 	   40	  organizations draw their authority in the international realm from the legitimacy they have obtained through the meanings and norms they generate. Finnemore (1993) understands institutions as “teachers of norms,” which shape collective identities, interests and practices. The neo-institutionalists stress the social, cultural and ideological dimension of institutions, in which actions and the generation of meaning are context-specific. Institutions generate meanings and norms that are being recognized and followed by states and other actors because they have been “socialized” to understand them as “appropriate.” Lifelong learning is an example of a concept shaped by international organizations that governments, funding agencies and NGOs have widely accepted – even if interpreted in different ways – as a norm to be followed in educational policy.  The neo-institutional approach matches my observation that the tradition of UNESCO’s view of education cannot be exclusively explained in terms of Realpolitik. On the contrary, it is sometimes difficult to understand why UNESCO would hold on to its humanistic ethos although the world around it – the other international organizations, its member states and sometimes even some of its staff members – have lost interest in this approach. Of course countries have used UNESCO for their own interests, but it cannot be denied that UNESCO has a strong “life of its own.” It is the tradition of its ideology that in large measure determines UNESCO’s behavior. Nielsen’s (2011) study of bureaucratic practices in UNESCO’s cultural sector shows how the UNESCO ideology is being sustained by exercising institutional authority. Official documents that have been ratified by UNESCO’s governing bodies serve as “reference points” – the keywords they contain are “safe” to use. “Perpetuating dominant language” (the “UNESCO jargon”) is one way of exercising authority, and concepts such as “culture of peace” and “cultural diversity” “are invested with institutional authority and political legitimacy” (p. 284). Nielsen’s study demonstrates that UNESCO is an ideological organization in that it operates as a collectivity on a shared meaning and belief system, a “self-referring system” (p. 283) – humanism being one of UNESCO’s core beliefs.  Although UNESCO is an organization composed of its member states, it is not primarily the member states that determine UNESCO’s actions, although they certainly influence them. One of my interviewees pointed to the importance of the “strong 	   41	  secretariat” as the guardian of UNESCO’s universal principles and tradition. He said that even during the years of East-West conflict among member states, the secretariat was keen to promote the culture of UNESCO and ensure that the aims of the organization be always kept in mind: “In UNESCO the secretariat is strong” (Interview with Jacques Hallak).  It is the secretariat that holds on to certain ideas, to the ideology that underpins UNESCO, and which passes it on to new staff members. This ideology derives from UNESCO’s humanistic founding mandate from which the organization continues to draw its legitimacy. However, that does not mean that there are no challenges, shifts and turns. Changes in the environment and also in its institutional culture had an effect on UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education. UNESCO’s tradition has been weakened by many factors, by its waning legitimacy in its environment, but also by a lack of strong intellectuals who are able to defend it. Many of my interviewees pointed to the importance of these strong “defenders” that are more and more disappearing from the organization.14 The humanistic approach to education has marked the identity of UNESCO’s educational work, provides a sense of continuity and builds a bridge throughout time, but the context in which it is being applied has shifted throughout the decades in accordance with changing ideologies and practices in global politics. One could argue that the continuity of UNESCO’s humanism is deceptive as it only exists at the level of rhetoric, somewhat disconnected from practice. The humanistic tradition has been challenged by other competing ideas which have constituted dilemmas for UNESCO, and which have contributed to internal and external tensions.   Definition of Key Concepts When tracing the shifting meanings of “lifelong learning” against the backdrop of changing social and political contexts and constellations, three concepts will constantly 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  14	  Phillip Jones on whose work on UNESCO I greatly draw, gave me the advice not to “underemphasise the intellect, personality and influence of René Maheu in the early years…(His was such a commanding, even domineering, presence in Unesco that people had no choice but to listen)” (E-mail Phillip Jones, 9 October 2014).  	  	   42	  recur throughout this study that denote the shifting global environment in which UNESCO operates: “global governance,” “globalization” and “neoliberalism.” The purpose of this section is to define these concepts. The term “global governance,” which was first coined by the phrase “governance without government” (Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992), reflects the transformations of the dynamics of government and power in the international system, including the changing role of the state and the increasing heterogeneity of the actors that shape and finance education globally. In the course of the 70 years covered by this study, many agencies, frameworks, mechanisms and programs of global governance of education have emerged, such as the UN-wide Education for All (EFA) initiative, involving not only governments, but also a myriad of international and non-governmental organizations – and increasingly also corporations and philanthropic foundations. In this study the main argument with regard to global governance will be related to UNESCO’s declining role in it in favour of other international organizations, in particular the World Bank. Global governance is linked to the concept of globalization that I use to capture transformations in social, economic and cultural relations that transcend the boundaries of the nation state. In this study the actors who shaped UNESCO’s educational ideas constantly referred to these transformations as a dilemma for them, in particular the aspect of commodification, in terms of “the subordination to market forces of areas of human activity” (Overbeek, 2003, p. 15), a phenomenon that scholars have widely recognized as a key feature of globalization, in particular in relation to education.  At the time of the Faure report, the term “globalization” (or “mondialisation” in French) was not yet in use. Notwithstanding, the drafters of the report expressed their concerns over what we have come to understand as the features of globalization. They wrote about “these times of socio-economic, scientific and technological change” (Faure et al., 1972, p. 30), the “scientific-technological revolution” (p. xxvi), the dramatic expansion of international travel and trade, information and communication technologies, and the complex and changing interrelationships between developing and industrialized countries (pp. 87-99). Significantly, the French version of the Faure report was published by Fayard (in cooperation with UNESCO) in the context of the series Le monde sans frontières, which was dedicated to the study of “the world today [in which] the former 	   43	  boundaries of space and mind no longer exist” (my translation). For the authors of the Faure report these developments held a “great promise for justice” (p. 101), but they also warned of the environmental risks and the threat of “alienation within the consumer society” (p. 103) and pointed to the importance of education in supporting human beings to adapt to the changes ahead and to cope with the “clashes” and “contradictions” that these developments would bring (p. 104). The Delors report, published 24 years after the Faure report, clearly presented “globalization” as the broad global context that determined the thinking of the Commission (Delors et al., 1996, p. 14). In the sub-chapter “Towards the globalization of human activity” (pp. 41-42), the report described globalization in a rather negative and pessimistic tone. The report placed the emphasis on the economic aspect of globalization. The “deregulation and the opening-out of financial markets” (p. 41) led to all economies being “dependent on the movements of a steadily growing mass of capital” (p. 41), which entailed “interest-rate differentials,” “speculative forecasts” and “short-termism” (p. 41). The “economic interdependence” brought about by globalization was painted in a predominantly negative light, in that “the industrial crises of the most developed countries reverberate throughout the world” (p. 41), making “the disparity between winners and losers in the development game even more blatant” (p. 42). Apart from the economic aspect, the report took a strong stance on another feature of globalization, particularism and identity politics. It further mentioned “the establishment of science and technology networks,” which excluded the poor countries and resulted in the widening of the “knowledge gap” (p. 42), and the globalization of crime and trade of “drugs, arms, nuclear materials and even human beings” (p. 42).  In chapter six, I will argue that the Delors report represented a reaction to neoliberalism. In contrast to “globalization” this is a term that the report actually does not use as such, but that it paraphrases. After the economic crisis of the 1970s the system of the Keynesian welfare model and the “embedded liberalism” (Ruggie, 1982) that had dominated the post-war era came under attack by a movement that was theoretically fuelled by neoliberal laissez-faire economists associated with the “Chicago school” such as Friedrich von Hayek, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974,15and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  15	  The prize was awarded jointly with Gunnar Myrdal, author of Asian Drama, a Swedish economist who was ideologically opposed to von Hayek. Myrdal later called for the abolition of 	   44	  Milton Friedman who received it two years later, which illustrates the rising influence of their economic theories (Crouch, 2011, p. 15; Ebenstein, 2015). According to Jones (2012, pp. 6-10), neoliberalism had three distinct phases: The first was the inter-war period when – at the time mostly European – economists coined the term as a model of a market-based society. In the second phase, neoliberalism was promoted by the American economists mentioned above and in the early 1980s it gained prominence as the economic model of choice of the governments of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. In the third phase, after 1980, the principles of neoliberalism, such as market liberalization and fiscal discipline, were translated in the Washington Consensus and applied by international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in their development strategies in the form of structural adjustment programs. Rather than just an economic paradigm that replaced the previous economic order dominated by the Keynesian model of the state-regulated market and a combination of “corporate liberalism” and social protection, some commentators argue that neoliberalism has produced “a new socio-political reality” (Overbeek, 2003, p. 24), which involved a transformation of the social relations of production and labour, the role of the state and the international order. Overbeek (2003) and Overbeek and Van der Pijl (1993) define neoliberalism as a “counter-revolution” to moderate social-democratic forces and Third World calls for a regulation of capitalism and transnational corporations through the New International Economic Order (NIEO), a set of political proposals put forward during the 1970s by the Non-Aligned movement. Neoliberalism has become today a catch-all label that stands for the hegemony of the free market and the reduction of the state as a regulator of the economy. Some of its core precepts are control of money supply, liberalization, privatization, deregulation, cuts in government spending, internationalization and structural adjustment policies (Overbeek, 2003, pp. 25-26). Neoliberalism also entails a “new acquisitive individualist ethic” (p. 25), which displaced the collectivist perspective of the social-democratic post-war era, with the consequence that “the concept of the welfare state became an anomaly to capital” (Overbeek & Van Pijl, 1993, p. 16). Despite its distinct features, there is no 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  the prize and stated that he should have rejected it (The New York Times, 1987). Myrdal was also highly involved in the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race (Duedahl, 2007). 	   45	  “pure” and uniform neoliberal system (except for a neo-liberal experiment conducted in Chile after the overthrow of President Allende’s government in 1973). Depending on historical circumstances and ideological traditions, some countries have adopted neoliberalism more wholeheartedly than others.  Neo-liberalism is ideologically linked to neo-conservatism, as exemplified in the Thatcher and Reagan governments of the 1980s, characterized by family values, law and order, xenophobia, and a revived celebration of the nation and the military (Overbeek & Van Pijl, 1993, p. 15). I have written this study in Canada, under the Harper government (2006-2015), which embodied this blend of neoliberalism and neo-conservatism, and I have witnessed in my immediate environment the canning and closing of NGOs and civil society organizations with a social justice mandate and the outsourcing of social services to private organizations, to the detriment of the most underprivileged.16  My study is situated in a time of crisis of neoliberalism. Since the financial crash of 2008, constantly lingering fears of further crashes led the critics of the theory of the infallibility of the free market to raise their voices ever more loudly. The indications of the limits and dangers of the neoliberal dream of the self-regulatory market and the reduced state for the sake of greater efficiency and “freedom” have become too obvious to ignore. Today, the even more dangerous consequence of neoliberal ideology is the dominance of the giant corporations in all aspects of social, political and economic life and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few astronomically rich families and businesses (Crouch, 2011; Oxfam, 2014). The impact of neoliberalism on education has been dramatic as the subordination of education under the logic of the “market” resulted in an increasing commodification and marketization of education (Connell, 2013; Marginson, 1997). Under neoliberalism profit maximization represents the main goal of education. Such a view is incompatible with the view of the UNESCO founders who believed in the “intrinsic value” of education for the purposes of furthering human potential and dignity and who looked at education from a human rights perspective. This tension between UNESCO’s humanistic tradition and the shifting political economy continues to be a challenge that the organization has no way of resolving. 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  16	  On 19 October, 2015, the Harper government was voted out of office and replaced by a Liberal government. 	   46	  Methodology The methodology I applied to this study involves the triangulation of data obtained from historical and contemporary records: Review of secondary literature, historical-interpretive analysis of primary sources (normative documents such as the minutes and reports of the UNESCO General Conference and Executive Board) and archival materials (internal reports, minutes and correspondence), as well as 13 semi-structured open-ended interviews with 14 participants, representing former UNESCO staff and experts who were involved in UNESCO’s educational work at different times.  These various sources complement each other. Using multiple sources of evidence allowed me to corroborate the data from one of the sources with information from the other sources and increase the validity of the findings (Yin, 2009, chapter 4). Although some overlap existed between the information I found in archival materials and in the interviews, each source produced some evidence not provided by any of the other sources. Drawing on Yin (2009, p. 102), I have provided a table presenting the main characteristics of my sources of evidence (see Appendix 2). Of course this approach is fraught with difficulties. In most cases the data obtained from the various sources corroborated each other. But I can think of one instance where I was confronted with a real contradiction between my interview data and the data I found in the archives and in the secondary literature, in relation to the conflictual relationship between UNESCO and the World Bank. Some of my interviewees did not consider the relationship between the two organizations a “competition” – I will come back to that point later in the study. But the “evidence” I found clearly pointed to a picture that can be best captured by the term “competition.” Another challenge consisted in the limited availability of the archival data. For example, the 1986 fire at the UNESCO headquarters destroyed the archives of the Faure Commission, and the few boxes that are left in the UNESCO archives contain only some of the minutes of the meetings of the Commission and some correspondence of the secretariat (for example, with publishers and National Commissions), but unfortunately no personal correspondence with the members of the Commission. The files of the Delors Commission are not openly available at this time (as the publication of the report does not yet date back 20 years), and I had to submit a special request to access those I considered most important for the purpose of my study, but I have not been able 	   47	  to see all of them. In terms of the interviews, I was particularly limited with regard to the Faure report as most of the people involved in the secretariat and the Commission have passed away. It seemed to me that the most important people to interview were the chairperson and the secretary, which represents the central hub of every Commission. Edgar Faure passed away in 1988, and Asher Deleon has withdrawn from public life. I was very lucky to be able to interview the youngest member of the Commission (Henri Lopes) and the youngest member of the secretariat (Peter Williams). When I started preparations for my dissertation, another member of the Faure Commission, Majid Rahnema, was still alive. I managed to find his e-mail address and to establish contact, but the interview never happened. Majid Rahnema passed away on April 14, 2015, at the age of 91.17I very much regret that I have not been able to meet him. I am equally sad that I was unable to interview Jacques Delors who is 90 years old at the time of writing. Because of these limitations, I have not been able to establish certain connections, which would have interested me and which might have enhanced the significance of this study. For example, I know from the minutes of the Faure Commission and from my interview with Henri Lopes that Majid Rahnema introduced the work of Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich into the Commission. I would have liked to illuminate the connections between Rahnema and these two thinkers (whom he knew personally). I would also have liked to ask Rahnema about his views on why UNESCO was never able to pursue literacy on a large scale – an issue I discussed with Adama Ouane, but to which Rahnema could have contributed from his earlier involvement in key activities, for example the literacy conference in Tehran in 1965. There are other examples of points I have not quite succeeded in making to the extent I would have liked to, for example why the Delors Commission chose to use “learning throughout life” instead of “lifelong learning” or “lifelong education.” In the absence of a “conclusive response” provided by my interviewees or by an archival document, I have offered in chapter six an explanation which I believe captures at least some aspects of the rationale behind this semantic shift. Notwithstanding, my reconstruction of the historical events as well as my interpretation of certain connections and developments are based on a thorough “reading” of the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  17 http://mediascitoyens-diois.info/2015/06/deces-de-notre-ami-majid-rahnema/ http://www.actes-sud.fr/actualites/disparition-de-majid-rahnema	  	   48	  evidence that was available to me. I tried to compensate for the lack of Jacques Delors’ testimony by interviewing two individuals who worked very closely with him, including the secretary of the Commission, and both interviews were very insightful. Although there can be no doubt that interviewing Jacques Delors and others would have greatly benefitted this study, I am quite sure that my conclusions would have been similar.  Interviews Given my emphasis on the beliefs of “the main characters involved in the story” (Bevir & Rhodes, 2004, p. 136), it was very important for me to complement the archival research with interviews with actors involved in the shaping of lifelong learning who could speak at least to the more recent developments (for a list of my interviews, see Appendix 1). The interviews were conducted between May and October 2014. Except for two interviews in German and French, they were conducted in English. Most interviews were between one and a half and two hours long. I would qualify my interviews as a blend between expert and oral history interviews, with a tendency to the latter as I “investigate a specific historical event through the eyes of someone who was there” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 32).  The interviews could further be categorized as “elite interviews” insofar as all of my interviewees have held (or still hold) high-level and very influential positions in organizations or in government. All of them were older than me. Some of them were my former superiors, directly (as in the case of Adama Ouane, who was my direct supervisor at UIE/UIL over a period of 10 years) or indirectly (three of the four Assistant Director-Generals I interviewed – Colin Power, Sir John Daniel and Nicholas Burnett – were my indirect and very remote superiors during the time I worked for the UIE/UIL). It certainly facilitated my access that many of my interviewees are already retired and at a stage in their lives where they are interested in sharing their insights. Most of them are academics and can relate to my research interest in UNESCO. Two of my interviewees had just completed a book on UNESCO (Hüfner, 2013; Power, 2015), which may have motivated them to exchange views with another researcher on a topic of common interest. I tried to decrease the imbalance in status between myself and my interviewees by being very well prepared in terms of their biography and scholarly work. Conveying the impression of 	   49	  being knowledgeable helped gain the respect of my participants (see also Mikecz, 2012). I also made sure that they had sufficient time to prepare for the interview, and when arranging the meeting, I showed readiness to adapt to their schedules and preferences of locations. Prior to the interviews, I prepared a set of general interview questions guided by my research questions, but every interview was tailored towards the specific role the individual had played in UNESCO and the specific context in which he or she was situated. Some of my questions referred to statements my participants had written or said elsewhere. I sent the questions to the interviewees in advance to give them the opportunity to prepare themselves. I usually started the interview with a biographical question about how my interview partner got into the position in relation to which I was interviewing him or her. In the remainder of the interviews, the participants were invited to speak to the shifts in the meaning of education and learning in UNESCO, to the socio-political context of UNESCO, the institutional culture of the organization, their own role and agency and how change occurred. I sometimes departed from my prepared script to follow the flow of the conversation or to pursue an aspect that seemed promising, but I also made sure that I had covered all my prepared questions in the end. That seemed almost a matter of respect as I noticed that all of my interviewees had looked at my questions before and somehow waited for particular questions. Several times they reminded me of questions if they noticed I had not asked them yet. But my inclination to stray from protocol depended on my level of comfort with that particular interviewee and on the time constraints. In the case of Henri Lopes, for example, who I interviewed in his office, I was well aware that I could not occupy more than one hour of his time, and that interview was characterized by a certain discipline to get through all of my questions. In other cases, the interviewees seemed to have more time and flexibility, which allowed me to expand on some side issues.  The interviews were crucial to this study. Although the historical “facts” I present are based to a greater degree on primary and secondary literature, the statements made in the interviews drew my attention to aspects I had not had in mind before. For example several of my interviewees talked about the “Franco-Anglo” tensions, an angle I had not expected, but which turned out to be a central argument and finding of this study.  	   50	  My approach to the interviews was very much inspired by the model of the United Nations History Project, in the course of which researchers interviewed 79 individuals (Weiss, Carayannis, Emmerij, & Jolly, 2005, see pp. 459-461 for methodology). The list of interviewees is available in the book and on the project website18and all interviews are accessible on a CD Rom. I see the interviews I conducted for this study not only as an input to my research, but as important products in themselves. Therefore, I have asked the interviewees to give their permission to make the transcriptions of the interviews available to other researchers by transferring them to the archives of UNESCO in the context of UNESCO’s history project.1912 out of the 14 individuals I interviewed have given their consent to this transfer.  The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were sent to my participants for their approval (unless indicated otherwise on the consent form). Some asked for a few changes, or they gave me permission to use the interview, but required further editing before the interview will be given to the UNESCO archives. In the process of writing I asked all of my interviewees again for their approval of their direct quotes. All of them gave their approval, and few requested some editing. I initially coded the interviews, using a “focused coding” approach (Charmaz, 2006, pp. 57-60), which means sorting larger amounts of data (skipping the line-by-line coding that is often done as the first step) into codes/categories. These categories were shaped by the “sensitizing concepts” (p. 16) I had defined in my research proposal, such as “context,” “change,” and “dilemma,” and other aspects of this study that I was interested in, such as the meaning and shifts of educational concepts, semantics, institutional culture, and the beliefs and intentions of the involved actors. I analyzed the interviews in a hermeneutical manner, which involved the interpretation of what has been said in “a continuous back-and-forth process between the parts and the whole” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 210). In order to get to an understanding of what the interviewee meant, I tested his or her utterances against other utterances in the interview and in many cases also against other texts or/and utterances that he/she has made elsewhere, which was possible as many of my interviewees have published extensively or given speeches that are publicly available.  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  18	  http://www.unhistory.org/CD/methodology.html 19	  http://www.unesco.org/archives/new2010/en/oral_archives.html	  	   51	  I used in vivo (“the external face of UNESCO”; “good” or “small-p” politicization”), descriptive (“the World Bank”; “what is the legacy of the report today?”) and values (“crisis of the commission”; “deskilling of UNESCO”) coding (Saldaña, 2013, pp. 6-7). I then extracted the data into grids sorted by categories. However, in the process of writing, my dissertation took some turns that I had not expected. Initially my intention was to write a dissertation about UNESCO’s “education as a human right” approach. But after the first draft – in consultation with my supervisory committee – I shifted the focus towards lifelong learning, more specifically. That prompted me to go back to my data again and again, and I ended up marking up the transcripts with coloured pens in order to identify the statements that seemed relevant for my arguments. These shifts in my attention to certain issues went alongside my review of the secondary literature. For example, the more I read French scholarly literature about “éducation permanente,” the more I realized that UNESCO’s work on that concept was very much connected to the French adult and popular education movement. That made me go back to my interviews and pay greater attention to my interviewees’ statements about the “Frenchness” and the already mentioned “Franco-Anglo” tensions in UNESCO. In my first readings of the transcripts, I was not sure what I should do with these statements and in what way they were relevant for my study. In that respect the process resembled a “grounded theory” approach in that I continually evaluated “the fit between [my] initial research interests and [the] emerging data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 17) and added “new pieces to the research puzzle” (p. 14). Conclusion The theoretical framework I have presented in this chapter reflects the central place given in this study to educational ideas and concepts that have been shaped by individuals interacting with an international organization situated within the wider contexts of global politics and the economy. It is appropriate for the study of an organization that represents “the belief in the power of the mind to shape the course of history” (Maheu, 1972, p. 281). Overall I draw on theories of historical and contextual understanding coming from the tradition of hermeneutics and intellectual and conceptual history, which are well suited to frame my investigation of the shifts of UNESCO’s educational paradigms. Alongside the historical approach, the neo-institutional 	   52	  sociological approach is useful because it supports and strengthens my argument that the humanistic approach to education is part of UNESCO’s institutional culture and ideology. This explains the consistency of the ideology of humanism in UNESCO, which was continuously challenged by shifts in the constellations of global educational governance and the global political economy.  The hermeneutic interpretive approach corresponds to my way of looking at things, but it also reflects the approach taken by the actors in this study. I have observed some significant similarities between them. Most of them were “universalists” – people who believed in a common humanity and universal values beyond the boundaries of cultures, languages and nation states. They were also democrats, in the sense that they were committed to equality and the autonomy of individuals to shape their world with their own free will. They were situated in the tradition of what Sternhell calls the “Franco-Kantian Enlightenment” and its belief in the intrinsic dignity of every human being and his or her ability to create a better future for humanity by force of reason. Moreover, they approached their tasks in a hermeneutic way. In the previous chapter I referred to Gottfried Hausmann’s hermeneutic ontology and epistemology, supporting open processes instead of focusing on results. The approach taken by the Faure and Delors Commissions reflect this kind of worldview. Although they were often criticized for not offering practical recommendations or ready-made solutions, they provided an analysis of the situation and the challenges ahead, they raised questions and left the process open. This is a very different approach from the results-based measuring culture that dominates education today, for example in EFA, an issue I will come back to in the last chapter. The fact that this is a study about ideals and utopias, such as the “learning society,” could be considered a limitation. As one of my interviewees put it, in relation to the Faure report’s “master concept” of lifelong education, “It’s a dream. It’s a dream of the whole humanity” (Interview with Ravindra Dave). One could argue that the notion of a “learning society” is a sort of Weberian “ideal type,” a “mental construct….which in its conceptual purity…cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality” (Weber, cited by Sternhell, 2010, p. 30). This study is primarily about ideas. I am interested in shedding light on the historical context in which the idea of lifelong learning emerged and the 	   53	  ideology of the central figures who have shaped UNESCO’s humanistic approach to education. I do not offer many insights about how UNESCO’s humanism actually influenced educational policies around the world. I touch on this issue in chapters five and six, but for those who search for an answer to this question, this study will be unsatisfactory. One of my interviewees reminded me of this limitation when she wrote to me in an e-mail, “if only the problems of the world could be solved by ideas” (Alexandra Draxler, 31 March 2015).  Another limitation I would like to address is that this study does not cover the whole story of lifelong learning in UNESCO. I have chosen to focus on those periods which in my view were particularly significant for the development of the concept in the organization: the foundational years, in which UNESCO’s humanism and the concept of education as a human right were constructed as the organizational ethos; the 1960s in which éducation permanente emerged in the organization, the Faure report in the 1970s; the Delors report in the 1990s; and the Education for All initiative, which is ongoing. I have neglected the 1980s and the work of Ettore Gelpi who started to work in UNESCO in 1972 and succeeded Paul Lengrand as head of the lifelong education department. Like Lengrand, Gelpi came from the workers’ movement, and his work showed a strong focus on the relationship between education and work (for more information on Gelpi, see Ireland, 1979; Griffin, 2001; and Wain, 2004, chapters one and two). My study further focuses on UNESCO’s work on lifelong learning, while neglecting the parallel engagement of other (international) organizations with the concept. In particular the OECD, the Council of Europe and the European Union have their own particular histories of lifelong learning, which would warrant much more research, although much has already been done (Hake, 1999; Forquin, 2004; Rubenson, 2006, 2008, 2015; Schuller & Megarry, 1979; Tuschling & Engemann, 2006). While this is to some extent a historical study, it is driven by a concern for the future of education. The political economy of global governance is shifting from the interplay of nation states with international organizations towards new and even more complex constellations of “philanthrocapitalism,” involving corporate and philanthropic partners and public-private partnerships (Bishop & Green, 2010; Ball, 2012; Ball & Olmedo, 2012; Draxler, 2015; in relation to UNESCO, Elfert, 2014b). Increasingly, it is 	   54	  not only states that are organized in international and supranational organizations which assume the global norm-setting functions for education. Corporations will have more and more say in what the future of education will look like and in defining the purpose of education. This development will entail an impoverishment of the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of education, to which UNESCO has greatly contributed. While today ideas such as the right to education and lifelong learning are invoked in almost every brochure and policy related to education, they have been reduced to empty catchphrases that have lost their meaning. National education policies today are dominated by a utilitarian discourse, represented by the “skills” agenda (see, for example, OECD, 2013; Department of Higher Education and Training South Africa, 2011). The notion of “skills” represents the merely instrumental view of education and reduces the human being to her role in the labour market. In the name of the right to education the “one size fits all” Western school system has been exported into the world in order to produce more consumers for the market economy (Black, 2010). As already mentioned, I do not offer many answers or solutions to these challenges. I trace the history of lifelong learning in UNESCO, which is a story of many failures and shattered hopes. I tell this story because it is meaningful to me, given my own personal experience with UNESCO and my long-standing interest in education. It may be meaningful for others who are interested in the concept of lifelong learning or UNESCO or the changing dynamics of educational governance in the multilateral system. The study may also be of interest to those who are concerned about the marketization and commodification of education as it offers some insights into how the instrumental view of education has gained the grip it has today.    	   55	  Chapter Three UNESCO’s Early Years: Human Rights, High Hopes and Harsh Realities  Introduction This chapter will focus on how the concept of the right to education became one of the core principles of UNESCO’s ethos in its early years (1945 up to the late 1950s). The questions guiding this chapter are: what were the organization’s educational beliefs and priorities, and how did they fit into the overall intellectual climate at the time? How were these beliefs translated in activities, and what were the challenges UNESCO encountered in the early years of its existence? Drawing on archival research, this chapter will shed light on what the concept of the right to education meant to the founders of UNESCO and what they set as priorities for the organization in terms of the reconstruction of education after the Second World War. I will start by clarifying the historical circumstances and the philosophical underpinnings of the emergence of human rights after the war, followed by a presentation of the key issues raised in UNESCO in discussions about human rights, in particular in the contributions collected by the Comité sur les principes philosophiques des droits de l’homme. I will then proceed to examine the meaning that the concept of the right to education had among member states, staff and intellectuals whom UNESCO consulted. The next section will revisit the debates about Article 26 on the right to education of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was drafted by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations and is not directly related to UNESCO. However, including a section on Article 26 seems relevant because the drafting process revealed the controversies about the notion of education as a right and UNESCO’s standpoint in these debates. The final section will address the priorities of UNESCO’s educational program in the early years. Adult education held a central position, as reflected in UNESCO’s first educational flagship program, “fundamental education,” which was short-lived and held many lessons for UNESCO that still hold relevance today.  	   56	  Universalization and Individualization: The Principle of Human Rights  The unity of humankind based on the dignity of every human being constituted a key principle of UNESCO’s humanism, and the organization aspired to unifying principles. The encompassing notion of humanity, irrespective of race, civilization and class represented a relatively recent concept (Davies, 1997, p. 26). In the first chapter of his book Education at the Crossroads, Jacques Maritain (1943) referred to the novelty of the encompassing view of humanity when he stated that he had almost called his book The Education of Man, but chose not to do so as the title might have been “provocative” (p. 1),  for many of our contemporaries know primitive man, or Western man, or the man of the Renaissance, or the man of the industrial era, or the criminal man, or the bourgeois man, or the working man, but they wonder what is meant when we speak of man. (p. 1)  The universalization of humanity – while using the gendered concept of “man” – correlated with a strong individualization. Those who had survived the years of dehumanization and mass killings emphasized the “supreme value of the human person” (Glendon, 2001, p. 169). John Thompson, the UNESCO officer in charge of UNESCO’s relations to Germany, believed that “unless the single individual was accorded infinite value, another holocaust would arise” (Weindling, 2010, p. 312). The “making sacred of the human” (Ferry, 2011, p. 245) found its expression in the Kantian term “dignity,” a much evoked concept in the early debates carried out at UNESCO. The Cuba