f the existing social order has been built in ways that have excluded, exploited or spoken for certain groups, then creating a genuinely different social order cannot just mean the already-powerful designing a nicer system for them. Those who have been marginalised need greater power to define the problems, produce knowledge, represent themselves and shape what comes next.

KEY HINGE IN ARTICLE: Earlier ideas converge here. Andreotti maps the root narratives underlying approaches to development/global education: technicist, liberal-humanist, critical/postcritical, and possibilities beyond these. Critical literacy exposes how dominant ideas of progress, help and knowledge reproduce power, while also recognising that even critical frameworks are partial and limited.

A state of conflict, struggle, or competition between opposing parties. The political landscape was defined by an intense agonism between the two major partieS

Liberal humanism promotes valuable universal goals, but Andreotti questions who defines “progress” and how the ahead/behind model can reproduce HEADS UP dynamics — particularly salvationism and paternalism.

ts underlying assumptions make it particularly vulnerable to reproducing those patterns unless they are critically examined. That's an important distinction. Take something like Education for All. Andreotti isn't saying: “Universal education is bad.”

She's asking something more uncomfortable: “What do we mean by education? Who designed the model being universalised? What kinds of knowledge does it recognise? What happens if we assume that people without our form of schooling are simply ‘behind’?”

Same with human rights. She doesn't necessarily have to reject rights to ask: “Who gets to define what universal rights mean in practice, and how are they imposed or negotiated across very different societies?”

Humanity is progressing toward certain universal goods → international institutions can identify what those goods are → nation states should deliver them → countries that are further ahead have a responsibility to help those further behind.

Andreotti wants you to notice that there are several assumptions packed into that seemingly benevolent story. Who decided what “human progress” means? Why are economic development, democracy, formal education, etc. arranged into this particular model of progress? Who gets described as “ahead” and “behind”? What knowledge from supposedly “behind” societies disappears when the relationship is framed that way?

Having power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments.

The process by which an individual adopts the behavioral patterns, values, and norms of the culture in which they live.

That’s why she’s arguing for critical literacy. She wants global education to move from: “How can we help them?” toward questions like: “Why do we understand the problem this way? Who gets to define development? What histories and power relations are involved? Are our proposed solutions reproducing those same relations?” So yes, she’s critiquing the field from within it, with the aim of making it better rather than rejecting it.

Global/development education can become problematic when it assumes “we are developed, they are behind, and our job is to help them catch up.”

Relating to, or characterized by, the dominance of one group over others, especially in a political or cultural context.

The skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by an individual or population, viewed in terms of their value or cost to an organization or country. The government is investing heavily in education to improve the nation's human capital.

The process of reorganizing an economy, industry, or organization to achieve greater efficiency by eliminating waste, reducing costs, and streamlining operations. The government's economic rationalisation program aimed to reduce the budget deficit by closing inefficient state-owned enterprises

The use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

For example, imagine a school has low attendance in a poor community. A technicist-instrumentalist response might be: “Let’s introduce an attendance app, rewards for students, and a new monitoring system.” Those might genuinely help. But the approach becomes technicist if nobody asks things like: Why are students missing school? Is housing insecurity involved? Transport? Racism? Poverty? Is the school itself alienating students? Who defined attendance as the main problem?

Cartesian subject = the idea of an independent, rational observer who believes they can know themselves and the world objectively, without their own position shaping that knowledge.

Universal reason = the assumption that there is one universally correct way of thinking, knowing and judging what is rational. Critical/postcolonial approaches ask whose idea of ‘rational’ became universal, and what other ways of knowing were excluded.

Relating to a stage or mode of thought that follows the critical or analytical phase, often characterized by a return to belief, synthesis, or holistic interpretation after the dismantling effects of deconstruction or skepticism.

A person who subscribes to the philosophical and political tradition that emphasizes the autonomy, rationality, and inherent dignity of the individual, typically advocating for democratic institutions and social progress.

A person whose worldview prioritizes technical proficiency and the use of people or processes strictly as tools to achieve specific, often narrow, outcomes.

Map ≠ reality. A framework simplifies and interprets reality; use it to begin discussion, not as a final truth.

Look this up