reflective essay on peace education

Pacifist feminism

Reflections on Peace Education

Alicia Cabezudo International Association of Educators for Peace

Education for peace and respect for human rights is particularly important in this period, if we compare the values this education promotes with the daily violence, the horrors of war and the gradual destruction of values such as solidarity, cooperation and respect for others: all of them problems that assault us every day.

Indiscriminate persecution, massacres and ethnic cleansing are difficult to explain when our shocked and surprised students ask us about them; perhaps they are even incomprehensible in the context of education. It is harder still to clarify these processes when the possible solution for acts such as these is, in fact, the continued bombing of cities and of a desperate civilian population.

We also come across extreme everyday situations when we analyse the inequality and injustice of our socio-economic surroundings and the brutal violence of our “ideal” modern societies… in which it is the state itself that attacks the population, where individualism and self interest are promoted and where whatever is considered “different” becomes “dangerous”. These are all wars, of a different type, but with the same ingredients of injustice, violence and destruction.

Here the responses of educators become drained of content and their explanations no longer work. The practice of building knowledge through research, reading, the analysis of information, interviews, genesis of conflicts, systematisation of what has been learnt, the development of critical thinking, etc, should lead us to rethink the educational model applied until now. This model is perhaps slightly naive, despite its apparent progressive pedagogical nature, and it is one with which educators ourselves have come to be unhappy.

I believe that Peace Education, although considered a transversal element in many educational curriculum models around the world, has in fact been conceived as a secondary matter. Something necessary but accidental, important but not essential, present but “absent”. A view of the curriculum which dignifies it without modifying it, without designing new alternatives for a humanitarian, ethical, civic education — something increasingly necessary in the world we live in.

Because Peace Education means developing a critical, serious and profound approach to the current situation of which we form a part and the historical epoch in which we find ourselves, an undeniable reality that does not always appear in the plans of the Ministries, of educational institutions nor of many principals and teachers.

Peace Education has been conceived as a secondary matter; something necessary but accidental, important but not essential, present but “absent”

“Peace is not defined only by the absence of war and conflict, it is also a dynamic concept that needs to be grasped in positive terms, such as the presence of social justice and harmony, the possibility for human beings to fully realise their potential and respect for their right to live with dignity throughout their lives. Sustainable human development is not possible without peace. And without just, equitable, ongoing planning, peace cannot be maintained.” 1

These concepts, particularly relevant in the context of the analysis we are currently trying to develop, should influence all imaginable pedagogical proposals for Peace Education, giving it a multidimensional character, able to reach into different areas.

We are witnessing today a reworking of our models and our vocabularies and we understand that there are major changes in the concept of peace, above all as it relates to the opposite term, “war”. This conceptual modification should be integrated, along with the methodology for teaching it, into the learning of teachers and students.

Indeed, after many years the idea of peace has evolved and a broader and more complex understanding of it now relates it to the concepts of fairness, justice, respect for human rights, the rights of peoples and tolerance. Alongside this process, teaching practices in Peace Education have also been modified, taking on a clear commitment to the principles of democratic participation along with the implementation of educational activities which include issues of nonviolence and conflict transformation by peaceful means, with a view to building a more compassionate, juster and fairer society.

Peace, as an individual, social, national and international value must be analysed in depth from an interdisciplinary and multidimensional perspective

Armed conflicts in other parts of the world now make us more open to a cognitive, systematic and up to date treatment of the miseries and cruelties of war and also to the analysis of its terrible consequences, using the multiple resources that the media allow us, bringing it closer to us. Peace, as an individual, social, national and international value must be tested and analysed in depth from an interdisciplinary and multidimensional perspective.

The geographical and historical treatment of the subject is necessary but not sufficient. Concepts and issues such as nationalism, sovereignty and the state; the role of the UN in the world of today; the reality of different ethnicities and their complicated coexistence; intercultural dialogue; solutions and disagreements within conflicts; the situation of refugees and their terrible defencelessness before the attacks of “friends” and enemies; crime related to drugs and prostitution; the dangers of nuclear war; the arms race and the arms trade as a profitable global business are urgent and important issues.

All of these issues desperately need to be the subject of reflection, debate, research and criticism by both teachers and students in an ongoing exercise of deepening knowledge, developed both individually and collectively on the basis of obtaining information from many sources, promoting the exchange of different opinions, developing critical judgment and the respect for diversity 2 .

But even this is not enough if we isolate the international problems that distress us so much from the everyday “wars” of the society in which we live. Marginalisation, social exclusion, violence and persecution are not things that we can only find in news reports about Mexico, Colombia, Syria, Crimea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan…

An obligatory task of education is to link direct open conflicts with those “wars” which have other features

There are other “wars” much closer to home, right next to us. Social inequality, lack of vital resources for much of the population, unemployment and poverty create hopelessness and distrust of democratically elected governments. Authoritarian mechanisms, the control of information, crimes, delinquency and impunity are part of our political life.

In this sense, war is not so far away… and not only because of the globalisation of the arms trade or the information that we receive from the transnational media. It is a daily war to survive in terrible conditions of housing and health, of education and employment, of the insufficiency of essential public services and insecurity, with basic inherent principles of human dignity being trampled on every day in many countries and continents.

It is an obligatory task of education to link these two aspects: the direct open conflicts with those “wars” which have other features but are no less intense. Only through a comprehensive analysis of the roots of violence, its characteristics, forms and consequences can we make it possible to achieve a critical reflection, at the levels of both the individual and society, so as to generate possible changes that may lead towards a lasting peace in today’s world.

This is the great educational challenge for the coming years and for our pedagogical work in the field of Peace Education.Let us dare to face up to it.

1. Iglesias Díaz, Calo (2007). Educar pacificando: Una pedagogia de los conflictos , 1ª edición, Madrid, Fundación Cultura de Paz Editorial.

2 Bazán Campos, Domigo (2008). El oficio de pedagogo. Aportes para la construcción de una pràctica reflexiva en la escuela , Rosario, Argentina, Ed. Homo Sapiens.

Photography : United Nations Development Programme in Europe and CIS / CC BY / Desaturada. – Kids celebrate peace, friendship and tolerance on United Nations day –

Reflections on Transformative Education: Toward Peace Learning Systems

Global transformation through peace learning systems.

Over the past 15 years, I have worked on peace education programs in communities in the US and abroad and have personally seen community members, teachers, and students from a diverse array of social backgrounds engage in the work of transformative education. Peace education strives to empower future generations to use “the capacity and inclination to make peace, to bring about a nonviolent and just social order” with an overt normative understanding that the manifestation of these changes will be “the primary indicator of a maturing of our species” (Reardon, 1993, p. 56). 1

Peace education trains and supports students in exploring how to more effectively analyze and respond to conflict and social inequality. It aims to develop tools for building a more sustainable and just world for all.

On numerous occasions, I have had the honor to witness young women and men that have experienced lives filled with violence step more deeply into leadership roles in order to bring about nonviolent change in their communities and schools. I have seen young people that lost friends to violence transform the desire for revenge into a passion for teaching their peers about nonviolence and encouraging them to fight for economic and racial justice in their communities. I have seen adults that carry the pain of having lost a close loved one to gang violence regain a sense of hope by teaching younger children how to constructively engage with conflict. I have watched as high school students in a wealthy suburb initiate difficult conversations about racial and religious discrimination in their homes and communities, while challenging the unspoken benefits they received as a result of these discriminatory systems. These are the kinds of moments in workshops and community-based education that provide inspiration for peace educators.

Often transformative education is framed in terms of ‘deep change’ at the individual level, with the focus mainly on moments where large shifts in personal understanding, purpose, and sense of possibility seem to occur. While these moments of change are important, these shifts occur within a larger context, often through sustained engagement within and across various educational communities and through a series of encounters supportive of such change.

A focus on only specific moments in which a shift occurs can be misleading because it misses the larger processes of transformation. Our challenge then is to more deeply understand these snapshots of change (a powerful moment resulting from a single workshop or training) by widening our view to see these changes as part of the broader educational system of which they are a part. This wider view helps us understand the complex dynamics at play in transformative education.

In this article, I will highlight the presence of peace learning systems that integrate formal and informal education eﬀorts at the community level. My hope is that this article will spark a conversation about the most effective ways to understand and support the growth of these peace learning systems and trace the linkages between local, regional, and transnational peace education efforts. I believe these peace learning systems are necessary to transform the dynamics of violence and injustice.

Transformative Education—A Systemic View

Education and individual transformation always take place in a larger systemic context. This is especially significant for those of us who are interested in preventing violence and playing a role in transforming oppressive social conditions that give rise to violence because it places the educator in a position that demands social action in addition to and as a part of the teaching role. In other words, as the social conditions change, so do the educational possibilities; likewise, as individuals engage in transformative learning, their ideas of what kinds of education and community are possible also shift. If a student goes to a school where there are frequent rocket blasts and where their school could potentially be targeted, this impacts their learning, worldview, sense of hope, and ability to act as peacebuilders. If we stop the immediate violence, new fields of possibilities can emerge for that person.

If we are focused on shifting violence, one of the primary challenges is that violence is an effect of complex systemic dynamics, and therefore, disrupting or transforming those dynamics requires complex multi-level intervention. If we take urban youth gun violence in the US as an example, the need for thinking in more complex terms about the problems of violence is evident. Those dynamics of violence are often fueled by economic inequality and lack of opportunity, by underfunded schools, by the presence of gangs and the underground economy, and by high levels of police surveillance, frequent harassment, and disproportionately high levels of police violence toward youth of color (disproportionate minority contact). These dynamics take place as a result of the historical and continuing practice of racial and economic discrimination not only by individuals but also through institutional practices and policies. We might argue then that to

transform these dynamics, we need systemic solutions (e.g., ways of generating meaningful work that pays a living wage; a movement toward educational change that allows communities to participate in making their schools stronger and to develop education that is responsive and relevant to student needs; creating greater police accountability through community policing and civilian oversight; etc.).

One challenge for individuals and organizations interested in transforming violence is how to develop and sustain multi-level interventions. In all likelihood, no single individual or organization is in a position to respond to all these issues, nor would such a response be advisable given the huge array of knowledge and skills needed to engage in these activities. Widespread community ownership of these processes is necessary for the change to be sustainable over time.

Education plays a potentially important role in addressing this challenge. It can provide spaces and support for those impacted most directly by these dynamics to find solutions to their own problems and connect with allies in the change process. It can also assist with institutionalization of peace processes: generating training for police about nonviolent intervention, offering classes in schools about strategies for peacemaking, and providing spaces for people to think through how best to organize themselves to advocate for their needs. Ideally, peace education can unlock the creative potential of a community to disrupt the cycles of violence.

Emergent Peace Learning Systems

We are often taught to think of education primarily in terms of the classroom environment within a school, a setting where learning is largely set apart from many of the other spaces we occupy in our daily lives. Large-scale education systems in the West initially sought to respond to the need to ‘efficiently’ educate large numbers of people for the routine work that dominated much of production during the industrial revolution. In this model, teachers worked in isolated classroom spaces that were easy to regulate and control; this is what many have referred to as the factory model of education.

Current practices in peace education have moved away from that traditional factory model of education. If we think about all the places where people develop their understanding of any specific topic or even sense of what is possible related to human behavior, it is difficult to pinpoint any social location in which learning does not take place. We learn in our homes, on the street (sometimes with strangers), when we travel, and through a host of institutions we engage with and are embedded within. Even if we just narrow our view to formal and informal education there are a wide range of spaces that are dedicated primarily to education. We can think of pre-schools, public schools, and higher education as examples of formal education, as well as community programs, museums, and community organizations that frequently use democratic and participatory processes of organizing and learning as examples of informal education. Recognizing the breadth of locales where learning occurs and the variety of forms it takes, peace educators continue to develop new approaches to education.

In terms of formal education, schools are at the center of a growing movement for peace education. There are numerous programs with proven results in reducing violence in schools and inspiring young people to lead change in their communities. Programs offering restorative justice 2 create opportunities for students, teachers, and administrators to develop their conflict resolution skills and provide alternative approaches to punitive discipline. There are also highly successful peer mediation 3 programs where young people take the lead in helping other students to talk before interpersonal conflicts spiral out of control. These programs 4 have already resulted in high levels of student engagement and a reduction in the number of fights in schools. 5

What I have found in my work is that peace educators and others engaged in education with a focus on violence prevention operate in a highly varied array of environments that include but are not limited to schools. Many people know that the problems of violence require broad, collaborative responses across multiple levels of systems. It is the rule, not the exception, that people engaged in peace education collaborate in networks that weave together formal and informal educators in dynamic and complex ways.

There are hundreds of examples of these forms of emergent and novel collaborations amongst peace educators. For example, while working in Japan, I learned that in the decades following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, peace educators there committed to develop and share nuclear disarmament education globally—to be a center for understanding the risks of nuclear war and the strategies for disarmament. In recognizing a need to learn from other peace educators, Japanese practitioners saw the need to engage other educators outside of their immediate locale; they engaged with educators from China, Korea, Singapore, and India to learn alternative educational practices. In the process, some of these educators were then challenged to more deeply recognize the negative impact of Japan’s imperial past on their neighbors and were moved to engage more deeply with other educators in the region to address these injustices. Their curriculum shifted as a result of these encounters, as did some of their priorities and sense of possibility for the field.

As result of local, regional, and international collaboration, peace education has moved toward more integrated interdisciplinary approaches and amassed an eclectic body of pedagogical work and curricula. Increasingly, peace educators have sought to understand “the relational processes impacting on conflicts, poverty and wealth, human exploitation, destruction of ecosystems, weapons proliferation, terrorism, and so on.” 6 These collaborations on such a wide variety of concerns continue to spur growing numbers of peace educators to build alternative visions of education that address the complex, fluid, and interrelated nature of local and global problems.

Planetary Education and Action

In developing methods to support the cultivation of ethical, analytical, and creative approaches for addressing violence and building a more sustainable world, peace educators continue to develop new forms of collaboration and educational innovation. The interrelated nature of the social and environmental problems peace educators work on demand systemic and multi-level responses, especially as linkages between the local and global become more clear. This development of networks of affinity and interest is also facilitated by technological advances that allow for greater contact between people via high-speed travel, increased sharing of cultural symbols and values circulated via global media, and the ability to have real-time conversations across great distances via the Internet.

I contend in this article that systemic problems need systemic responses and peace education networks may already provide some of the social infrastructure for those responses. This diversification of collaboration and communication that is happening within the field carries with it increased possibilities for transformative action within complex systems. In particular, peace education networks increasingly have the capacity for more complex social organizing, and they demonstrate in their daily practices that alternative forms of education that are critical of systems of violence and proactive in their responses to that violence are not only possible but are already present globally.

These networks have the ability to generate multiple spaces for the convergence of people from very different backgrounds, to expand the points of intervention within systems, to multiply the diversity of responses and, when necessary, the power to disrupt and challenge institutions where power is consolidated. Perhaps peace educators are playing their role in the development of what Graeme Chesters and Ian Welsh have termed planetary action systems7 that are developing within larger global social movements.

While a focus on supporting a single intervention or organization in response to violence is unlikely to be effective in the long run, it is not enough to point out these shortcomings. We need to develop more comprehensive approaches for supporting peace education. Numerous researchers of social movements have deepened our understanding of how nonviolent social change occurs. However, more systematic thinking and theorizing about the role of peace education within larger movements for change is necessary to advance this effort, especially when based upon experiences of people engaged in the work of peace education and their allies.

The task is to better understand how people involved in peace learning systems are collaborating and learning together, where the spaces for convergence and collaboration are, what processes are being used to build understanding across lines of difference, and when and how people within peace learning systems mobilize to take action. While the challenges that peace educators seek to respond to are great, so is the opportunity. The growth of these systems will be fueled by the creativity of an increasingly diverse and connected community of people around the world.

If you would like to share your experiences and knowledge on this topic, visit www.peacelearner.org and join to contribute to this user-populated site that I host along with international peace educator Daryn Cambridge (www.daryncambridge.com).

1 Reardon, B. (1988). Comprehensive Peace Education: Educating for Global Responsibility, New York: Teachers College Press. 2 ryoyoakland.oega/restorative- justice 3 bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/what- makes-a-good-peer-mediator/719.html 4 ctnonviolence.org 5 rethinkingschools.org//cmshandler.asp?archive/26_02/26_02_haga.shtml 6 Synott,J. (2005) Peace education as an educational paradigm; Review of a changing field using an old measure. Journal of Peace Education, 2(l):3-16. 7 Chesters, G., & Welsh, 1. (2005). Complexity and social movement(s): Process, 211.

Add comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CAPTCHA Code *

Can we teach peace? reflection, strategies, and practices

Key takeaways.

Education Empowers Peace: How education fosters peace by equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to champion peace in all its forms.
The Multifaceted Approach to Peace Education: How educators can create a holistic learning experience that encourages students to explore peace from different angles and understand its relevance in a complex, interconnected world by incorporating various subjects, teaching methods, and resources.
The Power of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) in Nurturing Peace: How, through SEL, students develop self-awareness, emotional regulation, empathy, and responsible decision-making abilities, enabling them to navigate conflicts peacefully, build positive relationships, and contribute to a culture of understanding and cooperation.

"Peace begins with a smile." - (Mother Teresa)

As educators , we have the power to educate people about peace and make it a part of our school communities. To achieve this, we must commit to it in every action, behavior , and interaction. However, we must be clear about the type of peace we discuss.

Today, there are more conflicts worldwide than ever after the Second World War, making it imperative to consider teaching peace in schools .

The question is how to properly incorporate peace education into the global curriculum and apply social-emotional learning . These questions will guide our reflection and exploration. Are you with me? Isn't it time to start?

What does peace mean to you?

Peace, as envisioned by great minds throughout history, transcends the mere absence of conflict; it embodies a profound state of harmony, empathy , and justice. It is not merely a distant ideal but a tangible reality that can be nurtured and cultivated through deliberate actions and genuine commitment.

Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently captured the essence of peace by stating, " Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. " Indeed, peace is not an abstract destination but rather a journey that requires active participation and engagement from individuals and communities alike.

Albert Einstein's wisdom further emphasizes, " Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. " True peace emerges from a deep understanding and respect for others, transcending differences, and fostering mutual empathy and cooperation.

John F. Kennedy envisioned a peace that goes beyond borders and encompasses the hopes and aspirations of all humanity. He spoke of " genuine peace, the kind that makes life on earth worth living, " emphasizing the universal desire for peace and prosperity for all.

In essence, peace is not something passive or static; it is dynamic and transformative . As John Lennon aptly put it, " Peace is not something you wish for; it's something you make, something you do, something you are, and something you give away. " Peace is an active choice, a way of life that permeates our thoughts, actions, and interactions.

As educators , it is essential that we reflect on what peace truly means and how we can embody it in our daily lives. We must challenge ourselves and our students to question, explore, and commit to peace in all its dimensions. Do our thoughts, actions, and interactions reflect a genuine commitment to peace? Furthermore, educators should create a space where the meaning of peace is allowed to evolve and grow. By encouraging open dialogue and embracing diverse perspectives, we foster a culture of peace that is inclusive , dynamic, and ever-expanding.

So, what does Peace mean to you? Will you share your meaning with your students? Will you include their meaning in yours?

Peace and Education

John F. Kennedy, in his famous speech, often referred to as the "Strategy of Peace", delivered on June 10, 1963, at American University, spoke of the perilous belief that peace is unattainable, labeling it as a " dangerous, defeatist belief ." Instead, he advocated for a vision where humanity, armed with knowledge and understanding, could overcome the barriers to peace. Indeed, education stands as a formidable ally in this noble quest.

In 2022, the United Nations, in collaboration with the Women’s Research and Training Center at Aden University, launched a pioneering initiative aimed at fostering peacebuilding skills within communities . Dr. Huda Ali Alawi, Director of the Women's Research and Training Center, underscores the indispensable role of education in peacebuilding. She emphasizes that education is not merely a means to impart knowledge but a catalyst for psychosocial and cognitive development. “We cannot achieve lasting peace without education. Education contributes to the psychosocial and cognitive development of communities. It allows communities to learn skills such as mediation and changes peoples’ behaviors for the better.” …“Raising awareness on the importance of conflict prevention and the links between the achievement of durable peace and sustainable development, climate action and food security, especially among children and youth, is important because peace is more than just the absence of violence.”

Indeed, education offers more than just academic enrichment; it serves as a lifeline for marginalized communities, offering a route out of poverty and a shield against the ravages of conflict . The World Economic Forum echoes this sentiment, stressing the urgent need for education tailored to promote peace, especially in times of war. Education empowers individuals to become agents of positive change in their communities and beyond by nurturing values, attitudes, and skills conducive to peace.

The first step towards building a culture of peace begins with educating ourselves on peace. Education can be the conduit for peace, whether through dedicated peace education programs or the integration of social-emotional learning into the curriculum. As educators , we are responsible for imbuing our students with the knowledge, values, and skills necessary to champion peace in all its forms. We must show what peace is and what it means for children to commit to it intentionally.

Throughout history, the role of education in building lasting peace has been undervalued. Today, as wars rage from Ukraine to Gaza and beyond, we must double down on ensuring all children have access to quality education . Ignorance has long been recognized as the enemy of peace, and education is the antidote. By providing individuals with knowledge, critical thinking skills , and a broader understanding of the world, education empowers them to challenge stereotypes, question assumptions, and seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

Empowering students for a global future: The importance of global learning in education

Read article

Integrating Peace Education: Strategies for Curriculum Development

In the quest to cultivate a culture of peace, one of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the curriculum itself. By infusing educational materials with the principles of peace, we can shape what students learn and how they engage with the world around them. Here are some strategies for integrating peace teaching into the curriculum:

Expanding Perspectives through Diverse Sources: One of the most transformative aspects of integrating peace teaching into the curriculum is the opportunity to broaden students' knowledge and experiences. By embracing diverse sources and perspectives , we facilitate a more comprehensive and inclusive learning environment, transcending the narrow, state-centered narratives and encouraging students to engage with various realities. For instance, when teaching mathematics, educators can adopt an approach considering mathematicians from various countries and cultures. By exploring mathematical concepts through the lens of different cultural contexts, students gain a deeper understanding of mathematics's universality while also appreciating its cultural nuances. They learn that mathematical principles are not confined to a single perspective but are shaped by diverse cultural influences, from ancient civilizations to contemporary societies. Similarly, in literature classes, educators can highlight underrepresented minorities and marginalized voices whose stories have often been overlooked or silenced. Students are exposed to various human experiences and perspectives by incorporating literature written by authors from diverse backgrounds. They learn that literature is not solely the domain of the dominant culture but encompasses a multitude of voices and narratives that contribute to the richness of human expression. If educators fail to provide these diverse perspectives, essential knowledge about these cultures and communities may remain inaccessible to students, perpetuating ignorance and perpetuating stereotypes.
Fostering Critical Thinking for Peace Education: Teaching critical thinking skills is key in supporting the integration of peace education into the curriculum. Leading students to approach information with a critical eye, educators lay the groundwork for fostering a culture of peace based on understanding, empathy , and conflict resolution. In the context of peace education, critical thinking plays a crucial role in challenging the assumptions and biases inherent in sources of information. Students learn to question the narratives presented, recognizing that every perspective has biases and agendas. By encouraging students to analyze multiple viewpoints and consider the broader context, educators empower them to discern truth from misinformation and to navigate complex issues with clarity and insight. Furthermore, critical thinking skills enable students to challenge stereotypes perpetuating conflict and division. They learn to recognize the humanity in others, regardless of cultural, religious, or ideological differences, laying the foundation for constructive dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

Practical examples of fostering critical thinking for peace education include :

Analyzing Media Portrayals: Encourage students to critically evaluate media representations of conflict and violence. By deconstructing news articles, images, and videos, students can identify biases, sensationalism, and propaganda, fostering a more nuanced understanding of complex geopolitical issues.
Exploring Historical Narratives: Students examine historical events from multiple perspectives, challenging dominant narratives and uncovering marginalized voices. By critically analyzing primary sources and historical accounts, they gain insight into the root causes of conflict and the role of power dynamics in shaping historical memory.
Engaging in Dialogue: Facilitate open and respectful dialogue on controversial topics, encouraging students to listen actively and consider alternative viewpoints. By creating a safe space for constructive debate, educators empower students to challenge their own assumptions and expand their understanding of complex issues.
Fostering Curiosity: Encourage students to explore complex issues from multiple angles and cultivate a sense of curiosity and inquiry. Provide opportunities for open-ended discussions and inquiry-based projects that allow students to delve deeply into peace, justice, and human rights topics.
Firsthand Experiences: Incorporate firsthand experiences, such as guest speakers, field trips, or service-learning projects, to give students real-world perspectives on peacebuilding efforts.

Suggestions for Global Education Resources

When considering strategies for integrating peace teaching into the curriculum, looking at examples and best practices from global education initiatives is essential. Here are some suggestions for resources to explore to gain valuable insights and inspiration for incorporating peace teaching into the curriculum .

UNESCO Global Citizenship Education (GCED) : promotes the development of knowledge, skills, and values needed for active participation in a diverse and interconnected world. Their website offers many resources, including policy guidelines, case studies, and curriculum frameworks for integrating peace education into schools .
TeachUNICEF: provides educators with resources and lesson plans focused on global issues such as human rights, conflict resolution, and sustainable development. Their materials promote critical thinking, empathy, and cross-cultural understanding among students.
Global Peace Education: Organizations like the Global Partnership for Peace Education (GPPAC) and the International Institute on Peace Education (IIPE) offer training programs, publications, and networking opportunities for educators interested in peace education. These resources provide insights into effective pedagogical approaches and curriculum development strategies .
Peace Education Network is a global network of educators and organizations dedicated to promoting peace education at all levels of education. Their website offers resources, case studies, and networking opportunities for educators interested in integrating peace education into their curriculum.

Shaping Peace: Harnessing Our Superpower

As educators, we hold the key to unlocking the potential for peace within ourselves and our students. We use Emotional intelligence and SEL to cultivate practical skills that enable us to embody peace daily.

Starting from Within

The journey to peace begins with introspection, with questioning our own attitudes towards peace. Do we truly believe in its possibility? Can we envision a world where peace reigns supreme? It is not enough to merely pay lip service to the idea of peace; we must actively practice , embody and model it in our thoughts, words, and actions.

As President John F. Kennedy stated, "First, examine our attitude toward peace itself." Peace is not a static state but a dynamic process, a way of approaching and solving problems. It is a strategy that requires mindfulness, empathy , and a commitment to understanding and resolving conflicts. Through SEL , we equip ourselves and our students with the to navigate the complexities of human interaction with grace and compassion.

SEL empowers us to recognise our emotions , biases, and blind spots. It prompts us to question what we ignore and confront the uncomfortable truths beneath the surface. By shining a light on our inner landscape, we gain insight into the root causes of conflict and the barriers to peace within ourselves and the world around us.

Ultimately, peace begins with taking responsibility for our own thoughts and actions. As the saying goes, " If you don't change your thoughts, you can't change your actions. " SEL encourages us to cultivate a growth mindset to recognize that change starts from within.

I once came across a profound insight that resonated deeply: When we focus solely on our happiness, our brains shrink. But when we envision happiness for all, our brains expand. This is a powerful reminder of the interconnectedness of our well-being with that of others. Through SEL , we cultivate empathy , compassion, and a sense of interconnectedness that expands our capacity for peace within ourselves and the world at large.

Start with yourself. Enhancing your peace skills.

As we recognize that peace is not merely a destination but a journey , a practice that begins from within and requires daily commitment, we turn to invaluable exercises to nurture this essential quality in our lives. One such exercise, drawn from the wisdom of Headspace, is the loving-kindness meditation.

Loving-Kindness Meditation Exercise for Conflict Resolution

In moments of conflict or tension, this meditation is a powerful tool for cultivating compassion, understanding, and connection, both with ourselves and others. Here's how you can practice it:

Begin with Breath: Take a moment to center yourself by taking a long, deep breath in through your nose and exhaling slowly through your mouth. Allow yourself to settle into a state of calm and presence.
Words of Affirmation: Repeat the following affirmations silently or aloud: "May I be safe. May I be peaceful. May I be at ease." Let these words envelop you in a sense of warmth and tenderness, fostering self-compassion and inner peace.
Extend Compassion: Think of someone with whom you're experiencing conflict or tension. Notice any emotions or physical sensations that arise as you think of them. Then, offer the same affirmations to them: "May you be safe. May you be peaceful. May you be at ease." Visualize sending them feelings of warmth, kindness, and understanding.
Sit with Your Feelings: After extending compassion to yourself and others, take a moment to sit with any feelings of resistance or discomfort that may arise. Allow these feelings to be present without judgment, recognizing them as part of the human experience.
Let Go: Finally, release any lingering tension or negativity by letting go of resistance. Embrace the shared humanity that connects us all, fostering a sense of connection and reconciliation.

To know more, please visit Headspace.com- Meditation for anger

Nurturing Peace through Social-Emotional Learning

As educators , we guide our students toward academic excellence and embody peace in their thoughts, actions, and interactions. Integrating SEL into our curriculum and educational practices creates fertile ground for nurturing a generation of peacemakers and changemakers.

We will follow the guide of five macro skills highlighted by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning ( CASEL ), delving into how each subskill within these domains can serve as a catalyst for peace education. While our exploration may not be exhaustive, we aim to provide practical strategies and tips on integrating SEL into our teaching practices to cultivate peace.

Self-Awareness for Peace :

Identifying Emotions: Teach emotional regulation to manage strong emotions constructively and identify what peace means for each student.
Accurate Self-Perception : Encourage reflection on how actions affect others to foster empathy and tolerance in relationships.
Recognizing Strengths: Promote a positive identity by helping students recognize their unique strengths and talents.
Self-Confidence : Teach assertive expression of thoughts and needs while respecting others' rights and boundaries.
Self-Efficacy: Empower students to make a positive difference in their community by addressing bullying, discrimination, and conflict resolution.

Self-Management for Peace :

Impulse Control: Promote emotional regulation techniques to manage impulsive reactions and prevent conflicts.
Stress Management: Teach relaxation strategies to approach conflicts with a calmer mindset and foster peaceful resolutions.
Goal Setting: Guide students in setting conflict resolution goals to promote understanding and reconciliation.
Organizational Skills : Facilitate collaboration by teaching time management and effective communication .
Self-Motivation: Nurture intrinsic motivation to promote positive contributions to the community and celebrate meaningful actions.
Self-Discipline : Empower students with conflict resolution strategies to address conflicts calmly and assertively.

Social Awareness for Peace :

Perspective-Taking: Encourage considering situations from different viewpoints to promote empathy and understanding.
Empathy: Foster compassionate understanding by validating the emotions and experiences of others.
Appreciating Diversity: Celebrate and learn about diverse backgrounds and cultures to foster respect and unity.
Respect for Others: Model and reinforce respectful behavior to create a positive and supportive school climate.

Relationship Skills for Peace :

Communication : Teach effective communication skills to resolve conflicts and build positive relationships .
Social Engagement: Encourage participation in collaborative activities to develop empathy and mutual support .
Relationship Building: Foster positive connections through empathy , kindness, and respect.
Teamwork: Promote cooperation and shared decision-making to achieve common goals and build solidarity.

Responsible Decision-Making for Peace :

Identifying Problems: Teach proactive problem recognition to address conflicts before they escalate.
Analyzing Situations: Foster critical thinking to evaluate different perspectives and potential outcomes.
Solving Problems: Provide strategies for creative and nonviolent conflict resolution.
Evaluating: Encourage reflection on the effectiveness of decisions in promoting peace and well-being .
Reflecting: Promote self-awareness and introspection to align actions with principles of peace.
Ethical Responsibility: Teach ethical decision-making based on fairness, integrity, and respect for human dignity.

The essential district leader's handbook for integrating SEL into MTSS

Educating for peace is not merely a goal but a steadfast commitment; it requires unwavering faith and belief in the possibility of peace, knowing that if we can envision it, we can create it. As educators , our responsibility extends beyond the confines of traditional teaching methods. It necessitates a comprehensive approach that permeates every aspect of our curriculum and extracurricular activities , incorporating diverse skills, subskills , and perspectives.

We must recognize the crucial role of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) in this endeavor. SEL equips students with the tools to navigate complex emotions, build positive relationships , and resolve conflicts peacefully.

As Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkol Karman once said, “Peace does not just mean the end of war; it is also the end of oppression and injustice.” This quote poignantly reminds us that peace is not merely the absence of conflict but the presence of equity, fairness, and respect for all individuals.

As we reflect on our role in promoting peace, let us consider: What will our today's brick for peace look like? Our actions contribute to the collective effort to build a more peaceful and just world, reminding us that the seeds of peace in our classrooms, our communities , and beyond will shape the future we envision.

Kennedy, John F. " President Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University ." Delivered on June 10, 1963.
" With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts Since Second World War, United Nations Must Rethink Efforts to Achieve, Sustain Peace, Speakers Tell Security Council ." 26 Jan 2023. United Nations.
"UN, Education as the Path to Peace ." United Nations.
UNESCO Global Citizenship Education (GCED) .
TeachUNICEF.
Global Partnership for Peace Education (GPPAC).
International Institute on Peace Education (IIPE).
Peace Education Network.
Headspace.com - " Meditation for Anger. "

Suggested Viewing:

Subscribe to the UNESCO Courier . It is a free source for global education based on peace and cooperation.
Ebrahim, Zak. " I am the Son of a Terrorist. Here's How I Chose Peace ." TED, 2013.

Author: Paola Mileo

Posted: 22 Apr 2024

Estimated time to read: 23 mins

Learn more about Satchel Pulse in your district

Browse topics.

Social emotional learning (93)
School Climate (53)
Teacher Retention (30)
Behavior (23)

Subscribe to Email Updates

Success with skills.

Get tailored SEL skill-building for individual student needs and readiness.

Search Menu
Sign in through your institution
Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Why Submit?
About International Studies Perspectives
About the International Studies Association
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, teaching peace with critical pedagogy, critical theory practiced in the classroom, acknowledgement, re-imagining peace education: using critical pedagogy as a transformative tool.

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Christie Nicoson, Barbara Magalhães Teixeira, Alva Mårtensson, Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a Transformative Tool, International Studies Perspectives , 2023;, ekad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekad023

Permissions Icon Permissions

Existing studies demonstrate that although peace and conflict studies (PCS) emerged from a deep connection between political activism and research, the field has increasingly moved toward promoting liberal ideals of peace that sustain the status quo. Amidst this trend, many scholars have pushed research and education programs to explore beyond a hegemonic liberal peace, for example by diversifying reading lists and drawing on decolonial frameworks. This paper adds to such efforts: through the case study of a higher education PCS classroom, we use narratives from two course conveners and a student to explore challenges and opportunities of realizing a critical pedagogy approach to peace education. This approach recenters the classroom not necessarily in terms of what students ought to think, but how; critical theory provides a basis for fostering curiosity, using query as a tool of learning, and focusing class structure on students’ needs. Our findings suggest that using critical pedagogy in PCS addresses calls for a greater understanding of peace beyond the absence of violence, fosters active envisioning of peace, and works toward decolonizing and demystifying peace work. Ultimately, we call for PCS classrooms to foster critical thinking and radical imagination for a pedagogy of peace praxis.

Resumen : Los estudios existentes demuestran que, aunque los estudios en materia de paz y de conflictos (PCS, por sus siglas en inglés) surgieron de la profunda conexión existente entre el activismo político y la investigación, este campo se ha ido dirigiendo, cada vez en mayor medida, hacia la promoción de ideales liberales de paz que contribuyen a sostener el statu quo. En medio de esta tendencia, muchos académicos han impulsado programas de investigación y educación con el fin de poder estudiar más allá de una paz liberal hegemónica mediante, por ejemplo, la diversificación de las listas de lectura o recurriendo a marcos decoloniales. Este artículo se suma a estos esfuerzos: a través del estudio de caso de un aula de PCS de educación superior, utilizamos las narrativas de dos coordinadores del curso y de un estudiante con el fin de estudiar los desafíos y oportunidades derivados de llevar a cabo un enfoque pedagógico crítico en materia de educación para la paz. Este enfoque centra la atención en el aula, pero no necesariamente en términos de lo que los estudiantes deben pensar, sino de cómo deben pensarlo. La teoría crítica proporciona una base para fomentar la curiosidad, para utilizar las consultas como herramienta de aprendizaje y para enfocar la estructura de la clase en las necesidades de los estudiantes. Nuestras conclusiones sugieren que el uso de la pedagogía crítica en los PCS aborda aquellas demandas relativas a una mayor comprensión de la paz más allá de la ausencia de violencia, fomenta la visión activa de la paz y trabaja hacia la descolonización y desmitificación del trabajo por la paz. En última instancia, hacemos un llamamiento a que las aulas de los PCS fomenten el pensamiento crítico y la imaginación radical con el objetivo de alcanzar una pedagogía de la praxis de la paz.

Résumé : Les études existantes montrent que bien que les études relatives à la paix et aux conflits (EPC) soient nées d'une connexion profonde entre l'activisme politique et la recherche, la discipline tend de plus en plus à promouvoir les idéaux libéraux de paix qui entretiennent le statu quo. Face à cette tendance, de nombreux chercheurs ont poussé les programmes de recherche et d’éducation à s'aventurer au-delà de la paix libérale hégémonique, par exemple en diversifiant les listes de lecture et en s'appuyant sur les cadres de décolonisation. Cet article vient renforcer ces efforts : par le biais de l’étude de cas d'une salle de classe d'EPC de l'enseignement supérieur, nous utilisons les récits de deux organisateurs de cours et d'un étudiant pour examiner les défis et opportunités liés à la concrétisation d'une approche pédagogique critique de l’éducation à la paix. Cette approche recentre la salle de classe pas nécessairement en termes de ce que les étudiants devraient penser, mais de comment ils le devraient : la théorie critique offre une base pour encourager à la curiosité, en utilisant la question comme outil d'apprentissage et en concentrant la structure de cours sur les besoins des étudiants. Nos conclusions indiquent que l'utilisation de la pédagogie critique en EPC répond aux demandes d'enrichissement de la compréhension de la paix au-delà de l'absence de violence, encourage une conception active de la paix et œuvre en faveur de la décolonisation et de la démystification de l'action pacifique. En définitive, nous appelons les salles de classe d'EPC à encourager la pensée critique et l'imagination radicale en vue d'une pédagogie de la pratique de la paix.

Over time, the once exciting idea of finding the key to world peace started to feel childish. However, when I eventually realized I actually do not know how to imagine positive peace or the way there, it left me puzzled. Why is it so hard for me, a peace student, to articulate a vision? (A)

The above reflection from Alva's last exam as a peace and conflict studies (PCS) student inspired us to question the challenges of learning and practicing peace in formal higher education. Students’ motivation to build peace is often met with some level of amusement; despite researchers’ most ardent convictions of contributing to positive change in society, the loss of such rosy dreams is often dismissed as necessary “maturity”—that as students grow and learn, they adjust expectations of changing the world. We argue, however, that the loss of tenderness, hope, and imagination experienced in PCS classrooms is symptomatic of the way academic programs and the research field have evolved and deserves considered (re-)insertion in pedagogy.

While PCS emerged with deep connections between political activism and research, the field has moved away from the radical transformation of society, instead promoting liberal ideals that sustain the status quo. In a context of increasingly neoliberalized higher education, PCS has become depoliticized and directed toward treating symptoms of conflict, rather than dismantling foundations of oppression and inequality ( Byrne et al. 2018 ; Lottholz 2018 ). A gap between practitioners and theorists yields closed knowledge production in academia vis-à-vis solutions brought to “distressed communities” ( Ragandang 2021 ). In this context, we ask, why do we study peace? And for what?

This paper presents a self-reflective case study of a PCS course to explore the challenges and opportunities of realizing such an approach in a higher education classroom. We conclude that critical pedagogy can help re-center classrooms on students rather than content, demystify peace work as something that happens solely in the Global South, and challenge the depoliticization of the classroom. This pedagogy further poses benefits to PCS research through addressing calls for a greater understanding of peace beyond the absence of violence, active envisioning of peace, and decolonizing peace as a Eurocentric practice. Ultimately, we contribute to a growing movement that calls for PCS and International Relations (IR) classrooms to be a place for the exploration of liberation and social change, and for the development of critical thinking and radical imagination toward a peace praxis that calls into question the status quo of pedagogical structures. Our approach centers the classroom not necessarily in terms of what students ought to think, but how ( Tickner 2020 ).

Peace in the 21 st Century: Critical Perspectives on Violence, Justice, and Peace is a 4-week, 7.5 credit elective in the PCS Bachelor's program at Lund University in Sweden. The authors of this paper participated in the course: Barbara and Christie, doctoral candidates, who study and teach in peace and political science classrooms, designed and led the course; and Alva, the recent graduate, participated as a student. The course comprises three lectures focused on core theories and five seminars on specific themes, with assessment via participation and a written exam. This paper studies the first iteration of the course in 2022. The classroom comprised eight students—all women, Swedish, and PCS program students. Enrollment opened late due to delays partially connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning no international students applied. The 3-year PCS program draws instructors from the fields of social science, humanities, and law. Courses cover dynamics of war, politics, and peacebuilding, with topics such as democratization, conflict management and transformation, human rights, and environmental issues.

Our case study analysis consists of novel empirical data collected during and after completion of the course. We analyze course design materials such as the syllabus, planning documents, and classroom materials created and provided by teachers. We also analyze a variety of reflective materials. Alva's final exam, a personal narrative, provides a primary source. After the course, each author journaled individual reflections, recalling impressions and classroom experiences. These narratives compose collective reflections while honoring individual perspectives. We also draw data from anonymous student evaluations given at the conclusion of the course. 1 Additionally, we include input about course structure, workload, and content gathered through discussions held during seminars one-third of the way through, at the mid-point, and the end of the course. In the final course meeting, Barbara and Christie invited course participants to join a collective project of pedagogic reflection, which resulted in this paper. All students gave consent to have their course participation included; only Alva volunteered to join the project and therefore provides more specific student-perspective data.

The paper reflects and remains constrained by how our individual power, privileges, and ideas connect to economic, social, and cultural background, beliefs, and biases ( Ackerly and True 2010 ). All three co-authors on this paper are women, trained in Swedish PCS classrooms (Barbara and Christie for MSSc degrees and Alva a BA), who work with PCS predominantly in English. Alva from Sweden, Christie from United States, and Barbara from Brazil come from privileged backgrounds with access to higher education and stable fulfillment of basic needs. Writing this paper, Alva particularly acknowledges the privilege of her own reflections and progress in Peace in the 21 st Century are made possible by her financial stability. We push ourselves to expand and use critical lenses in our ongoing study and work, but constantly face limitations in our ways of expressing, knowing, and relating as well as realities of working within an institution based upon and prioritizing Western ways of knowing, foci, and outcomes within the broader academic system. Furthermore, while participating in classroom discussions about the problems of West-centric peace practices, we remain part of that system and must consider our own positionalities continuously so as not to claim other people's voices or slip into ideas of being “above” or disconnected from the issues at hand.

This paper reviews pedagogical challenges in PCS higher education and describes key aspects of critical pedagogy in relation to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL). We then present empirical material detailing the course structure and including narratives of physical and emotional experiences from each of the three authors. These underpin the theoretical argumentation and continually connect our positionalities, classroom experiences, and the broader field. We conclude with impressions and implications of critical pedagogy in peace education as a means of working toward an alternative peace praxis.

“Peace” Emerging within and Beyond Academia

Many identify the inception of peace studies amidst post-WWII peace activism and the emergence of modern social science ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 ; Krause 2019 ). Aims of radical social transformation marked the field, combining a theoretical understanding with normative commitments of building peace (e.g., Addams et al. [1906] ; Galtung 1969 ; Hettne 2001 ). The scholarship included armed violence but also explored how these material manifestations connect to structural violence such as poverty and inequality, as well as culturally violent norms and values like colonialism, Eurocentrism, patriarchalism, racism, etc. Research identified and sought to negate deeply rooted structures of violence and segregating values and norms.

As peace studies grew, it increasingly separated research and teaching from politics and activism, leaving early praxis relatively marginalized ( Krause 2019 ). In the 1970s and 1980s, many researchers feared connections with practices of peace and anti-war movements would “give peace research a bad name” and “discredit the scientific mode” ( Singer 1976 , 124). In efforts to further establish and maintain “academic respectability,” the field favored peace research as “science,” following trends in social sciences toward positivist explanations of social phenomena ( Krause 2019 , 293). In parallel, many universities and research centers adopting peace studies saw “conflict” as a more established academic concept and thus favored the double qualification of “peace and conflict studies” ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 , 147). Positivist approaches and a focus on conflict, rather than peace per se, dominates contemporary PCS ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 ; Bright and Gledhill 2018 ).

Beyond academia, concepts of peace and peacebuilding gained traction with the UN and other multinational agencies and international financial organizations and underwent further (re)interpretation through Western ideals of modernization and progress. Peace efforts became increasingly aligned with dominant systems, complying with and sustaining violent projects of resource extraction and economic growth ( Hettne 2001 ; Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ). Discourses on peace and development became entwined: rather than focusing on liberation from oppression and violence, peace efforts upheld and reproduced dominating and exploitative structures ( Magalhães Teixeira forthcoming ).

While many scholars and practitioners recognize problems with liberal ideas of peace and challenge this hegemon, there remains a largely instrumentalist approach to peace. Lottholz (2018 , 697) observes that the “peace writing industry” enables a universalist ontology catered toward an industry of peacebuilding and dominant values of free market capitalism, ironically distracting from everyday struggles in conflict-affected contexts. These models neither account for nor address colonial violences of the past nor those persisting today ( Byrne et al. 2018 ). Lottholz (2018 , 697) argues that this ultimately “may render it [peace studies] complicit in the instantiation of negative and imperial forms of peace.” Critical voices within PCS and IR more widely urge engagement beyond conflict or the study of overt wars and physical violence, to center mundane “everyday” experiences of peace in order to more comprehensively understand and address conditions of violence and peace (e.g., Cruz and Fontan 2014 ; Väyrynen 2019 ; Wibben et al. 2019 ; Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ; Parrado Pardo 2020 ). A gap emerges in terms of (re)producing dominant worldviews and limiting ways of understanding and practicing peace.

Classrooms for Peace, to What End?

To what end then does education in PCS aim, and are such goals achievable through prevailing teaching methods? Critical IR scholars point out that the means of teaching shape international affairs, not least through the training of professionals, leaders, and teachers ( Frueh et al. 2021 ; Hornsby and Grant 2021 ). Broadly speaking, IR syllabi, classroom design, and pedagogic choices lack diversity and follow a mainstream Global North canon ( Andrews 2022 ). A study on PCS in Western and especially North American higher education shows centering privatization, deregulation of institutes, free-market economics, and the promotion of the entrepreneurial self as strategies for peace ( Kester 2017 ). Such teaching privileges rational discourse and Western epistemologies as the foundation of knowledge ( Fúnez-Flores 2022 ) and takes place amidst the neoliberalization of higher education, where classrooms are increasingly progress-driven through market values. This constrains education programs and leads to feelings of isolation and competition, ultimately hindering student growth as critical thinkers ( Giroux 2019 , 240) by “restricting the intimacy necessary for deep engagement with critical perspectives, such as anti-oppressive practice” ( Preston and Aslett 2014 , 504).

Furthermore, it has been shown that peace education largely emphasizes psychosocial and technocratic processes while missing broader social issues such that learning may in fact perpetuate inequalities and harm ( Hajir and Kester 2020 ). In many classrooms, closed and nonreflexive teaching streamlines student demonstration of acquiring textbook knowledge ( Kertyzia 2022 , 177–9). This acts to “discipline” learners: excluding pioneers and forcing students into coherence, leading to boredom and distortion of the messy reality of peace and conflict issues ( Sjoberg 2017 , 163–5). Such “passive curricula” focuses on “the what” over “the how” and fails to prepare students for life beyond the classroom ( Smith and Yahlnaaw 2021 , 39).

This state of pedagogy in higher education for peace studies holds implications for not only what students learn, but the ways in which they do so. As Roohi ( Wibben et al. 2019 , 90) explains, “to study peace (and its multiple meanings—or the lack thereof—or to provide a critique of existing traditions of “studying peace”), we must avoid replication of set precedents as they are confined by hegemonizing impulses within peace studies.” Strategies to bring alternatives in balance with current mainstream teaching approaches often center around attention to power relations between ways of knowing, perspectives included, and dynamics in the classroom. Such efforts moreover recognize that teaching is never neutral, but value-laden, and ask scholars to rethink classrooms and curricula as political ( Smith and Hornsby 2021 ).

Existing efforts with critical pedagogy challenge neoliberalizing processes that otherwise increasingly isolate and draw divides between students and teachers, academics and activists ( Mott et al. 2015 ). IR has seen growing attention to power imbalances and perpetuation of violence in pedagogy. Wemheuer-Vogelaar and colleagues (2020 , 18) urge that “IR courses should sensitize students to geo-epistemological biases and epistemic violence while allowing for a collective reflection on the discipline.” Educators of critical PCS focus on inquiry, shaping classrooms for questions and generation of new processes, rather than a space for defining answers ( Bajaj 2015 , 160). Such approaches to help students understand multiple viewpoints and develop critical thinking skills work best through centering student needs ( Kertyzia 2022 , 179). With this focus, the teachers’ role also transforms: instructors adopt an active role sharing experiences and reflecting on their own positionality as a means to build knowledge and skills and to explore different behaviors and worldviews that promote peace ( Bajaj 2015 , 155; Kertyzia 2022 ).

In this line, existing studies explore creative, reflexive ways to break from closed systems (e.g., Bittencourt 2021 ; Tavares de Oliveira 2021 ). As Confortini (2017 , 85) argues, “in order to be relevant, transformative, and rebellious, IR theory must be prefigurative: it must remain connected with an ‘emancipatory outcome’”; prefigurative IR theory helps classroom participants enact visions and think outside traditional teaching. For example, Ling (2017 , 141) builds on Buddhist practices of making space for irreverence, questioning, creativity, and playfulness; she suggests “kōanizing IR” to emancipate the field politically, intellectually, and spiritually, and to move away from foci of parsimony, rigor, and autonomy. Undisciplining IR, Sjoberg (2017 , 166–7) suggests fantasy as a tool of “thinking without a net,” moving beyond singularity and exclusion, asking students to question teaching itself. Other recent interventions push for “doing IR as if people mattered” and explore joy in teaching and studying IR (e.g., Krystalli 2021 ; Särmä 2021 ). Wibben ( Wibben et al. 2019 , 103) highlights that a curriculum leading with utopias and peace, rather than violence and conflict, provides a means for moving beyond pessimism, reflecting that “if we don't make an active effort to imagine what an alternative, peaceful society would look like, we are less likely to realize that another world is not only possible but can be enacted.”

Building on these foundations of critique and examples of existing critical pedagogic approaches, we join in creating an active and creative PCS environment to stimulate transformative peace action. We see peace education itself as a praxis; teaching PCS is not neutral, nor can or should it be seen as removed from experiences and practices of peace. Building on feminist and decolonial perspectives, we explore how a critical pedagogy rooted in praxis can foster curiosity and critical questioning. By shaking the status quo, we argue that students become more engaged and empowered as active “peacebuilders” within and beyond the classroom.

Scholars increasingly highlight that an uncritical peace education may (however unintentionally) reproduce hegemonizing ideas and prescriptive strategies that normalize different forms of violence built into societal structures ( Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ). Critical PCS recenters transformational potential through supporting students to be strong scholars who practice “doing” peace. In this section, we construct a theoretical framework that aligns normative commitments of peace studies with propositions of critical pedagogy.

We follow the scholarship of bell hooks (1994 ) and Paulo Freire (2017 , [1970] ), using critical pedagogy that challenges students and teachers to dismantle oppressive and violent systems in practice and processes of reflection. We apply this in PCS through three independent but intertwined ideas rooted in SOTL. First, we draw on the idea of engaged pedagogy , which centers learning processes around students’ active participation and learning and moves away from a “banking” system of education with teachers as fountains of knowledge and students as empty buckets ( Freire 2017 [1970] ). Second, we use discomfort to unpack classroom processes in unraveling central concepts and theories. Finally, we embed classroom discussions in the idea of praxis as a tool to transform teaching about peace and activate education in processes of transformation. We discuss each of these in relation to SOTL tools and strategies to facilitate deep learning (e.g., Trigwell 2006 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ). Figure 1 visualizes this: these core course design components appear in the center, with the second-tier circle identifying components of these, to be discussed in the following subsections. The outer-most circle presents themes from analyzing the design and experiences of the course: a caring classroom model, practicing reflexivity , and envisioning peace . We explore these themes in Section 3.

Critical pedagogy design and outcomes in a PCS classroom.

Engaged Pedagogy

A critical pedagogy approach necessitates (re)structuring learning around engagement between teachers and students. bell hooks (1994 ) deconstructs the idea that solely teachers hold responsibility for classroom dynamics. “Engaged pedagogy” entails education as a practice of freedom that invites both students and teachers to share, be empowered, and grow ( hooks 1994 ). This process cannot be actualized if teachers are encouraging students to take risks, but are not willing to do the same. When teachers engage in bringing narratives of their own lived experiences or personal interrogations into the classroom, it demystifies the view of the teacher as all-knowing and all-encompassing, in opposition with students. Instead, the classroom becomes a communal space for knowledge production. Students join teachers in maintaining a creative learning environment, reflecting and theorizing in connection with their own lived experiences to build confidence in sharing their constant and unfinished process of reasoning.

A constructivist theory of knowledge sees learning shaped as part of a greater whole such that “knowledge and understanding are based on experience and are not regarded as something that can just be transferred from teachers to students” ( Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 , 42). This “deep approach” involves an intention to understand rather than simply complete a requirement, and yields higher quality learning outcomes ( Trigwell 2006 ). Moreover, Freire (2017 [1970] ) urges moving away from a “banking” concept of education, where the teacher and the student are understood as opposites. To Freire (2017 [1970] ), this projects “absolute ignorance” onto the students and reproduces classroom subordination and hierarchy. This dichotomizes people/world and suppresses opportunities or abilities to change oppressive structures. In contrast, a “problem-posing” model of education sees knowledge as co-created and challenged at all stages (Freire 2017 [1970]). By breaking the teacher/student dichotomy of knowledge provider/receiver, the learning process emerges dialectically rather than unilaterally.

Bringing these perspectives to peace studies allows learners to question static understandings of peace and violence, and the separation between academia and the “real world.” Ways of teaching PCS that reproduce the “banking” method of education directly or indirectly reinforce fatalistic views of the world. An engaged pedagogy approach, meanwhile, allows students and teachers to engage in deep theoretical and conceptual discussions, and to reimagine how these processes came about from a political and historical perspective. This depends on fostering curiosity, the use of query as a tool of learning, and teaching that focuses on student needs. Reardon writes, “the sequence and mode of instruction most effectively emerge from the learners’ question, ‘What does this subject have to do with me, my life and the society in which I live?’” ( Reardon and Snauwaert 2011 , 6). Thus, teaching is not necessarily a matter of what students ought to think, but how .

As discussed above, a critical approach to PCS aims to disrupt power relations and foster a deeper understanding of violence and social transformations. Achieving this necessitates engaging with underlying coloniality in how concepts are learned or taught, complicity with a violent hegemony, and personal roles in transformation ( Hajir and Kester 2020 ). A pedagogy of discomfort gives students an opportunity to question their own worldviews and assumptions, creating possibilities for growth, compared to retreats to comfortable, safe spaces ( Davis and Steyn 2012 ; Felman 2013 ). Here, we draw on the tool of activating prior knowledge . SOTL demonstrates that students’ prior knowledge affects how they learn, in terms of sufficient prior knowledge needed to move forward, inaccurate knowledge, or through strengthening appropriate associations. Furthermore, students “learn more readily when they can connect what they are learning to what they already know” ( Ambrose et al. 2010 , 18). This enables engaging with discomfort, since prior knowledge attained both within and beyond classrooms shape how students process and relate to new material. This opposes the banking form of education that separates students’ own experiences and prior knowledge from learning processes. Activating prior knowledge thereby provides an important source of leverage or a vantage point from which to contextualize knowledge and explore the limits and potentials of different research paradigms.

In addition, the tools of practice and feedback complement processes of discomfort. Critical course content may challenge deeply personal perspectives, assumptions, or blind spots. In asking students to engage with this discomfort, an encouraging environment couples practice with targeted, low-stakes feedback. As we introduce new material (concepts, theories, cases) and skills (summarizing, analyzing, critiquing), opportunities for students to apply what they learn and receive feedback help them retain knowledge and build skills ( Ambrose et al. 2010 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ). Teachers and peers give feedback throughout the course, including through discussion of assessment criteria and how to use feedback. The practice-feedback cycle provides lower-stakes contexts for students to explore the discomfort of questioning assumptions, challenging a status quo, or venturing beyond their zones of comfort.

Through a critical pedagogy for peace education, we aim not only to employ the concepts and tools for education but also to center the relationship between theory and praxis. Freire (2017 [1970] , 126) defines praxis as the combination of theory with both reflection and action directed at the transformation of structures. Praxis holds it impossible to only discuss processes of transformation from a purely intellectual perspective—it must be grounded in action. In the same way, action cannot be limited to pure activism, but requires grounding in theoretical reflection.

Praxis also helps promote intrinsic motivation , a key factor that “generates, directs, and sustains what [students] do to learn” and this can be stimulated in a variety of ways ( Ambrose et al. 2010 , 69). One approach for achieving this is in connecting classroom work to broader societal contexts or students’ future studies, and sharing of teachers’ own enthusiasm for relevant areas of study. Learning anchored in larger problems benefits student motivation and teacher skills in IR classrooms ( Brown and King 2000 ) and fosters deep learning in understanding ideas, seeking meaning, and encouraging dialogue ( Trigwell 2006 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ).

Finally, the classroom experience helps explore and utilize praxis as an educational tool. Widely accepted constructivist approaches to teaching and learning agree that individuals construct knowledge in relation to their own context, extending classroom environments and cultural communities ( Brown and King 2000 ). As praxis involves theory with action and reflection and further interlinks with the aspect of discomfort, we use class environment to encourage engagement with praxis. Fostering a welcoming and inclusive space entails care (or acts of love, as bell hooks instructs) and using varied methods to shape environments that are stimulating, challenging, and welcoming for all students. For example, classrooms may draw on a variety of media and teaching methods, practice flexibility, vary representation, or offer options for expression. Different activities facilitate particular outcomes and teaching methods, varying in suitability for each student’s needs ( Haggis 2006 ; CAST 2018 ). For example, using teaching materials like songs, poems, or visual art could stimulate learning outcomes differently and also engage students and teachers in practices of active reflection. Using different learning styles provides an opportunity for praxis in the classroom.

To illustrate and analyze critical pedagogy in the classroom, we examine Peace in the 21 st Century , presented in the introduction. The case study draws on two streams of empirics: course design materials and experiences of course participants—both teachers and students. Our analysis describes and reflects on interweaving theoretical bases and practical strategies of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis from critical pedagogy and SOTL. Table 1 summarizes implementation: teaching and learning activities (TLAs) listed in column 1 receive a mark across the row for which strategies each implements. We also include activities not associated with these specific strategies, but that direct uni- or multi-structural phases of learning, marked as “other.”

TLA strategies in relation to theoretical framework

.	Engaged pedagogy .		Discomfort .			Praxis .		.
.	Communal space .	Problem-posing .	Activating knowledge .	Practice .	Feedback .	Motivation .	Environment .	Other .

Assigned, independent reading	x		x					x
Teacher-led visual and oral presentations, including text excerpts, art, and sharing experiences from research, motivations, challenges, etc.						x		x
Small group discussions: relate pre-existing knowledge to new material			x	x			x
Mentimeter poll: generate word clouds (lecture 3)			x
Concept maps (lecture 1)			x
Criteria activity: students and teachers develop criteria for giving and receiving feedback on seminar presentations (lecture 2)	x	x		x	x	x	x
“Muddiest point” paper (lecture 3)			x	x		x	x

Group discussions: witnessing violence, injustice, peace “close to home”	x	x	x	x		x
Group presentations: summarizing and analyzing an article of their choice (seminar 1, 2); teacher feedback	x	x		x	x			x
Group presentations: apply theory to a selected case (seminar 3, 5); peer, teacher feedback	x	x		x	x			x
Individual presentations: ideas for their final paper; teacher feedback (seminar 5)	x	x		x	x	x		x
Group activity: giving and receiving feedback, requiring analyzing peers’ work based on set criteria; each responds to feedback (seminar 3)	x	x	x	x	x	x
Art activity: create interpretation of critical discussion of peace and praxis using mixed media and later present their work to the class	x		x	x		x	x
Student-generated exam prompts: work in small groups (seminar 4)	x	x				x

Write individual paper: choose 1 prompt to interpret and respond to; teacher feedback			x	x	x	x

.	Engaged pedagogy .		Discomfort .			Praxis .		.
.	Communal space .	Problem-posing .	Activating knowledge .	Practice .	Feedback .	Motivation .	Environment .	Other .

Assigned, independent reading	x		x					x
Teacher-led visual and oral presentations, including text excerpts, art, and sharing experiences from research, motivations, challenges, etc.						x		x
Small group discussions: relate pre-existing knowledge to new material			x	x			x
Mentimeter poll: generate word clouds (lecture 3)			x
Concept maps (lecture 1)			x
Criteria activity: students and teachers develop criteria for giving and receiving feedback on seminar presentations (lecture 2)	x	x		x	x	x	x
“Muddiest point” paper (lecture 3)			x	x		x	x

Group discussions: witnessing violence, injustice, peace “close to home”	x	x	x	x		x
Group presentations: summarizing and analyzing an article of their choice (seminar 1, 2); teacher feedback	x	x		x	x			x
Group presentations: apply theory to a selected case (seminar 3, 5); peer, teacher feedback	x	x		x	x			x
Individual presentations: ideas for their final paper; teacher feedback (seminar 5)	x	x		x	x	x		x
Group activity: giving and receiving feedback, requiring analyzing peers’ work based on set criteria; each responds to feedback (seminar 3)	x	x	x	x	x	x
Art activity: create interpretation of critical discussion of peace and praxis using mixed media and later present their work to the class	x		x	x		x	x
Student-generated exam prompts: work in small groups (seminar 4)	x	x				x

Write individual paper: choose 1 prompt to interpret and respond to; teacher feedback			x	x	x	x

Experiences and outcomes of the course illustrate care as a central theme. The idea of “caring”—in terms of work to build and sustain oneself and relations with others—makes possible the critical thinking we call for as part of a re-imagined peace education. Discomfort played a key role in bringing PCS into our everyday lives, studying peace where we stand, and challenging or exploring each of our roles in learning about and practicing peace. To engage with discomfort necessitates space to make mistakes, try out ideas, or share uncertainties. Teachers not only expected students to share their uncertainties but also expressed their own challenges and hesitations, practicing empathy for learning as a nonlinear, constantly co-constructed process.

The course design included explicit “class care” foundations: designating space for open minds and respect; promoting well-being with regard to the amount of work, emotional labor, and processing of ideas as well as the added stress of studying during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and maintaining honest communication as grounds for exploring critical thinking. Teachers designed this element with consideration for criticism within the larger PCS Bachelor program. In 2022, a student newspaper reported particularly high pressure within the program that created an “unsustainable” study environment, noting that some students feel ashamed for not keeping up with the workload and others left the program due to stress ( Jönsson and Löthman 2022 ). The article conveys almost an echo-chamber feel, indicating student perceptions that feedback to instructors remains unaddressed in a meaningful way. As a student during this time, Alva perceived the competitiveness within the program as connected to the neoliberalization of higher education, sharing:

I feel like many students participate in the program to be prepared for and strive towards high-ranking positions within international organizations such as the UN, which is embedded in the liberal western order. This in turn colors the motivation to and focus of the studies. (A)

At the very least, this highlights that student needs remain an important and perhaps under-appreciated issue in PCS classrooms.

Utilizing engaged pedagogy in the design meant teachers engage with students in activities to build communal space and a safe environment for discomfort. For instance, Barbara describes a sense of empowerment through shared vulnerability among teachers and students:

[As a teacher,] I felt particularly connected with the students one time when we were discussing a very open question and one of the students said that they liked how I sometimes started my reflections or contribution in discussions with ‘I am not certain about this…’ or ‘I am not sure how I feel about this…’ because it allowed them to also have uncertainties and to express their own process of reasoning and learning inside the classroom. (B)

As this narrative demonstrates, teacher growth and empowerment enable an environment of care and help deconstruct dichotomies between teachers and students. Space to hesitate or volunteer “What I don't understand is. . .” kept discussions open and allowed for engagement with critical theory in messy and complicated processes of learning and unlearning.

Both teachers and students share classroom responsibilities of practicing care, producing knowledge, and bringing excitement to the learning environment. Alva reflects on her student perspective:

The classroom environment felt safe, kind, and open for learning and growth. But this did not result in flat discussions where everyone just agreed with each other, to avoid difficult emotions. On the contrary, it facilitated more open discussion, constructive feedback, and less fear of experiencing difficult emotions. (A)

Within this environment and in response to initial questions and tone set by the teachers, students contributed to the classroom environment in meaningful ways. Aside from active participation and dedication to studies, they provided feedback on teacher intentions, their well-being and workload, and maintained an open and safe environment for discussion. Students took part in creating course criteria related to classroom activities and shared their priorities for learning outcomes.

As the course dynamics started promoting deeper and longer discussions, we practiced specific skills. As the course proceeded, participants completed more complex tasks; for each TLA, teachers explained expectations and relevance for learning; all course participants continually refined goals for TLAs. Barbara reflects that this shifted the class atmosphere and environment:

I think a very important part of motivating students was that we as teachers always explained to the students why we were doing a specific activity, what we were expecting to get from it. Students can feel frustrated during class exercises when they don't understand how different activities can help in their education, but once we started explaining to the students the motivation behind every exercise, they felt more included in this process of learning. (B)

Practice activities coupled with targeted, low-stakes feedback. For instance; in the first seminar, students presented and received student feedback; in the next, students provided feedback, with teachers supplementing at the end. This activity provided feedback on students’ performance, and also strengthened their skills in giving and receiving feedback:

I remember a student sharing that they don't know what to do with feedback from teachers. I think part of this is the timing—most feedback comes as comments on the final exam rather than throughout a learning process. But also, when we did this exercise, I noticed that having to give feedback changed how students received feedback. It was less confrontational or defensive. They approached comments with humility and even gratitude. (C)

In another example, class participants practiced giving and receiving care during a check-in after the first third of the course. Teachers opened an informal conversation with students, sharing the plan for the rest of the course and inviting students to suggest changes. Students expressed great interest in the material, but shared a sense of overload and difficulty meeting course demands. Christie reflects on a moment during this conversation, of sitting in a feeling of vulnerability and practicing trust to respond to student needs:

As a teacher, I often feel I need to have all the answers and lay out a concrete plan for students. Now, they were more or less telling us our plan didn't work as they wanted, and not only that, they rejected our suggested change of plans and proposed their own! […] We had to trust that it was not simply a matter of being studious enough – committing the necessary hours to complete tasks—but in fact that the students wanted more time to engage with the material. (C)

As a result, teachers and students worked together to restructure the course. This involved cutting some seminar plans, reorganizing assignments, and designing new activities to allow more space for students to find and follow their own interests. After completion of the course, one participant reported in their anonymous evaluation that they felt “engaged, on track, and supported throughout,” another assessed the course as “stimulating, motivating, exciting,” and a third cited the “collaborative nature” as the most enjoyable aspects of the course. Evaluations also noted time for discussion and encouragement of critical assessment as important in their overall learning, and one remarked that the experience stood in contrast to other courses taken. Ultimately, the class design—created by teachers as well as students—resulted in richer discussions and greater well-being for participants.

Practicing Reflexivity

Initially, reflexivity was not a particular focus of the course, but through analyzing processes of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis from the course design, both students and teachers found reflexivity playing an important role. One implementation of this was through requiring students to read beyond traditional PCS literature, explore cases of violence “closer to home,” question their goals or role within peace education, and explore the limitations of this field. Barbara reflects,

Throughout my own studies I have always felt like there was a huge distance between students of PCS and the realities of peace work. My intention with designing this course was to break with the dichotomy that peacebuilding is only practiced in the Global South by international organizations from the Global North; that this is the only career path available for students to work with building peace. By broadening the idea of peace, violence, and justice, we wanted to shake student's preconceived ideas and to rethink these issues in their own countries/communities. (B)

In the course evaluations, students shared that they not only found the literature to be interesting and different to usual PCS encounters, but also “very captivating and genuinely enjoyable to read.”

To achieve this, activating prior knowledge played a key role. Activities throughout the course gauged what students already knew and connected coursework with prior knowledge as a means to clarify or adjust any weak or distorted understandings, as well as to strengthen retention and understanding of new material. We constantly referred back to concepts and theories that are central and PCS “canon,” and engaged in deep, critical discussion about how these concepts and theories operate, and the consequences or implications of using these. This design element led to discussions about how some ideas are conceptualized only with Global South countries and communities in mind, and implications of lacking explanatory power to understand phenomena of violence, injustice, and peace in the Global North. Participants deconstructed these concepts and theories to unpack “hidden” hegemonizing impulses.

Results of this materialized during the mid-way seminar when students worked in small groups to present case studies on racial injustices or indigenous movements. All students chose to focus on examples from their home country, Sweden. Students posed questions to each other and shared reflections that problematized both teacher and student positions within society and academia, historically and within national and community contexts. This led to challenging discussions about ethics in PCS from a perspective of positionality, rather than for example as a check-box completed for field study. We later connected this with Freire's “revolutionary futurity,” the idea that in order to create transformation in our societies, it is not enough to reflect on it intellectually, but it is also necessary to act upon the world. For Freire (2017 [1970] , 50), true solidarity requires acts of love “to affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce.” Engaging with positionality in theory, in this case through embodied intellectualizing, explored different personal and communal dimensions of solidarity.

Another class activity involves creating visual representations of peace, engaging participants more intimately in theorizing by raising questions about their own values, positions, privileges, etc. We used different materials to explore ideas and practice free expression in response to a series of prompts, including: “what does peace look like for you; who builds peace; and what would it look like to embody a critical praxis” (with art outcomes in Image 1 ). Some students created art together with a partner; others worked independently. This connects to problem posing as a tool in engaged pedagogy and taps into care and empathy, which draw us closer together through our own positionality. Students and teachers explored discomfort and demonstrated a willingness to learn from others, which pushed the boundaries of how we know peace as well as how we think and communicate ideas in relation to others. For example, in earlier class discussions, building peace referred to development work abroad; in these creations, peace is represented as resting, food, nature, no work, or freedom of form. Peace comes closer to home here, building on the qualitative difference of peace(s) rather than the absence of violence, as well as the constructive power of discomfort that engaged with questions of privilege or opportunity. Outcomes of this were multiple, as a student shares:

Using mixed media to envision peace.

At first, the exercise felt a bit silly. But when we got started, and in the reflection afterward, we learned a lot about the power and implications of what we had just done. It was not necessarily the physical result of the art session that was the most valuable outcome, although looking at the physical piece can be a good reminder of your visions. But for me, it was the agency in the act of thinking about my utopia, and the intuitiveness of choosing materials, colors and shapes. A trust in my own ideas. (A)

As encapsulated by hooks (1994 , 21), not only students but also teachers must grow and be empowered: “That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks. [. . .] When professors bring narratives of their experiences into classroom discussions it eliminates the possibility that we can function as all-knowing, silent interrogators.” For example, many exercises in class entailed working in small groups, where teachers joined as participants. From a student perspective, Alva reflects that in many classrooms, teachers operate from a position of expertise, watching or assisting students while they carry out exercises. Including teachers as learners in class exercises, instead,

was both a reminder that our teachers are also students, that no one is ever fully learned, and it flattened the classroom hierarchy in a way that felt liberating and respectful of everyone's learning journeys. (A)

Striving to dissolve hierarchies between teacher and learner allowed a dialectic of critical thinking. This is important because when we activate prior knowledge, this means we are not only recalling facts or existing knowledge but also engaging with it.

Finally, practicing reflexivity reveals another important takeaway from this case study regarding classroom hierarchies. Following the problem-posing model from Freire, the course design aims to move away from a “banking model” of education and dissolve hierarchies between students and teachers. Out of the class discussion to restructure part of the course, discussed previously, participants dedicated a seminar to co-designing the final exam. Teachers gave parameters on program requirements and provided alternative ideas and inspiration for different formats; the rest of the seminar left space for participant brainstorming and discussion. Despite engaging discussion, all participants struggled to explore possibilities within the exam assignment. From a teacher's perspective, this activity was more challenging than expected:

Exams and final papers are such an engrained part of the classroom experience, that when we asked students what they wanted to get from the exam, what they would like to see not only in terms of questions but also format, it was quite difficult to piece something together. In the end, most students chose to write a traditional paper in response to one of the prompts. (C)

In the end, students agreed to a format of responding to one of multiple exam prompts. During the seminar, they worked in groups to write prompts, which teachers later consolidated and posted in the online course portal. Beyond thinking “outside the box,” this example illustrates that challenging engrained classroom hierarchies requires deeper unsettling and unlearning for both teachers and students; doing so within an existing system certainly presents significant limitations. It was not only the students who struggled with how to approach the open exam task; teachers also questioned how to grade such an assignment fairly.

Overall, we assess that the problem-posing model was more successful with regard to the learning process. That is, while teachers held responsibility for convening the course and conducting relevant administrative tasks, students and teachers co-produced knowledge and exercised autonomy for example in choosing cases to research, speaking up about their priorities and interests, and contributing to critical discussion. However, unsettling other hierarchies that shape classroom experiences requires further stretching—perhaps through a program-wide effort—and brings us back to questioning what purpose breaking hierarchies serves and for whom.

Envisioning Peace

Finally, the design and implementation of this course related to the aspect of “envisioning” peace. We take steps toward this through using art in teaching materials. For example, we drew on publicly available images created by artists for use in social justice protest, teaching, and movements (e.g., art by Molly Costello 2 ). These images were used in their own right, rather than as representative or illustrative of something expressed in text. For example, art was projected on classroom screens as a means to open discussion and shape an atmosphere:

The lecture slides were filled with beautiful art. It was liberating to see that it is ok to express utopian or idealistic ideas about peace, that it is not something that does not belong in ‘serious classrooms’ (A).

The art enabled teachers and students to draw on visualizations as a means of fostering inspiration and creative thinking, to evoke powerful images of what could be , rather than relying only on, for instance, figures depicting rates of injustice or images of violence. The power of representation here also expands possibilities for what counts as knowledge and how we might express ideas.

As discussed under practicing reflexivity above, art as a medium for critical thinking was also used in TLAs to facilitate imagining and envisioning peace. Image 1 shows the outcomes of the art activity. Students and teachers worked from a prompt to create an artistic representation of their own understanding of peace and peace praxis, using materials of printed images, colored pens, colored paper, scissors, and glue and tape to create images on a piece of blank paper. The opportunity to work with physical material, producing something with our hands—using different parts of the body and media other than screens and keyboards moved our imaginations away from texts, academic references, etc. This pushed beyond “boxed-in” ideas of peace or definitions from textbooks, beyond the replication of established ideas. Students and teachers strived to create visual, independent thoughts and ideas. The artistic activity linked to theoretical creativity—opening up new ideas, exploring limitations of thought that we may not be conscious of, and working to actually picture how a “peaceful utopia” might look.

Using art in these different ways, we engage with theoretical ideas of peace and also the emotional component of learning and articulating peace. For example, peace was not only represented as an experience or material object (e.g., people in connection, bodies resting, etc.) but also expressed through the intentional use of different colors and forms. Art here provided a critical tool for the production of knowledge, sharing messages in a nonlinear way, and as an alternative means of expressing thoughts and emotions.

This tied to motivation as well, incorporated for example by using dialectic feedback, multimedia, flexibility in assignment formats, and independent choice in study topics. This provided a way to translate critical pedagogy into the dynamics of the classroom and in operationalizing tenants of the SOTL. This translated in the student experience, as demonstrated by course evaluation remarks praising the “collaborative nature of the course and how Barbara and Christie really facilitated open discussion” and marking high satisfaction with “the seminars and the encouragement from the teachers. I felt very included and encouraged to learn and participate.” Notably, however, despite teachers’ efforts to facilitate open discussions, there remained some desire from students for more structure. The openness of course activities also led to some repetition and although one participant praised how active students were allowed to be in the course, they also mention “the seminars and lectures were quite similar” and another writes, “I would have appreciated a bit more structure to guide the discussion, slightly more specific questions for example.”

The exam-design seminar focused on the collective decision of what skills and knowledge on which students wished to be graded and wanted to strengthen, as well as the teachers' objectives and expectations. This departed from more traditional formats and allowed for more creativity and deeper discussion of the course debates. For instance, Alva wrote a personal narrative format exam, and shares about her first experience including the first-person “I” in her paper:

I had never done this before, and found it liberating and empowering. I think that previously, […] I would have rather opted for already established links and conclusions because I was removed from the equation. Now I, very practically, felt like I had a voice. (A)

As discussed above, the open exam aligned well in theory, but in practice, it highlighted the need for integrating this practice more holistically. Christie reflects on, pointing to the potential for further strengthening teaching activities through deeper engagement with critical pedagogy:

I wonder about students who will not go into research or writing career. How do these exams serve them in their education and future endeavors, beyond passing a course at university? What can students expect to gain from such a task? What can teachers gain as students ourselves - is there a point to these exams beyond fulfilling a grade requirement? (C)

This narrative redirects to hooks's assertion that an engaged pedagogy classroom should meet student needs and foster communal space ( 1994 ). The open exam asked students to design questions as well as format. In the end, students reflected on the activity with mixed responses. In their course evaluation, one student praised that the exam “both tested my knowledge but also my ability to think independently” and another shared that “it was very nice to have a collaborative approach throughout the course, but especially with the exam.” A third student wished for it to be “more grounded in the actual course literature.” These responses highlight the challenges of critical pedagogy within a program and university context where training and expectations demand more narrow performances.

Finally, course activities that prompted participants to reconsider peace education, as we have attempted to do in this paper as well, move us a step further in asking “classrooms for peace, to what end?” and toward fostering radical imagination for a pedagogy of peace praxis. One student evaluated the course as providing a “chance to learn about things I did not know before;” another gained “new perspectives on peace.” These comments point to the benefits of critical course content as well as varied types of content. At the very least, we as teachers and students see increased critical thinking at a deep level among course participants. As a student, Alva adds:

Before this course, I had not been explicitly asked to envision peace in the PCS program. My understanding of peace revolved around what happens if “we” manage to “stop” war and violence. […] After the course, peace became center stage, personal, something I had agency in envisioning, something hopeful. It made me ask myself what I want to contribute with. (A)

To this point, Alva reflects on discussions with classmates, sharing that this course changed not only how they thought about and related to peace as a research topic and everyday phenomenon, but also prompted them to consider the next steps after graduating from the Bachelor program.

This case study illustrates the processes and outcomes of implementing critical pedagogy in a PCS classroom. Reviews and studies in PCS and IR demonstrate that dominant worldviews and teaching methods have shaped PCS as a field that (re)produces study programs, research, and practices along Western, liberal ways of knowing and envisioning peace. We contribute to this important discussion by demonstrating concrete techniques for moving beyond limited views of peace, responding to student needs, and developing critical thinking skills. Designed with components of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis, the course achieved a caring classroom, practiced reflexivity, and helped envision peace. These outcomes of the critical pedagogy shaped creative environments to stimulate transformative peace action within and beyond classrooms. This study, though presenting a single case and limited perspective, contributes to an emerging current of critical pedagogy in IR and PCS by providing concrete examples, discussing not only critical content (such as theory) but also diversity of media in teaching (for example varied types of activities and incorporation of art). The writing of this paper itself poses a pedagogical contribution. All three co-authors shaped a study dynamic that parallels the course in emphasizing care and well-being, demystifying and troubling hierarchies of knowledge production, and sharing loads of labor. Alva's participation in this project expands upon and contributes to critical debates about who holds and produces knowledge in the classroom as well as researcher/informant silos. Her engagement helps demonstrate an example of teacher-student collaboration toward the radical reimaging of peace education and research.

Reflections and rigorous study on the state of PCS teaching and learning hold implications for contributions to unique university environments, the future of academic peace research, and the implementation of peace programming or interventions. As Reardon and Snauwaert (2011 , 2–3) stress, “Starting from the long-held premise that peace education is education for responsible global citizenship, our task in general terms is educating toward political efficacy [. . .] intended to move the world toward the achievement of a more just and less violent global order.” Students of PCS therefore must continually engage with critical questioning on the role of classrooms: not only course content but the means by which knowledge is created and shared, as well as the connections made (or not) between theory, reflection, and practice.

These encouraging results are instructive also through their limitations. Largely self-reflective, author biases and positionalities bound this study. Not least, all three co-authors express happiness with the course and shared an interest in further reflection to write this paper. Varied input from participants would add much to understanding this instance of implementing critical pedagogy. Even with course evaluations, this study would have benefitted from specific reflections on TLA impacts throughout and after the course, for instance, to gauge fulfillment of participant needs and motivation. Moreover, additional research might focus on the interplay of critical pedagogy with more liberal PCS teaching, and implications for student and teacher experiences and learning as well as for the broader field of PCS.

We encourage further studies exploring critical pedagogy in different classroom contexts, detailing more long-term outcomes for both teachers and students, and connecting critical pedagogies directly with peace “in the field.” What limitations or challenges might this approach pose for educational institutions, individual teachers and students, or programmatic curricula? A deeper study could unpack implications and case-specificities of ethical considerations; for instance, (how) does sharing personal experiences or vulnerabilities trigger harm or good for participants? Are there more or less “safe” ways to implement engaged and critical pedagogies? More broadly, how does the method and content of critical pedagogy influence PCS as a field? Targeted case studies could provide much-needed insight on the impacts of critical pedagogy within the boundaries of “traditional” university settings. With this paper, we engage with and prompt further questions in the continuously developing field of PCS, taking our own classroom experiences as a stepping stone in this larger effort. Implications encourage greater engagement with student needs, both in terms of their experience in the classroom and paths after graduating; activation of reflexivity in teaching and studying peace; and incorporation of creativity in PCS.

We firstly thank the participants of the Peace in the 21 st Century course for creating knowledge, questioning limits, and critically examining what it means to build peace within and beyond the university. Your dedicated engagement and creativity make this pedagogic work possible. We also extend thanks to Lund University's Department of Political Science, especially Roxanna Sjöstedt, for supporting the development of this course, and to the anonymous reviewers and editors at ISP, as well as Carrie Reiling and other colleagues at the 2022 Peace Research in Sweden Conference for your support and generous comments that greatly strengthened this paper.

Data collection and handling took place in Sweden and thus fall under the purview of the Ethics Review Authority for research in Sweden. All identifiable content (quotes, names, positionality statements, personal reflections) are limited to those of the three co-authors. Other quotes and empirical material related to people stem only from anonymized sources such as course evaluations which do not contain identifiers. Because the data does not contain sensitive personal data, involve a physical or psychological intervention on a research subject, or uses biological material, the research does not require a decision from the Ethics Review Authority in Sweden.

Available at https://www.mollycostello.com/

Ackerly Brooke , True Jacqui . 2010 . Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science . London : Macmillan Education UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Addams Jane , Carroll Berenice A. , Fink Clinton F. . 2007 [1906] . Newer Ideals of Peace . Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press .

Ambrose Susan A. , Bridges Michael W. , DiPietro Michele , Lovett Marsha C. , Norman Marie K. . 2010 . How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Andrews Nathan. 2022 . “ The Persistent Poverty of Diversity in International Relations and the Emergence of a Critical Canon .” International Studies Perspectives . 23 : 425 – 49 .

Bajaj Monisha. 2015 . “ ‘Pedagogies of Resistance’ and Critical Peace Education Praxis .” Journal of Peace Education . 12 ( 2 ): 154 – 66 .

Bittencourt Rafael. 2021 . “ The Study Group Where I Find Myself .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 15 – 17 .

Bright Jonathan , Gledhill John . 2018 . “ A Divided Discipline? Mapping Peace and Conflict Studies .” International Studies Perspectives . 19 ( 2 ): 128 – 47 .

Brown Scott W. , King Frederick B. . 2000 . “ Constructivist Pedagogy and How We Learn: Educational Psychology Meets International Studies .” International Studies Perspectives . 1 : 245 – 54 .

Byrne Sean , Clarke Mary Anne , Rahman Aziz . 2018 . “ Colonialism and Peace and Conflict Studies .” Peace and Conflict Studies . 25 ( 1 ): 1-23.

CAST . 2018 . “ Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 .” Wakefield, MA. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_numbers-yes.pdf .

Confortini Catia. 2017 . “ Past as Prefigurative Prelude: Feminist Peace Activists and IR .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 83 – 97 .. London : Routledge .

Cruz Juan Daniel , Fontan Victoria . 2014 . “ Una mirada Subalterna y Desde Abajo de la cultura de paz .” Ra Ximhai . 10 ( 2 ): 135 – 52 .

Davis Danya , Steyn Melissa . 2012 . “ Teaching for Social Justice: Reframing some Pedagogical Assumptions .” Perspectives in Education . 30 ( 4 ): 29 – 38 .

Elmgren Maja , Henriksson Ann-Sofie . 2018 . Academic Teaching . 2nd ed. Lund : Studentlitteratur .

Felman Shoshana. 2013 . “ Education and Crisis, or the Vicissitudes of Teaching .” In Testimony , edited by Felman Shoshana , Laub Dori , 1 – 56 .. London : Routledge .

Freire Paulo. 2017 [1970] . Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York and London: Penguin Random House .

Frueh Jamie , Diehl Paul F. , Li Xiaoting , Gokcek Gigi , Kalpakian Jack , Vlcek William , Bower Adam et al. 2021 . “ Forum on Pedagogy: The Introductory Course in International Relations: Regional Variations .” International Studies Perspectives . 22 ( 2 ): 125 – 59 .

Fúnez-Flores Jairo I . 2022 . “ Decolonial and Ontological Challenges in Social and Anthropological Theory .” Theory, Culture & Society . 39 ( 6 ): 21 – 41 .

Galtung Johan. 1969 . “ Violence, Peace, and Peace Research .” Journal of Peace Research . 6 ( 3 ): 167 – 91 .

Giroux Henry A. 2019 . Henry A. Giroux: Education Should Not be Neutral , edited by França João . Truth Out, CCCB LAB . https://truthout.org/video/henry-a-giroux-education-should-not-be-neutral/ .

Gleditsch Nils Petter , Nordkvelle Jonas , Strand Håvard . 2014 . “ Peace Research—Just the Study of War? ” Journal of Peace Research . 51 ( 2 ): 145 – 58 .

Haggis Tamsin. 2006 . “ Pedagogies for Diversity: Retaining Critical Challenge amidst Fears of ‘Dumbing down .’” Studies in Higher Education . 31 ( 5 ): 521 – 35 .

Hajir Basma , Kester Kevin . 2020 . “ Toward a Decolonial Praxis in Critical Peace Education: Postcolonial Insights and Pedagogic Possibilities .” Studies in Philosophy and Education . 39 : 515 – 32 .

Hettne Björn. 2001 . “ Discourses on Peace and Development .” Progress in Development Studies . 1 ( 1 ): 21 – 36 .

Hooks Bell . 1994 . Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom . London : Routledge .

Hornsby David J. , Grant J. Andrew . 2021 . “ Teaching as a Form of Disrupting International Relations .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 9 – 23 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

Jaime-Salas Julio Roberto , Correal Diana Gómez , de Armiño Karlos Pérez , Herrera Fabio Saúl Castro , Marín Jefferson Jaramillo . 2020 . Paz Decolonial, Paces Insubordinadas: Conceptos, Temporalidades y Epistemologías.Collección Paz y Reconciliación . Santiago de Cali : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Cali .

Jönsson Linn , Löthman Lydia . 2022 . “ År av Konflikt på freds .” Lundagård , 11 March 2022. Accessed November 18, 2022. https://www.lundagard.se/2022/03/11/ar-av-konflikt-pa-freds/ .

Kertyzia Heather. 2022 . “ Peace Education .” In The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace , edited by Standish Katerina , Devere Heather , Suazo Adan , Rafferty Rachel , 167 – 94 .. Singapore : Springer .

Kester Kevin. 2017 . “ The United Nations, Peace, and Higher Education: Pedagogic Interentions in Neoliberal Times .” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies . 39 ( 3 ): 235 – 64 .

Krause Keith. 2019 . “ Emancipation and Critique in Peace and Conflict Research .” Journal of Global Security Studies . 4 ( 2 ): 292 – 8 .

Krystalli Roxanne. 2021 . “ Of Loss and Light: Teaching in the Time of Grief .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 41 – 44 .

Ling L. H. M. 2017 . “ Don't Flatter Yourself: World Politics As We Know It is Changing and So Must Disciplinary IR .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 135 – 46 .. London : Routledge .

Lottholz Philipp. 2018 . “ Critiquing Anthropological Imagination in Peace and Conflict Studies: From Empiricist Positivism to a Dialogical Approach in Ethnographic Peace Research .” International Peacekeeping . 25 ( 5 ): 695 – 720 .

Magalhães Teixeira Barbara. 2023 . “ Room to Grow and the Right to Say No: Theorizing the Liberatory Power of Peace in the Global South .” 9th International Degrowth Conference, Zagreb, 30 August 2023.

Pedagogy Critical , Mott Carrie , Zupan Sandra , Debbane Anne-Marie , R.L. 2015 . “ Making Space for Critical Pedagogy in the Neoliberal University: Struggles and Possibilities .” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies . 14 ( 4 ): 1260 – 82 .

Parrado Pardo , Paola Erika . 2020 . “ Pistas Conceptuales en Torno a la Paz desde una Perspectiva decolonial .” In Paz Decolonial, Paces Insubordinadas: Conceptos, Temporalidades y Epistemologias , edited by Jaime-Salas Julio Roberto , Correal Diana Gómez , Pérez de Armiño Karlos , Calero Sandra Liliana Lodoño , Herrera Fabio Saúl Castro , Jaramillo Marín Jefferson . Santiago de Cali: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Cali .

Preston Susan , Aslett Jordan . 2014 . “ Resisting Neoliberalism from within the Academy: Subversion through an Activist Pedagogy .” Social Work Education . 33 ( 4 ): 502 – 18 .

Ragandang Primitivo Cabanes . 2021 . “ What Are They Writing for? Peace Research as an Impermeable Metropole .” Peacebuilding . 10 ( 3 ): 265 – 77 .

Reardon Betty , Snauwaert Dale . 2011 . “ Reflective Pedagogy, Cosmopolitanism, and Critical Peace Education for Political Efficacy: A Discussion of Betty A. Reardon's Assessment of the Field .” In Factis Pax . 5 ( 1 ): 1 – 14 .

Särmä Saara. 2021 . “ How Do We Make IR More Joyful? ” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 35 – 40 .

Singer J. David . 1976 . “ An Assessment of Peace Research .” International Security . 1 ( 1 ): 118 – 37 .

Sjoberg Laura. 2017 . “ Undisciplined IR: Thinking without a Net .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 159 – 69 .. London : Routledge .

Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. . 2021 . “ Introduction: Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption and Pandemic .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 1 – 7 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

Smith Heather A. , Yahlnaaw . 2021 . “ Disruption as Reconciliation: Lessons Learned when Students as Partners Become Students as Teachers .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 37 – 48 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

de Oliveira Vinícius Tavares . 2021 . “ In the End It's all Ismália: A Story of Three Stories .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 22 – 25 .

Tickner Arlene B. 2020 . “ War and conflict .” In International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference , edited by Tickner Arlene B. , Smith Karen , 115 – 38 .. London : Routledge .

Trigwell Keith . 2006 . “ An Analysis of the Relations between Learning and Teaching approaches .” In Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Contexts , edited by Crowther Jim , Sutherland Peter , 108 – 16 .. London : Routledge .

Väyrynen Tarja. 2019 . “ Mundane Peace and the Politics of Vulnerability: A Nonsolid Feminist Research Agenda .” Peacebuilding . 7 ( 2 ): 146 – 59 .

Wemheuer-Vogelaar Wiebke , Peters Ingo , Kemmer Laura , Kleinn Alina , Linke-Behrens Luisa , Mokry Sabine . 2020 . “ The Global IR Debate in the classroom .” In International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference , edited by Tickner Arlene B. , Smith Karen , 17 – 37 .. London : Routledge .

Wibben Annick T. R. , Confortini Catia , Roohi Sanam , Aharoni Sarai B. , Vastapuu Leena , Vaittinen Tiina . 2019 . “ Collective Discussion: Piecing-Up Feminist Peace Research .” International Political Sociology . 13 ( 1 ): 86 – 107 .

Month:	Total Views:
November 2023	481
December 2023	183
January 2024	172
February 2024	169
March 2024	158
April 2024	175
May 2024	149
June 2024	118
July 2024	94
August 2024	67

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1528-3585
Print ISSN 1528-3577
Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

What is peace education exactly and why do we need it?

When I started my peace education journey, I barely knew what this syntagma meant. I was very versed and knowledgeable about the education part and the nuances of teaching, but the peace part, and especially the combination of peace and education was quite new to me. So, I was learning while working and immersing myself into peacebuilding in my postwar, still very conflicted country of Bosnia & Herzegovina.

In the process I discovered something called facilitation and being a facilitator, being someone who eases the process of learning and who facilitates learning space, instead of “instilling the knowledge into the heads of my participants”. I grew up and I was educated in a very traditional teacher-oriented system, where the teachers are the sole authority who possess all the knowledge. Of course there were some quite bright, but rare examples of the teachers and professors who were actually facilitators, who were leading us through the process of learning and working “out of the box”.

Over time peace education became my passion, and I even enrolled in another MA (Interreligious Studies and Peacebuilding) to enhance my knowledge on the peace and interfaith part of this equation. Now that I have more than 7 years of experience in my head, heart and hands I cannot but notice that peace education is still a very contested notion. Many things are being put under this umbrella term, people who work in the field are not always taken seriously as they should be, peace in general is taken for granted and all the efforts of countless people who work in the field are not emphasized and appreciated enough.

This article aims to bring a bit more clarity to this term, through a small desk research on the existing bibliography on peace education. Also, as someone who has been working for 7 years in the peace education sector, I want us to be clear that we know what we are talking about when we say that we are peace educators, since this discipline deserves more attention and much more credibility than it has been given to it. Let us begin with how and when peace education efforts started and later on we will focus on a description of peace education and contents of it, which will help us to understand branches of this type of education.

The term peace education can be traced back to the 17th century and Czech educator (pedagogue) named Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius), but the term and movement of peace education got its prominence and flourished with famous Italian educator Maria Montessori at the beginning of the 20th century. It is worth mentioning that way before the two of them, forms of peace education existed within different communities. According to Harris (2008) peace education has been practiced informally by generations of humans who wanted to resolve conflicts in ways that do not use deadly force. Indigenous peoples have conflict resolution traditions that have been passed down through millennia that help promote peace within their communities. Also, we should not forget to mention religious teachings that promote peace and uphold the peace education efforts for thousands of years. Religious and spiritual figures such as Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Moses, Lao Tse or Baha’u’llah are often considered peace educators. Even though we should be aware that many religious teachings have been instrumentalized for the opposite as well, for wars and violence.

While reading different articles on peace education, I found the way that Kester (2010) describes peace education to be very clear and encompassing. He stresses that “in practice, peace education is problem-posing education that attempts to build in every person the universal values and behaviors on which a culture of peace is predicated, including the development of non-violent conflict resolution skills and a commitment to working together to realize a shared and preferred future”. He also adds that “peace education includes the cultivation of peacebuilding skills (e.g., dialogue, mediation, artistic endeavors). Peace educators, then, teach the values of respect, understanding, and nonviolence, present skills for analyzing international conflict, educate for alternative security systems, and use a pedagogy that is democratic and participatory. Thus, peace education as a practice and philosophy refers to matching complementary elements between education and society, where the social purposes (i.e., why teach), content (i.e., what to teach), and pedagogy (i.e., how to teach) of the educative process are conducive to fostering peace” (Kester, 2010: 2).

To help us better understand peace education (PE) it is useful to mention 5 principles of this education. According to Harris (2004) these 5 principles are the following:

PE explains the roots of violence
PE teaches alternatives to violence
PE adjusts to cover different forms of violence
Peace itself is a process that varies according to context
Conflict is omnipresent

Now that we know what peace education is about, we could ask ourselves about the content and branches. Different authors propose diverse approaches to this question, but here I would like to emphasize the one from Ian Harris (2004) and Navarro-Castro and Nario-Galace (2010). Harris divides peace education into 5 categories: international education, development education, environmental education, human rights education, and conflict resolution education. On the other side Navarro-Castro and Nario-Galace propose a 10-fold model that besides the above mentioned 5 categories includes: disarmament education, global education, multicultural education, interfaith education, and gender-fair/non-sexist education.

To make peace education closer to us, I also would like to mention two models of peace education: Learning to Abolish War Model (Reardon and Cabezudo 2002)and Flower-Petal Model of Peace Education (Toh 2004).

As already noted, we need to be aware that it’s not just what we teach, but how we teach as well, i.e., how we facilitate the process of learning. It’s hard to imagine peace education programs and values, implemented through traditional authoritarian models of education that most of us grew up with. How can we practice nonviolent methods of resolving conflicts, when we impose on learners our own way of thinking, when we ask them to learn things through rote learning, instead using meaningful or active learning through which they can develop critical thinking skills.

Ian Harris (1988) , one of the leading authors in the field of peace education, stresses a holistic approach to peace education that could apply to community education, elementary and secondary schools, as well as college classrooms. According to him, peaceful pedagogy must be integral to any attempt to teach about peace and key ingredients of such pedagogy are cooperative learning, democratic community, moral sensitivity, and critical thinking. Duckworth (2008) emphasizes that for peace education to be effective, the methods teachers and administrators use must be consistent with the values purportedly being taught to students. They must be modeled as well. The implicit curriculum must harmonize with the explicit curriculum.

In the words of Kester (2010) “an education for peace program, thus, pedagogically emphasizes values (tolerance, respect, equality, empathy, compassion), capacities (cultural proficiency, sensitivity), skills (nonviolent communication, active listening, competence in a foreign language, gender-inclusive language), and knowledge (of history and cultures, peace movements) for peace. The pedagogy includes cooperative learning activities, gender perspectives, creative reflection and journaling, theatre games, role-plays, empathy-building activities, and alternative futures exercises” (Kester, 2010: 5).

One very important thing we need to mention and know about peace education, is that this education depends on the context. Peace educators around the world practice different approaches and different types of peace education depending on what is a burning issue in their communities. For example, somewhere conflict resolution education is more needed than global education or environmental education, due to ongoing religious, ethnic, or national hostilities. This doesn’t mean that other types of peace education are not important or needed, but one type is more urgent than the other. And of course, the content facilitated, relies heavily on the context.

Now that we know all this about peace education, we can ask a question where to teach peace education and in which manner. Should it be in formal or non-formal contexts, should it be taught as a single subject, or should it be holistic and transdisciplinary? I think a very good answer could be found in the Declaration and Integrated Framework of Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy (1995) which suggests that education for peace must be trans-disciplinary and included in all learning spaces. It should not be limited to a single classroom or subject. The institution or space in which education for peace operates should be in harmony with the goals and lessons of peace education and peace education should be integrated into all learning spaces.

And last but not the least, comes the question, why do we need peace education?

Like many other things, I believe that education can be used for both: as a space for nurturing and developing cultures of peace or cultures of war. This solely depends on us, i.e., if we want to see our youth militarized, afraid of the other ethnic and religious groups, afraid of their neighbors, ready to obey and listen to calls for violence in order to protect their land, culture, religion etc. (for the gains of the elites who profit from the war) or if we want our youth to think critically, know their neighbors, be culturally sensitive, ready to speak to and understand those who belong to other groups, who are often portrayed as enemies. It also depends on us if we will employ education as a way to protect our environment or if we will teach our children to exploit the planet and its resources for their own gain (including waging wars that could destroy our habitat). The future is blurry and unknown, but it is up to all of us to shape it and give our best to actually leave a planet where our children and grandchildren can live (in peace).

Featured Regions:

Featured Action Areas:

Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation

Featured Cooperation Circle(s):

The Dialogical Turn: A Review Essay of “Peacebuilding Through Dialogue: Education, Human Transformation, and Conflict Resolution”

The Dialogical Turn

Peacebuilding Through Dialogue: Education, Human Transformation, and Conflict Resolution Edited by Peter N. Stearns, George Mason University Press, Fairfax, VA, 2018. Developed in association with the IkedaCenter for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue. ISBN: 978-1-942695-11-0 (trade paper) / 978-1-942695-12-7 (ebook)

Review Essay by Dale T. Snauwaert The University of Toledo

Peacebuilding Through Dialogue is a valuable collection of reflections on the meaning, complexity, and application of dialogue (Stearns, 2018). The collection advances our understanding of dialogue and its applicability in multiple and diverse contexts. In this review essay the general orientation as well as the specific reflections of dialogue in the domains of education, transformative personal development, and peacebuilding will be summarized, followed by a reflection on the dialogical turn in moral and political philosophy; this turn may have foundational significance for dialogue in the domains explored in the book.

Peacebuilding Through Dialogue

In his introductory chapter, the editor of the volume Peter Stearns anchors the inquiry into dialogue by situating it within historical context; he concludes that the practice of dialogue has a long history within the educational processes of teaching and learning. This educational commitment to dialogue originally emerged from within avariety of religious and philosophical traditions, which generally agreed thatthe practice of authentic dialogue requires internal preparation–thedevelopment of particular capacities and dispositions. Grounded in this historyis an emergent revival of dialogue throughout the 20 th century andinto the 21 st . This revivalhas also offered a number of innovations to the conception and practice ofdialogue.

Stearns frames the book by pointing to the need to clarify the meaning of dialogue amidst multiple interpretations in various domains that are a consequence of the dialogical revival. The subsequent chapters in the book explore the importance, meaning and potential applications of dialogue in three domains: 1) the conceptions of education as an active process of learning; 2) the interrelationship between internal dialogue and social transformation; and 3) the role of theory and practice of dialogue within the fields of conflict resolution, transformation and peacebuilding. This inquiry is further grounded in the two core principles of dialogue articulated by Daisaku Ikeda (Founder of the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue): “overcoming division within our own hearts (p. ix)” and the dialogical generation of mutual understanding and solidarity (p. xi).

Section 1 includes four chapters on the importance of dialogue within conceptions of education as processes of active learning. In the first chapter Identity, Race, and Classroom Dialogue Steven D. Cohen provides an examination of classroom practices aimed at the facilitation of honest and open conversation regarding issues of race, identity, and power among American preservice social studies teachers. The aim of his dialogical approach is to encourage critical self-reflection regarding bias, and to develop within future teachers a sense of empowerment as classroom facilitators of critical dialogue concerning these sensitive issues. In the second chapter Listening and Dialogue in Educators’ Reflective Practice , Bradley Siegel and WilliamGaudelli explore the movement of the reflective practice of teachers, from internal reflection to dialogical exchange with other teachers. Dialogical reflective practice enables teachers to construct a more authentic personal and pedagogical identity, which they in turn model in the classroom as a necessary condition for peacebuilding. The third chapter, The Presence and Role of Dialogue in Soka Education by Jason Goulah, explores how and in what ways the practice of dialogue emerged in the development of the philosophy of Soka education, and central to that philosophy, how dialogue functions in the process of value creation, in particular the creation of peace as the ultimate value. In the fourth chapter, Dialogue and Agency: Educating for Peace and Social Change , Monisha Bajaj and Ion Vlad articulate a critical conception of peace education by examining the relationship between dialogic learning and the cultivation of the transformative agency of students. Dialogic learning entails critical inquiry into presupposed assumptions pertaining to social structures and conditions, including the distribution of power. Through this critical examination, students are empowered to become not only agents of peace, human rights, and justice, but also to become capable of transformative reflection and action; what the authors refer to as “empowering praxis.” The development of such empowered agents is at the core of working towards democratic ideals, and in turn an education for peace.

Section 2 of the book explores the interrelationship between internal dialogue and social transformation; how dialogical methods can contribute to conflict transformation and building cultures of peace. In Compassion in Dialogue Bernice Lerner explores three meanings of dialogue – as salve, inspiration, and discovery. Dialogue as salve, expresses the power of words to help victims and those in suffering go beyond external oppression. Dialogue as inspiration, speaks to how words inform the minds of others, showing them the way forward. Dialogue as discovery, suggests the developmental enlightening power of opening ourselves to others. In Bringing Out the Best in Oneself and Others: The Role of Dialogue in Daisaku Ikeda’s Peacebuilding Practice, Olivier Urbain articulates Daisaku Ikeda’s comprehensive approach to dialogue and peacebuilding. He explores the question: “What really happens when one person connects with another through verbal exchanges, and what is the impact of this apparently insignificant event on humanity and the world (p. 105)?” He explores four core aspects of Ikeda’sphilosophy that connect with the relationship between dialogue and peacebuilding: the goal, to bring out the best in oneself and others; dialogue as continuum between inner transformation and peacebuilding; and communicative creativity through the arts, and the praxis of dialogue as preventive peacebuilding.

In The WISE Model and the Role of Self As Observer in Genuine Dialogue, Meenakshi Chhabra explores transforming the internal essential dialogue between the “internal other” and “the self as observer” as the key to changing the dynamic of conflict with external others. Dialogues concerning encounters of deeply opposed beliefs involve the interplay between two others, internal and external, and two selves, “self on stage” and “self as observer”. The internal other is the internalized and reified perception of the external other as well as one’s internal beliefs regarding that other. The internal other is a source of fear, anxiety, and resistance to the external other, which the self on stage experiences, as well as being it’s voice. The self as observer is the judicious impartial spectator and the source of possible transformation. It is the activation and guidance of the self as observer that is the key to opening into a transformative dialogue with the external other. In Values, Dissonance, and the Creation of Shared Meaning, Gonzalo Obelleiro explores the challenges of dialogue in a context of value division and polarization. He suggests that we should conceive and understand dialogue as an encounter, a shared space, for the creation of shared meanings and the reconstruction of values. This process of dialogic encounter is illustrated within an encounter of police and criminal justice reform activists in the context of an educational seminar.

Section 3 explores the role of the theory and practice of dialogue in the fields of conflict resolution, transformation and peacebuilding. In Dignity Dialogues: An Educational Approach to Healing and Reconciling Relationships in Conflict , Donna Hicks identifies “ the human response to violations of dignity ” as the key factor in international conflict resolution and peacebuilding. She proposes that “Conflict is rife with dignity violations”; violations of one’s sense of self-worth and the healing of such “dignity wounds” are seen as the key to conflict transformation. In turn, she argues that the establishment of cultures of dignity are the foundations of peace. Hicks maintains that the exploration of dignity violations as the source of conflict, and their healing and protection, is best pursued through dialogue as shared learning.

In Changing the Conversation: Emerging Better Dialogue Practices Through Four Lenses, Mark Farr summarizes and explores four philosophical models of dialogue: Sustained Dialogue, religious dialogue, Buddhist dialogue, and a reconciliation model of dialogue. Based upon this exploration he concludes that a model of good dialogue should have intellectual rigor, allow for off-line opportunities for the development of relationships, possess a strong philosophical basis (whatever that basis might be), and should generate trust.

In Dialogue and Mutual Recognition: The Practice of Interreligious Encounters, Andrea Bartoli and Charles Gardner maintain that mutual recognition, that is, the mutual acceptance of the presence of the parties to the dialogue, is a necessary condition for dialogue. However, dialogue transcends acceptance into a developmental process of becoming more fully human together. In Modes of Peacemaking Dialogue Susan H. Allen presents a multidimensional model of peacemaking dialogue. She surveys a number of models in order to uncover possible core characteristics of peacemaking dialogue:

Dialogues are learning opportunities.
Dialogues engage the moral imagination.
Dialogues engage impartial outside facilitators.
Dialogue honors participants as meaning makers possessing dignity.
Dialogues will shift in focus between understanding, analysis, and planning.

These elements characterize peacemaking dialogue as a learning process. Finally, in Dialogue and Demographic Complexity, Ceasar L. McDowell presents an insightful conception of social pluralism as “demographic complexity”, which often generates social conditions of polarization, segregation, and conflict. He asks whether, and on what grounds, a public infrastructure necessary for democracy and justice could be mutually designed and recognized under the conditions of demographic complexity. In response, he outlines the design of two types of public dialogues he considers to be essential to establishing a public, civic infrastructure: Designed Public Dialogues and Ambient Dialogues. Within these forms of public dialogue, McDowell argues that people will have greater opportunities to find their voice.

The insightful reflections offered in this volume suggest many common elements concerning the question of what is ‘meaningful’ in the dialogic revival as it relates to peacebuilding in the three domains discussed above. This reviewer would like to reflect upon an additional domain of dialogue that is implicit in the assumptions underlying many perspectives offered in this book, a domain that could be seen as foundational to the meaningful application of peacebuilding through dialogue: the dialogical turn in moral and political philosophy.

The Dialogical Turn in Moral and Political Philosophy

In the second half of the 20th and the first half of the 21st centuries a dialogical turn in moral and political philosophy, in particular, theoretical considerations of justice, has occurred. Dialogue is at the very center of our current understanding of ethical and moral inquiry and justification. Dialogue within this domain is arguably foundational to many other domains, for example dialogue in the domains of teaching, personal and interpersonal transformation and development, and resolution and transformation of conflict and peacebuilding explored in this book. Dialogue in these domains often involves basic ethical and moral claims, as well as being grounded in ethical values and moral principles, such as dignity, equal worth, human rights, and justice. Given that normative considerations are central to the meaning of dialogue and its application to the three domains explored in the volume, reflections upon this normative dimension of moral and political philosophy are seen to be relevant and illuminating.

The two dominant modern (Enlightenment) moral theories, Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological theory, proceed from a subjectivist orientation. Utilitarianism defines moral rightness in terms of the maximization of aggregative utility, wherein utility is defined as an individual’s subjective state of affairs, such as preference satisfaction. The utilitarian calculation is thus based in the equal consideration of individual subjectivestates.

From a different perspective Kant also proceeds from a subjectivist perspective. He maintains that in the process of moral justification “… we merely make reason attend… to its own principles.” (Kant,[1785] 1964, p. 404). In other words, the criteria of the justifiability and validity of moral norms can be constructed from within the presuppositions of reasonable moral judgment, that is, solely within the reason of the individual; a process of internal subjective reflection.

Subsequently in the development of moral theory, there has been a shift from a subjective to an intersubjective orientation, which entails a significant dialogical turn, in the sense that dialogue has come to be understood as central to the processes of ethical and moral justification. It is recognized that the hallmark of human reason of all kinds – theoretical, practical, and instrumental- is that its validity is grounded in intersubjective mutual understanding and agreement (Habermas, 1984; Habermas, 1995; Habermas, 1996; Habermas,2011). Justification is inherent in reason for it constitutes the offering of reasons. However, reason is not solely subjective and internally focused, it is directed outward toward others. This is true of moral justification as well. As the moral philosopher Rainer Forst maintains: “Respect for others does not rest on my relation to myself as‘making laws for myself’ but corresponds to an original duty toward others …(Forst 2012, p. 55) … It is the ‘face’ of the other that makes clear to me where the ground of being moral lies (Forst 2012, p. 59).“

This intersubjective call of the other is the basis of the dialogical turn in various approaches to moral and political philosophy, including deontological moral constructivism, communitarianism, Walzer’s interpretative approach, and capabilities theory, among others. In the following summary, the dialogical turn within each of these approaches to moral and political philosophy are highlighted.

Deontological Moral Constructivism

Moral constructivism refers to a process of justification of moral norms through a dialogical procedure of deliberation that is structured and defined in terms of fairness (Rawls, 1971; Rawls & Freeman, 1999). In this approach Kant’s subjective constructivist procedure is reconstructed in intersubjective dialogical terms . The validity of the principles of justice, and thus their normative force, are constructed through a fair procedure of dialogical intersubjective justification (Forst, 2012; Habermas, 1996; Rawls, 1971). From this perspective, valid moral norms and ethical values rest upon sharable reasons exchanged in a deliberative, dialogical process (Forst, 2012, 2017; Habermas,1996; Rawls, 1997; Rawls & Kelly, 2001; Scanlon, 2000). As John Rawls suggests: “The fairness of the circumstances under which agreement is reached transfers to the principles of justice agreed to …What is just, is defined by the outcome of the [deliberative] procedure itself (Rawls & Freeman, 1999, p.310-311).”

Communitarianism

A number of contemporary communitarian political theorists maintain that normative justification and political legitimacy can only be grounded in a substantive collective ethical identity. Communitarians in turn maintain that individual identity is ontologically dependent upon culture and community. They assert a dialogical understanding of identity as formed in the context of the particularities of comprehensive conceptions of the good life implicit in the culturally thick traditions of various kinds of communities (Sandel, 1984; Taylor, 1994). They maintain that moral rights dialogically emerge out of, and are thus grounded in, the web of human relationships which constitute communal life (Sandel, 1984; Sandel, 2009). It is maintained that valid justification of political norms is based upon collectively shared values forged out of communal dialogical relationships (Macintyre, 2007).

Michael Walzer’s Interpretative Approach

Working within Communitarianism, Michael Walzer argues that morality is neither discovered in the fabric of reality (e.g., religious ethics, natural law ethics), nor is it constructed (moral constructivism)(Orend, 2000; Walzer, 1983, 1987; Walzer & Miller, 2007). Walzer argues our own communities and cultures are the ultimate source of morality; and therefore, we do not need to discover or invent morality, we need to interpret it, which entails dialogue with others about the meaning of ethical goods and values. Fidelity to the deepest meaning of our most cherished values uncovered through a dialogical process of interpretation is the ethical standard of justification.

Capabilities Theory

In Amartya Sen’s capabilities theory of justice, what is just is defined as that which promotes the realization of the combined index of capabilities of members of society as determined by the methods of social choice theory, comparative assessment, open impartial scrutiny, and public reasoning (Sen, 2009). In other words, the state of affairs that ranks highest in terms of the combined index of capabilities is the most just/morally right among comparative alternatives. The process of comparative assessment proceeds through public reasoning, open and informed public deliberation, which tests the validity of the assessment. The pursuit of justice for Sen, can therefore, only proceed in terms of open, impartial dialogue among citizens as the exercise of their public reason.

These examples highlight a significant dialogical turn in various approaches to moral and political philosophy, placing dialogue at the center of ethical and moral justification. Dialogue within moral theory is arguably foundational to the domains explored in this volume, as the use of dialogue within these domains often involve basic ethical and moral claims. In addition, dialogue often finds its grounding in basic ethical values and moral principles, such as dignity, human rights, and justice.

In conclusion, the collection of reflections on the dimensions of dialogue in peacebuilding offered in the book makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the dialogic revival. This volume elaborates and refines our understanding of the emerging, intersecting themes of this dialogical turn, as well as it’s application and practice in basic domains of peace education, including the important foundational work of Daisaku Ikeda. These intersecting themes include: openness to diverse ideas and suggestions; a means for addressing conflict; mutual recognition and understanding; inner preparation to develop dialogic capacities; and respect for the dignity of others, among others. Although these reflections and applications manifest in a variety of ways and contexts, uncovering and elucidating these emerging unitary themes is sure to invigorate practitioners, authors and researchers; any student and/or practitioner of dialogue, including peace and justice educators, will find important value in this collection of essays from a diverse range of scholars and practitioners. This volume offers in-depth and rigorous insight into the theory and practice of dialogue in education, personal development, and peacebuilding, insight that seems of even greater ethical and political importance today.

Forst, R. (2012). TheRight to Justification (J. Flynn, Trans.). New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Forst, R. (2017). Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification (C. Cronin, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action . Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1995). Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism. Journal of Philosophy, XCII (3 March), 109-131.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy .Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (2011). ‘Reasonableness’ versus ‘True,’ or the Morality of Worldviews. In J. G. Finlayson & F. Freyenhagen (Eds.), Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political (pp. 92-113). New York: Routledge.

Kant, I. ([1785] 1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals . New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Macintyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory . South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.

Orend, B. (2000). Michael Walzer on War and Justice . Montreal ; Ithaca, N.Y.: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice . Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Rawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64 (3), 765-807.

Rawls, J., & Freeman, S. (Eds.). (1999). John Rawls: Collected Papers . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J., & Herman, B. (2000). Lectures on the history of moral philosophy . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J., & Kelly, E. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Sandel, M. J. (1984). Liberalism and Its Critics New York: New York University Press.

Sandel, M. J.(2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Scanlon, T. M. (2000). What We Owe to Each Other . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Stearns, P. N. (Ed.) (2018). Peacebuilding Through Dialogue: Education, Human Transformation, and Conflict Resolution Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press and the Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue.

Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality . New York: Basic Books.

Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and Social Criticism . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walzer, M., & Miller, E. b. D. (2007). Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Join the Campaign & help us #SpreadPeaceEd!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Memorias para la Vida: Dialogues for the Construction of Deep Cultures of Peace in Colombia

In memoriam: Daisaku Ikeda

The bishops of Tierra Caliente and Chiapas: Violence and insecurity are destroying the Mexican people

We20: A Peoples’ Summit resolves to strengthen efforts to protect rights

Reflections on Peace Education and the Philippines

Patricia M. Mische , Lloyd Professor of Peace Studies and World Law, Antioch College (retired) Follow

This essay, written at the request of JSE editors as an introduction to its special section on Peace Education in the Philippines, discusses the meaning and importance of educating for peace in a globally interdependent but fractured world; shares reflections from the author’s personal journey as a learner/teacher/researcher engaged in peace education, with special attention to her experience in peace education in the Philippines from 1979 to 2020; and introduces two very accomplished Philippine peace educators and their work.

Recommended Citation

Mische, Patricia M. (2020) "Reflections on Peace Education and the Philippines," The Journal of Social Encounters : Vol. 4: Iss. 2, 78-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.69755/2995-2212.1055 Available at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/social_encounters/vol4/iss2/7

Since August 03, 2020

Included in

Anthropology Commons , Catholic Studies Commons , Christianity Commons , Ethics in Religion Commons , International Relations Commons , Islamic Studies Commons , Peace and Conflict Studies Commons , Politics and Social Change Commons , Race and Ethnicity Commons , Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons , Social Psychology and Interaction Commons , South and Southeast Asian Languages and Societies Commons

Journal Home
About This Journal
Editorial Board
Information for Authors

EXAMPLES OF SHARED ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN ACTIONS
Environmental Peacebuilding Update Issue 264: 20 Feb 2024 News and Resources
Climate Diplomacy Magazine Feb. 2024 News and Resources
Alliance for Peacebuilding Newsletter February 22, 2024 News and Resources
Catholic Peacebuilding Network News Brief February 26, 2024 News and Resources
Most Popular Papers
Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 2995-2212

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Mainlehwon Ebenezer Vonhm

George Mason University – Fairfax, Virginia June, 2015

Since the end of World War II, most wars have occurred within, rather than between, states, and most of these wars have taken place in countries that were once controlled by imperial powers (Henderson and Singer, 2002). In 2002 alone, there were 21-armed conflicts in 19 different locations throughout the world (SIPRI, 2003), five of which were in African nations [1] . According to Stedman (2002), civil wars in Africa have been among the world’s worst, ranging from those in Rwanda and Somalia to the conflicts in Angola to Liberia, each resulting in between 250,000 to 1,000,000 total deaths. Most of the civil wars have been dominated by rebel movements, with a total of 74 civil wars since the end of the Cold War (Byman, Chalk, Hoffman, Rosenau, and Branna, 2001). According to Richards (1995), many of these rebel movements comprise young people as fighters. Young fighters are defined under international law as people less than 18 years of age (Wessells, 2009). Richards writes that youth were so heavily involved in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean fighting that these wars were dubbed a “crisis of youth”. Children who do not directly participate in these wars often bear direct consequences of the war as well, such as school closures, separation from family, and starvation. A Human Rights Watch (2004) report also reveals that children who do not take part in the war most often became victims of sexual assault, abduction, torture, forced labor, and displacement.

The International Bureau for Children’s Rights Report (2010) states that the impact of armed conflict on children can be substantial and have long lasting repercussions on their physical, emotional and mental well-being. Furthermore, the consequences of civil war often disrupt the normal routine of a child's educational attainment. UNICEF estimates that just over one billion girls and boys live in countries or territories affected by armed conflict, and of these, around 300 million are under five years old (International Bureau for Children’s Rights, 2010). In fact, approximately half of the 104 million children worldwide not attending schools currently live in countries recovering from violent conflicts or similarly fragile states (UNESCO, 2004). The high numbers of children not in schools, along with the destruction of education facilities, displacement of teachers, and collapse of the education systems in conflict areas, have given increased international recognition to education as a universal right driven by the need to get children in schools. Whilst it is salient to get the school system functioning again and to get children in schools, the dearth of information and discussion about normalizing the relationship among children affected by war who in some cases were on opposing sides of the conflict, render the current peacebuilding education approach inadequate to reconcile children’s differences.

Although Harvey (2010) points out that the entitlement and right of youths to education in conflict and post-conflict settings is well founded in international laws, including the Convention on Rights of Children and a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. For example, Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2] states that everyone has the right to education; congruently, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons During Times of War [3] declares that education is to be facilitated in all circumstances for children under fifteen, including orphans and those children separated from their families as a result of war (UNHCR, 1949). In other words, as proclaimed by current UN protocol, education is a basic human right at all times and anywhere, including in times of disaster, conflict, and in post-conflict zones. Highlighting the importance of education in armed conflict, Graça Machel's Report [4] on Impact of Armed Conflict on Children called for educational activity to be established as a priority for humanitarian assistance (Machel, 1996).

Moreover, at a major international conference held in Jomtien, Thailand in March 1990, initiated by the World Bank and sponsored by several UN agencies, all participants agreed to make education available to everyone (Samoff, 2013). This led to the formation of the Education for All (EfA) movement to provide quality basic education for all children, youth and adults (UN, 2000). Meanwhile, Midttun (2000) points out that education is increasingly been presented as the “fourth pillar” or “central pillar” of humanitarian response, alongside the first three pillars of nourishment, shelter, and health services.

At the World Education Forum [5] held in Dakar, Senegal in April 2000, under the guidance of the UN, participants adopted the Dakar Framework for Action to reaffirm their commitment to EfA and to ensure access to basic education for all through the world. This would eventually become the new paradigm propelling the design and implementation of education in conflict and post-conflict settings. Congruently, four years later, following the World Education Forum, an Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) [6] was established to advocate for the inclusion of education activities to be implemented during emergency responses. In 2004, the INEE, in consultation with a wide range of international, regional and local stakeholders and agencies, developed a Minimum Standards Handbook [7] as a framework for coordinating education during conflict and post-conflict. Furthermore, INEE developed a Good Practice Guide [8] , which calls for Inclusive Education for Children At Risk – Gender Equality / Education for Girls and Women and emphasizes the need to make education a viable alternative for children affected by war. In addition to the INEE Minimum Standard, several post-conflict education frameworks have been proposed and implemented as methods of bringing about lasting peace and reconciliation. It is hoped that by use of these frameworks, which are discussed below, children will be effectively inculcated with the ethos of peace culture.

Emergency Education

According to UNICEF (2009) education can play a crucial role in peacebuilding processes (before, during, or after conflict) and can help to prevent conflict and contribute to long-term peace. Sinclair (2002) demonstrates that the provision of education during conflict stages can be refer to as “emergency education” [9] , which concerns the basic child rights and ranges from addressing the psychosocial needs of children and adolescents to the protection of children from harm and the development of skills through education for peace. Immediately at the end of the Liberian civil war, in August 2003, UNICEF in partnership with the Liberian government launched a program called ‘Liberia’s Back to School’ a program which encouraged thousands of children to return to schools (UNICEF, 2003). Carol Bellamy, UNICEF executive director, claims that the return of children to school was absolutely the right thing to do for children who had endured so much for so long. Bellamy asserted that ‘Liberia's Back to School’ was the first peace dividend in the timeline of the conflict (UNICEF, 2003). While it was important to get children in schools immediately at the end of the war, there were no discussions on how students’ collective traumatic experiences within an educational environment could enhance or derail the peace process.

Education Access and Opportunity

Aside from its crucial applications during the emergency phase, education has also been presented as a developmental framework to help inculcate children affected by war with the ethos of a culture of peace. At the Millennium Summit, which was held at the UN Headquarters in New York in 2000, the General Assembly adopted their UN Millennium Development Goals [10] , and committed to achieve universal primary education by 2015. This would mean a provision of education for all children, especially those living in conflict-ridden situations. In this vein, Liberia, as signatory member to the UN’s General Assembly, introduced free and compulsory education for Liberian children affected by the war in 2005. The following year the Liberian government conducted a census demonstrating the increased enrollment in public primary schools, showing an 82% rise between 2005 and 2007, or from 597,316 to 1,087,257 students. Enrollment in secondary schools increased by 16% over the same period, from 132,224 to 153,467 (Government of Liberian Ministry of Education, 2008). From the perspectives of peacebuilding education scholars, Liberia is doing quite well in terms of increasing the number of children attending schools after the war. Again, this strategy is propelled by the Millennium Development Goals to achieve universal primary education by 2015. Whilst the increased numbers in Liberia is welcome news, what the Liberian government did not comment on was how these higher numbers in enrollment were helping students become peaceful. The lack of reconciliatory strategies in place to help school-attending youths to normalize their often broken relationships as the result of war seems problematic. It is unrealistic for children affected by the war to peacefully coexistence within the same school environment.

Resources Development

Infrastructure development.

Another frame for post-conflict education is resource development. According to Buckland (2005), early investment in repairing educational infrastructure in countries emerging from civil war is often seen as a vital prerequisite for sustainable peace. O’Malley (2007) asserts that during conflict, educational facilities are usually destroyed or targeted, resulting in school closures and even the collapse of entire education systems. In some instances, education facilities are used as training bases for rebel fighters. For example, the National Patriotic Front of Liberia utilized several educational facilities (such as Cuttington University College, Booker T. Washington Vocational Institute, and Johnny Vokar High School) as training grounds for some of its fighting force, hence making it impossible to have regular classes. Kagawa (2005) points out that in a post-conflict society, educational physical structures play vital roles as contributors for the reintegration processes of returnee refugees. Furthermore, Machel (2010) demonstrates that schools often offer a sense of normality and greatly contribute to the psychosocial well-being and development of children. While functional schools may play an essential role in keeping children affected by war off the streets and away from possible recruitment into rebel movements, it is unclear how exactly such a strategy might engender within children particularly peaceful attitudes and behaviors.

Professional Teacher Development

Indispensable to the discussion of education in post-conflict settings is the question of teachers’ preparations. According to Philips, Arnhold, and Bekker (1998), development of human resources and the retraining of educational personnel are necessary for the process of ideological reconstruction. Educational programs for teachers who themselves have experienced the war and have been away from the classrooms could most likely lay the groundwork for a peaceful society. According to Philips et al., (1998) these capacity-building programs assist teachers with new teaching and learning styles, thus enhancing and refreshing skills and knowledge after prolonged absences from the classroom. UNESCO-Liberia (2012) asserts that it is essential to teach young people in postwar societies conflict resolution, human rights, and citizenship education (PEHCED), as these are all important tools in peace-building and reconciliation. UNESCO-Liberia states that it has collaborated with the Ministry of Education to train 1,300 teachers in three counties, Grand Geded, Lofa, and Nimba, in PEHCED content. UNESCO-Liberia has also claimed that PEHCED has been incorporated as a single subject in 337 schools located in those three counties ( http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/pcpd/unesco-in-post-crisis-situations/peace-and-reconciliation/#topPage ).

Despite this educational initiative, young people still resort to the use of violence as a means of dealing with differences and disagreements with peers, parents, and teachers. This is indeed a grave problem. For example, violence initiated by pupils in Lofa County left several people dead and cost tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of property damage (Butty, 2010). Furthermore, pupils from Nimba County recently stormed the Capitol building in protest of their scholarship allowances, thereby disrupting normal legislative activities (Heritage Newspaper, 2013). This raises the critical question as to how teacher preparation programs in post-conflict settings can inspire children growing up in war to adopt nonviolent behavior. Clearly this would not end all the violence, but giving students non-violent alternatives for conflict resolution will make resorting to violence a less common occurrence.

Curriculum Reform

History curriculum.

In post-conflict settings, curriculum reform is critical. The history of the country and why and how it slipped into violent conflict is often a pivotal concern in the process of laying a foundation for lasting peace. According to Des Forges (1999), history is important because after conflict, all sides tend to blame the other for the hatred and ensuing conflict, at least in part, based on past injustices. As such, groups in or following conflict, most often the victorious groups, tend not to accept any blame for the effects of the war, but instead cast the guilt on the other side (Des Forges, 1999). Therefore, when war comes to an end in a society where history has been used as a source of discrimination, many historians call for a reformation of the curriculum. Cole and Barsalou (2006) point out that a revised curriculum that has the potential to lay the foundation for social reconstruction and lasting peace is needed in post-conflict reconstruction. The contentious issues, however, surround what to include and not to include in a modified curriculum.

According to Freedman, et al. (2008) revising the content in history curricula presents nations with an important means to convey new narratives of the past, thus the potential to influence the national identity of citizens. An inclusive narrative that is geared towards teaching national unity within the country could potentially build stronger relationships among young people. However, considering the time it may take to produce an inclusive history, such an endeavor could be a long, slow, and painstaking process. For instance, Bijlsma (2009) reveals that the government of Rwanda placed a moratorium on teaching history in school because of its potential in spreading divisive messages throughout the youth. She reveals that politicians often used the country’s history in the past as a tool to divide the society, which was partly responsible for the genocide. The fact the Rwandan government instituted the moratorium so as to create a sense of commonality was flawed, in part because the process of creating national unity was not participatory. According to Freedman et al. (2005) the lack of community engagement to contribute to social identity obstructs the government’s effort to erase ethnicity, hence, leading to the continuation of ethnic tension from the bottom.

Peace Education

The UNESCO constitution opens with the statement: “Since war begins in the mind of man, it is in the mind of man that the foundation of peace must be constructed” (UNESCO, 1947). Harris and Morrison (2011) define peace education as the process of teaching people about the threats of violence and the various possible strategies for peace. Hicks (1985) notes that peace education encompasses the presence of social and non-violent aspects of life, which are essential aspects of enduring peace. Peace education has an important social purpose, and is defined by some as a process intended to prepare the learners to contribute towards the achievement of peace, thus fulfilling UNESCO’s statement. This learning seeks to transform the present conditions by changing social structures and patterns of thought which have brought them about. Peace education, in the opinion of Reardon (1988), should consist of humane relationships.

Harris and Morrison (2011) point out that peace education is implemented either formally within institutional places of learning such as schools or universities, or informally, at the community level. Peace education pedagogies and curricula are enriched by activities that promote a non-violent lifestyle and include attempts to end violence and hostilities without erupting into deadly activity. Similarly, Bar-Tal (2011) asserts that some of the key objectives of peace education are changed attitudes, increased tolerance, and reduced prejudices, which are often rooted in ethnicity, religion, or gender. Hicks (1988) also write that the goal of peace education is to address the problems of conflict at different levels and to explore the path to a more peaceful future. In sum, Wessells (2009) demonstrates that in a post-conflict context, effective peace education has a more practical than didactic focus, and it stimulates empathy, cooperation, and reconciliation, while handling conflict in a non-violent manner. The literature across the field of peace education varies from human rights education to citizenship education. However, for the purposes of this article, peacekeeping education, peacemaking education, and peacebuilding education are discussed as other forms of peace education.

According to Richmond (2008) peace education through peacekeeping carries within it the core values of resistance to war and violence. When children learn how to resist violence, it is often implied that they are also in fact maintaining peace. Meanwhile, Bickmore (2011) writes that peace education through peacemaking includes both intervention and problem-solving skills, which are essential in resolving disputes as they arise. The knowledge that children acquire often includes negotiation, mediation, and third-party intervention so as to be in the position to mitigate conflict nonviolently when it arises at the local level. Finally, peace education through peacebuilding often focuses on relationship building. Cordell and Wolff (2009) note that the goal of peacebuilding in education aims to enhance confidence building and rebuild damaged relations through a sense of collective value.

Based on the concept of peace education presented, a review of an evaluation of the Education for Peace (EfP) program in four different primary schools (consisting in total of 2,225 students and 177 teachers) was conducted by Sophia Close in Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH) from 2005 to 2006. From 1991 to 1995, BiH gradually emerged from a deadly civil war, and exhibited a classic culture of violence (Danesh, 2007). Close asserts that war had created mistrust, anger, and hopelessness among the people. As such, the objective of the EfP was to equip participants with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to prevent violence, resolve disputes peacefully, and to enhance peaceful cohesion. In addition, the EfP aims at creating mechanisms among participants which foster inter-ethnic harmony and a culture of peace. The methodology, which was applied to evaluate EfA’s success, consisted of solicitations of written stories from participants describing the most significant changes experienced while participating in the EfP program. Approximately 68 evaluation participants from each school were asked to write a one page factual narrative, and these submissions revealed that participants had begun to understand key principles of unity in diversity, conflict prevention and resolution. Hence, they had begun to apply these skills and attitudes to their everyday lives. Moreover, the evaluation results state that the EfP program had positively changed participants’ family and student-teacher relationships into a positive interactive atmosphere in each of the schools involved. While the evaluation could be criticized in lacking gender balance, on information about age range, and the students’ comprehension levels, overall the program seems to have great impact in terms of empowering participants with peace education and its inherent knowledge base and skill set.

While the concepts of emergency education and infrastructure development education are vital during and immediately after conflict, the lack of full understanding of the demographic makeup of the students undermines the very notion of peaceful coexistence. Some of the students within these educational walls in post-conflict educational settings may well be former victimizers (ex-combatants) and/or victims (sexually abused, refugees, amputees, or orphans) of the recent civil war. Their abrupt assembly within the same space could lead to a continuation of violence. As was demonstrated in the example from Liberia, students continue to use violence to resolve their differences despite the provision of free primary education and the reconstruction of educational structures. The failure of emergency education and infrastructure development education to engender children affected by war with the ethos of a peace culture in part stems from the very fact that no attention is given to the reconciliation effort among pupils going to schools during war or returning to school after war. What post-conflict education strategies need to do is first figure out how to normalize the relationship between victims and/or victimizers through reconciliatory processes among children who have competing experiences of the war, before bringing them together in the same space to learn.

While it is essential to prepare teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to help protect children from recruitment into fighting forces or other criminal activities, the lack of an attempt to normalize relationships between teachers who may well be victims of some of their own students undermines the very purpose of educating for peace. Thus, further research is required into how a teacher who is a victim of child soldiers' abuse can honestly educate in post-conflict context without any malice towards the victimizers. Similarly, the lack of local input and knowledge undermines the concept of confidence building within peacebuilding processes. Peace education often lacks local traditional knowledge within the context of local realities. When the local dwellers' ways of truth, ways of knowing, and ways of doing are excluded from the very peacebuilding efforts that should help them in the first place, the very concept of fostering harmony is impeded. Therefore, as a means to strengthen future peace education mechanisms, it would be advisable that peace education frameworks take into account how peace and reconciliation efforts within traditional settings could engender within the pupils the ethos of a culture of peace as way of genuine reconciliation and lasting peace.

Bar-Tal, D. (Ed.). (2011). Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolutions: A Social Psychological Perspective. New York: Psychology Press.

Bickmore, K. (2011, February). Location, Location, Location: Restorative (Educative) Practices in Classrooms. Paper presented at ESRC ‘Restorative Approaches to Conflict in Schools ’, Seminar #4 Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Buckland, P. (2005). Reshaping the Future: Education and Post-Conflict Reconstruction . Washington, DC: World Bank.

Butty J. (2010, February 28). Liberia's Northern Lofa County Returning to Normal, Says Regional Leader. Voice of America . Retrieved from: http://www.voanews.com/content/butty-liberia-violence-01march10-85795472/153470.html.

Byman, D., Chalk, P., Hoffman, B., Rosenau, W., & Branna, D. (2001). Trends in Outside Support for Insurgent Movements . Arlington, VA.

Cole, E., and Barsalou, J., (2006). Unite or Divide? The Challenges of Teaching History in Societies Emerging from Violent Conflict. Special report . United State Institute of Peace. Washington, DC: Retrieved 10 January 2012 from <http://www.usip.org/files/resources/sr163.pdf >

Cordell, K., and Wolff, S. (2009 ). Ethnic Conflict . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Danesh, H. B. (2007). Education for Peace: The Pedagogy of Civilization. In Z.Bekerman & C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing Ethnic Conflict Through Peace Education: International Perspectives (pp. 137-159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Des Forges, A. (1999). Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda . New York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 1 February 2012 from < http://addisvoice.com/Ethiopia%20under%20Meles/Rwanda.pdf >

Freedman, S. W., Weinstein, H. M., Murphy, K., and Longman, T (2008). Teaching History after Identity-Based Conflicts: The Rwanda Experience. Comparative Education Review. vol. (52) no. 4. pp. 663 – 690.

Freedman, Sarah, Harvey M. Weinstein, & Timothy Longman. (2005). Education for Reconciliation in Rwanda: Creating a history curriculum after genocide, Final Report to the United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC.

Government of Liberian, Ministry of Education (2008). System in Transition: The 2007/08 National School Census Report . Liberia: Monrovia.

Harris, I. M. & Morrison, M. L. (Eds.) (2003). Peace Education (2nd ed.). Jefferson:McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.

Harvey, R (2003). Children and Armed Conflict. A Guide to International Humanitarian and Human Rights Laws . International Bureau for Children’s Rights Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://www.crin.org/en/library/publications/children-and-armed-conflict-guide-international-humanitarian-and-human-rights

Heritage Newspapers. (2013). Liberia: Nimba Students Stormed Capitol Building. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/stories/201304100987.html?viewall=1.

Hicks, D. (2004). Teaching for Tomorrow: How can futures studies contribute to Peace Education? Journal of Peace Education , 1(2), 165 -78. DOI:10.1080/1740020042000253721

Human Rights Watch Report (2004). Children as Weapons of War . Retrieved 5 March 2012 from < http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/children-weapons-war > report written by Jo Becker; 26 January 2004

Human Right Watch (2011). World Report 2011: Liberia . Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/liberia United States Department of State (2010). Human Rights Report. Liberia . Retrieved form http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154354.htm

International Bureau for Children’s Rights (2010). Children and Armed Conflict: A Guide to International Humanitarian and Human Rights law. Retrieved from:< http://www.ibcr.org/editor/assets/Conflict_Eng.pdf >

Kagawa, F. (2005). Emergency education: a critical review of the field. Comparative Education . Vol. 41, No.4, pp. 487-503

Machel, G. (1996).  Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. Retrieved from < http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/reports.html >

Midttun, E. (2000). Education in emergencies and transition phases: still a right and more of a need . Norwegian Refugee Council, Oslo.

O’Malley, B. (2007). “EducationUnderAttack”. UNESCO, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/attack/educationunderattack.pdf

Phillips, D., Arnhold, N., Bekker, J., Kersh, N., and Mcleish, E. (1998). Education for Reconstruction – The regeneration of educational capacity following national upheaval. Oxford, Studies in Comparative Education, Symposium Books.

Reardon, B. (1988). Comprehensive Peace Education: Education for Global Responsible . Teacher College Press. New York, New York.

Singer, J. D., & Small, M. (1994). Correlates of War Project: International and Civil War Data, 1816-1992 . Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/3441%5Cmrdoc%5Cpdf%5C3441userguide.pdf

Sinclair, M. (2002). Planning Education In and After Emergencies, UNESCO, 2002 ,www.unesco.org/iiep/eng/publications/pubs.htm .

SIPRI Yearbook (2003). Armaments, Disarmament, and International Security. Oxford University Press . p. 109-11

Stedman, S. J. (2002). Introduction: Implication of Peace Agreement. In S. J. Stedman, D. Rothchild, & E. Cousenss (Eds.), Ending Civil Wars The Implication of Peace A greements. (pp. 1 – 10). Lynne Rienner; Boulder: Colorado.

UNESCO (1947). Constitution of the United Nations Education and Scientific Cultural Organization. American Journal of International Law , 41(1). 1-10.

UNICEF (2009) Machel Study 10-year Strategic Review. Children and Conflict in a Changing World . Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Machel_Study_10_Year_Strategic_Review_EN_030909.pdf

Wessells, M. (2005). Child Soldiers, Peace Education, and Postconflict Reconstruction for Peace. Theory Into Practice 44(4), 363-369

Use the following to cite this article: Vonhm, Mainlehwon Ebenezer , "The Role of Education to Build Peace and Reconciliation in Post Conflict Settings," Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July, 2015. < http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/role-education-build-peace-and-reconciliation-post-conflict-settings >.

[1] Liberia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Chad.

[2] Article 26, para 7. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory . . .”

[3] Article 24. para. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention “The parties to the conflict shall take the necessary measures to ensure that children under fifteen, who are orphaned or are separated from their families as a result of the war, are not left to their own resources, and that their maintenance, the exercise of their religion and their education are facilitated in all circumstances”.

[4] Following the UN General Assembly resolution 48/157 of 20 December 1993, Graça Machel was appointed by the Secretary-General to write a report on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. The report, published in August 1996, brought worldwide attention to the issues affecting children living in conflict zones.

[5] The World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, from 26 to 28 April 2000, was arguably the most important event in worldwide education at the dawn of the new century. By adopting the Dakar Framework for Action, the 1,100 participants of the Forum reaffirmed their commitment to achieving Education for All. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/en-conf/index.shtm

[6] INEE was officially established at an Inter-Agency Consultation held in Geneva in December 2000. For further information, see Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, “Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies”, available on-line at http://www.ineesite.org/

[7] Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, “ Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction ”, available at http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/436/494/2635/2/1?dps=on

[8] The Good Practice Guide specifically suggests six strategies to address the needs of children associated with armed conflict including: a) preventing schools from becoming places of recruitment or abduction; b) identifying and coordinating education programmes for children formerly associated with armed groups and forces; c) conducting and participating in needs assessments of children formerly associated with armed groups and forces; d) developing plans for these children to reintegrate in schools; e) designing or supporting programmes created through participatory assessment; and f) evaluating and monitoring all programmes designed to assist children formerly associated with armed groups and forces.

[9] The term “emergency education” is used at inter-agency level to refer to education in situations where children lack access to their national education system, due to man-made crises or natural disasters. For example, UNESCO states an educational emergency is a crisis situation created by conflicts or disasters which have destabilized or destroyed the education system, and which require an integrated process of crisis and post-crisis response (UNESCO, 1999).

[10] MDGs comprise eight developmental goals, which were established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, after the adoption of the UN Millennium Declaration. All 189 United Nations member states at the time committed to help achieve the MDGs by 2015. Editor's note: the original source link for this information has gone bad, but more information about MDGs can be found at: https://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/about/en/ .

The Intractable Conflict Challenge

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of August 11, 2024 -- Our weekly collection of links from colleagues and outside news/opinion sources on the many predicaments we are now facing around the world. It's pretty daunting!
Walt Roberts and Caleb Christian Talk about the Inter-Movement Impact Project -- Caleb Christen and Walt Roberts talk about the Inter-Movement Impact Project -- another example of massively parallel problem solving and democracy building "in the real world."
Massively Parallel Partisanship Revisited -- Massively parallel social movements can strengthen democracy or tear it apart, and the dividers are currently much more visible (and successful) than the uniters. With effort, though, that can change!

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

production_1

Radford University

College of Education and Human Development
Davis College of Business and Economics
College of Graduate Studies and Research
Waldron College of Health and Human Services
College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences
Artis College of Science and Technology
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Other Offices and Departments
Peace Studies Minor
Virginia Inclusive Practices Center
School of Teacher Education and Leadership
Training and Technical Assistance Center
Health and Human Performance
Counselor Education
Recreation, Parks and Tourism
About Peace Studies
Course Descriptions
Concentrations
Meet Our Students

Dr. Ann Mary Roberts, Program Coordinator Interdisciplinary Minor in Peace Studies Peters Hall A037 aroberts@radford.edu 540-831-7119

What are Peace Studies and Peace Education?

P eace studies is a broad, interdisciplinary activity , which includes research, reflection, and dialogue concerning the causes of war, conflict, and violence and the orientation necessary to establish peace, conflict resolution, and nonviolence. Scholars, researchers, or students from nearly any discipline can participate in the systematic and careful study of peace issues.

A major institute devoted to peace studies describes the goal of peace studies (“peace”) in the following way:

Within peace studies, “peace” is defined not just as the absence of war (negative peace), but also the presence of the conditions for a just and sustainable peace, including access to food and clean drinking water, education for women and children, security from physical harm, and other inviolable human rights (positive peace) . This idea is rooted in the understanding that a “just peace” is the only sustainable kind of peace; an approach that seeks merely to “stop the guns” while ignoring the denial of human rights and unjust social and political conditions will not work in the long run. http://kroc.nd.edu/about-us/what-peace-studies

There is a fundamental distinction, therefore, between “negative” and “positive” peace. Although there are exceptions, the discipline as a whole one could say is oriented around the quest to understand the conditions and possibilities of positive peace. How can we make our world a decent place for everyone to live—not just my nation or community but everyone, including future generations. Peace studies, therefore, can and does include the study of justice (its conditions and requirements for persons worldwide), of democracy and freedom (as these are understood as fundamental to peace), of economic conditions and systems (in relation to issues like structural violence, vast disparities in wealth, and exploitation), and of sustainable environmental conditions and practices (which are, of course, fundamental to any lasting peace).

This does not mean that all reflection is or must be done on a global level, for peace studies raises questions about the relationships of men and women, of racial and cultural interactions, of ideological conflicts, about relationships in businesses, communities, or families, about the uses of science and technology, about definitions of violence or nonviolence, about the paradigms around which we organize our lives, and about the visions of alternative possibilities embodied in art and literature, etc. One might argue, therefore, that peace studies as an activity involves moving to a new self-critical and broadly human level of thought and consciousness in which we comprehend why it is so important to research, reflect on, and discuss these issues.

Peace studies as an interdisciplinary field also appears concomitant with a worldwide encounter with a plethora of potentially lethal global problems or crises. We realize today that we had better begin thinking globally, and that we had better begin thinking in terms of peace rather than war, because civilization is threatened from a number of angles in ways that it never was before the 20 th century. We are aware today of population explosion, on-going climate collapse, diminishing natural resources (like fresh water, arable land, and rain-forests), worldwide pollution from both toxic and non-toxic wastes, and the threat of massive, globally devastating wars.

People have realized, in consequence of these planetary developments, that we need to begin thinking about peace in a sustained and substantial way. This is what peace studies as an interdisciplinary field attempts to do. Each investigation opens up related issues and leads to fundamental reflections. For example, the investigation of the resort to violence in a particular war or situation leads to the question of whether there are causes that transcend this particular war or whether there is a pattern here that is approximated in other wars or situations of violence.

Reflection on the causes of war inevitably raises the issue of structural violence (unjust social and economic structures linked with extreme poverty and deprivation) and the issue of imperialism (dominant nations acting aggressively within the world system to promote their perceived national intersts). This in turn leads us to ask why soldiers are willing to fight a kill strangers at the command of their governments, and hence to questions of socialization, biology, psychology, etc. On the broadest level we might ask about global paradigms or planetary systems that foster war and violence for structural and systemic reasons.

Within the peace studies movement there have tended to be two broad sorts of approaches to questions of violence, war, and peace. One emphasizes the human individual and his or her consciousness and the paradigms by which he or she might be operating. Change toward peaceful behavior is often emphasized through education, conscious raising, dialogue, counseling, mediation, conflict resolution, meditation, or some other ways of influencing individual behavior in the direction of more peaceful relationships.

The second approach emphasizes the role of systems, structures, and socially or culturally embedded paradigms which may promote wars, imperialism, economic exploitation, aggressive behavior, structural forms of violence, poverty, environmental degradation, etc. Scholars and thinkers in this area study national or global economic, political, or cultural systems with a view to discerning the relationship between such systems and war, violence, exploitation, environmental destruction, etc. They also study alternatives to prevailing systems and the means by which system-transformations might take place. There may be tension between these two approaches, the first seeing the systems approach as ignoring human subjectivity and responsibility and treating persons as robotic products of a system and the second seeing the first approach as ignoring fundamental structures that condition and strongly influence human behavior.

In the Introduction her book Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies , editor Linda Rennie Forcey writes concerning this debate:

The attempt to think about the peace process examining individual behavior and responsibility without reference to political and social collectivity is to neglect the realities of our historical situation. To stress the system to the point of eliminating individual behavior and responsibility may well mire us in cyclic determinism. Peace studies cannot afford an either/or approach. It is in the process of thinking and talking together about the meanings we give to peace, and the ways in which our politics affect our thinking about peace that we will find our own voices for strategies for peace. (1988: 13)

The study of the paradigms by which people think and act (which are often deeply imbedded unconscious ways of thought and behavior) can cut either way and can perhaps serve as a bridge between these two general aspects of peace studies. Many forms of meditation, for example, or transformative practices (such as the Buddhist eight-fold path) can be understood to be transformative of the paradigms by which people operate. Conscious-raising through dialogue and education can also be understood this way. Hence, people as individuals can learn to understand the paradigms that have influenced their thought and behavior, and through various methods, and change this paradigms leading to more peaceful, harmonious, and understanding behavior.

But systems-thinkers also know that paradigms are also embodied in historically conditioned economic, political, and cultural structures, and that the structures within which people think and live are strongly influential on the way they see the world and act within it. Well-known peace educator Better Reardon, in her essay “A Paradigm of Peace” includes both of these aspects of the paradigm concept in an understanding of what she calls “organic peace.” She recognizes both “structural violence” worldwide, requiring that we transform the world’s “war-system” into a planetary “peace-system,” but she also recognizes the need for a transformation of human consciousness with respect to the images, concepts, metaphors, and patterns by which we think and act (1988: 20-22).

The older “war-system” by which much of the world lives and acts, Reardon asserts, is the product of a “linear thinking” that we have inherited from an outmoded past. She refers to the new “organic” paradigm under the heading of James Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis that the Earth itself is a living system” (Ibid. 22). In my own writings I have similarly emphasized the breakthroughs of the 20 th century sciences into a scientific paradigm shift of major proportions—the shift from a mechanical, atomistic, and “fragmented” model of the universe to an organic, holistic, and interactional model.

Even though we understand that scientific revolutions can be superseded, it looks very much like scientists are coming very close to the fundamental structures of things, both in the life-sciences such as biology and ecology and in the cosmological sciences such as astrophysics and quantum physics. Similarly, in psychology and sociology newer models tend to be interactive and holistic, revealing the inseparability of our individuality and the community environment within which every person lives, and revealing a holistic paradigm that reflects the personal, the community, all humanity, the biosphere of our planet, all the way to quantum physics and astrophysics and hence the universe itself (see Martin 2008: Chaps. 2-3; E.E. Harris 1991).

Reardon calls the development of this new paradigm “seeking a wholeness that is the authentic meaning of integrity” (1988: 23). It means the realization and actualization of a unity in diversity in which we understand our fundamental sameness and connectedness with all other human beings and the ways in which the older paradigm fragments, distorts, and alienates people and groups from one another. Peace studies promotes, Reardon writes, “cross-cultural education, conflict studies, world order modeling, human rights education, environmental studies” and the several other themes identified above—all of which can contribute to the development and actualization of a new “organic” paradigm for human life.

We need to move, therefore, from a paradigm developed centuries ago that includes the world’s war-system, the world’s economic system, and the world’s system of sovereign nation-states to a holistic paradigm in which conflict is handled by nonviolent means (courts, mediation, social justice developments, tolerance of diversity, etc.), in which economics is designed to promote the well-being of all (and not the few at the expense of the many), and in which nation-states no longer refuse to recognize any law above themselves and their perceived, competitive “national interests.” Under the global holistic paradigm the common good of the whole becomes fundamental and is understood not to be in irreconcilable conflict with the deepest private good of the individual. This common good manifests itself in the need to eliminate war, to protect the global environment, to restore essential resources to the Earth, to protect the human rights and dignity of everyone equally, and to solve all problems that are beyond the scope of both nations and localized communities.

This, as I understand it, is the fundamental thrust and goal of peace studies. If we are going to survive much longer on this planet, we need to develop a planetary paradigm of positive peace, and not merely spend our efforts in pursuit of limited forms of negative peace. This is why the study of peace is so fundamental and imperative in our day. It takes the power of our skills and educations from diverse backgrounds, points of view, and disciplines, and brings them to bear on the most fundamental issues of our day: what does it mean to be a human being, and how are we going to learn to live successfully together on this planet, with everybody’s needs satisfied, and with both a biosphere and a civilization fit for future generations to inherit?

Peace education is necessarily a part of peace studies . Researchers, thinkers, and concerned citizens are always involved in educating others in one way or another. For professional educators, the process may be more systematic and self-conscious, since pedagogy itself is something that requires reflection and training. In this section I have identified eight aspects of peace education, many of which, I believe, are widely agreed upon by those who write about peace pedagogy. These are written in a linear fashion, but in practice there is often a dynamic interplay of these eight aspects of peace education.

First, peace education must be directed toward understanding facts and perspectives that are often screened out or distorted by the dominant media. In nearly any society, there will be dominant media that embody the dominant paradigm of the society, which is almost always a paradigm that reflects the war-system prominent in the world as a whole. Students must be educated to understand that everything is not up-front on the surface as the dominant media would have us believe. Certain things are selected from a vast plethora of facts to be reported, and what is reported is contextualized in a certain way according to the perspective of the dominant media. Students and teachers must develop what Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1989) calls a “critical consciousness,” a consciousness that sees through, and is able to critique the dominant paradigm as expressed through dominant institutions.

Second, teachers and students should engage in consciousness-raising regarding their own paradigm assumptions as well as the paradigm assumptions of society (perpetuated by the dominant media). What do I think about human nature? What do I assume about other nations? What are my assumptions about Moslems or Hindus? What are my assumptions about my own nation and its goodness or superiority? Why do I assume these things? Was it my culture and its dominant paradigm that led to my beliefs about these things? Effective learning begins with good questions, and good questions are nearly always critical questions attempting to get behind the surface appearance to what is really going on.

Third, teachers and students need to undertake critical evaluation of the present dominant paradigms and the systems that embody them. What are the systems of society and the assumptions they embody? How is this manifested in their operation? How do these systems see themselves and what would be more critical and rational ways to view them? This, like the other items enumerated here, is also about “education for critical consciousness,” for this consciousness is central to the very possibility of an effective study of peace. To really think in terms of possible alternatives, we must be willing and able to critically evaluate (and dialogue about) the basic assumptions of our society, culture, and nation.

Fourth, we must be imagining alternatives with a view to the lethal global problems we face on the Earth and how we can address them. How could we think differently with respect to our system and our actions? How should we think differently? What would the likely consequences of different ways of thinking about the kind of actions we undertake? Activating the imagination, and the willingness to think outside the box, are fundamental to peace education. Elucidating the consequences and possibilities of these alternatives to the point where they begin to cohere as genuine alternatives or peace paradigms, we begin to experience connections and associations. We begin to see how perspectives outside the box can cohere and make practical, alternative sense. We begin to identify the ways in which these alternatives might be actualized in the world.

Fifth , learning to “ be the change we want to see in the world ” takes place through meditation, reflection, dialogue, effective learning, or other transformative methods. It is not enough to see critically the possibility of alternatives but fail to identify correct and powerful alternatives and live from these new ways of thinking. We enter into a process of self-transformation through continual life-long learning, seriousness of purpose, reflective thought, and transformative practices (like meditation). We do not have to wait, however, for some ideal future personal enlightenment in which we are then ready to teach and transmit the alternative way of being in the world to others.

If the alternative is valid, coherent, and right, then we should become a teacher of others, a midwife bringing out of them their own versions of an effective alternative peace-paradigm. Our own process of becoming the change we want to be in the world is inseparable from the process of interacting with and educating others concerning this same process of change. As Sigmund Freud expressed this: “The individual takes part in the course of the development of mankind at the same time as he pursues his own path in life” (in I.M. Harris 1988: 139).

Sixth, more and more during this process we will be going forth into the world as transformative world citizens speaking, writing, thinking, and acting in terms of an embodied peace-paradigm. Such persons are often leaders or inspirers of others on the path of peace. There is an analogue, I believe, with the way James Fowler describes the highest stage of “faith” in his book Stages of Faith . Such persons: have become incarnators and actualizers of the spirit of an inclusive and fulfilled human community. They are “contagious” in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world, Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance….Their community is universal in extent. Particularities are cherished because they are vessels of the universal, and thereby valuable apart from any utilitarian considerations. Life is both loved and held to loosely. Such persons are ready for fellowship with persons at any of the other stages and from any other faith tradition…. (1981: 200-201)

Seventh, in the field of education this means molding our methods and pedagogical approaches to conform with the model of organic learning and doing that forms both the means and ends of a genuine peace paradigm. Betty Reardon, in the above named essay, is very good concerning this. She writes that “integration of diversity in a mutually enhancing relationship is a fundamental process for maintaining life and for achieving peace” (1988: 23). Education must help students see things holistically, integrating their imaginations and self-realizations in an ever-growing process of self-transformation which is simultaneously a contribution to world-transformation. Education is (and should be) about life itself, learning to love, affirm, and nurture life, which is the opposite of violence and war.

In a workshop that Reardon gave at Radford University in February of 1999, she summarized peace education in terms of what she called the “four ‘I’s”: inquiry, interpretation, integration, and imagination. These correspond fairly well to the process described here in terms of eight aspects of peace education. Inquiry requires that we look at the facts and the assumptions by which they are selected and interpreted. We learn in this way to interpret the paradigm assumptions of ourselves, our society, and world society. Critical evaluation of these paradigms forms an essential part of this interpretive process.

Soon we begin to integrate our learning and our critical insights into our lives and thought. We learn to become the change we want to see in the world. This requires not only assimilation of inquiry and interpretation with the process of integration but the activation of imagination . Imagination is a very much neglected aspect of much educational practice. Yet it is the key to becoming a transforming force through one’s own life and a key to actualizing a peace paradigm for humanity and future generations. We must be able to deeply imagine alternatives and the possibilities for their actualization. It may be that those who claim to be “realists” asserting that there are no viable alternatives to a world of power politics and war are victims of a lack of imagination.

Therefore, let me identify activating the imagination as the eighth, and final aspect of peace education. Real peace thinking and real peace teaching cultivate the imagination (just as the arts and the humanities have traditionally cultivated the imagination). Peace education assumes we want to leave a better world for our children, and this requires that we are able to seriously imagine alternatives. Can we challenge our students to be lifelong learners who embody the capacity for critical thought, values, and the vision to become active global citizens within a democracy and a world leading toward a better future for humankind? It is not enough to be good citizens of some locality. Both our global crises, and global paradigm-shift to holism, demand that we become global citizens, identifying imaginatively, emotionally, and intellectually with all humanity.

Good teaching inspires the imagination (just as it cultivates careful questioning and critical thinking) as showing the possibility of other states of reality. An inspired imagination activates transformative citizenship and prepares students to contribute creatively throughout their lifetimes to their society and the world. It allows us to identify compassionately with others, and gives us genuine insight into the diversity and dignity of the many cultural worlds thriving around our planet. An inspired imagination enables us to construct real alternatives to the nightmare of war and suffering that has hitherto characterized human history. It also contributes to the necessary paradigm-shift from a worldwide war-system to a world peace-system, the essential parameters of which are the dynamic interrelation of unity and diversity. Activating this imaginative capacity lives at the very heart and soul of peace education.

Works Cited

Forcey, Linda Rennie, editor (1988). Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Fowler, James (1981). Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Freire, Paulo and Faundex Antonio (1989). Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation. New York: Continuum.

Harris, Errol E. (1991). Cosmos and Anthropos. A Philosophical Interpretation of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle . London: Humanities Press International.

Harris, Ian M. (1988). Peace Education. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.

Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies: http://kroc.nd.edu/about-us/what-peace-studies

Martin, Glen T. (2010). Triumph of Civilization: Democracy, Nonviolence, and the Piloting of Spaceship Earth.

Reardon, Betty (1988). “Toward a Paradigm of Peace.” In Forcey, ed. Peace: Meanings, Politics, Strategies. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Understanding Peace Education: An Indian Perspective

Author: Shreya Jani

Originally Published at Peace and Conflict Monitor on: 02/16/2007

Category: Comment

“Without an integrated understanding of life, our individual and collective problems will only deepen and extend. The purpose of education is not to produce mere scholars, technicians and job hunters, but integrated men and women who are free of fear; for only between such human beings can there be enduring peace.”

~ J. Krishnamurti

There is a high level of violence in the world today, both physical and structural. We thus need tools and techniques to respond to this phenomenon. With increasing levels of violence and conflict there is also an increasing sense of trying to find peaceful ways to transform these conflicts from violent clashes to energies for social change. “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”(UNESCO n.d.). Thus for us to take that step, to move from a violence-habituated system to a peaceable society we need to understand the nature of social conflicts and the tools available for transformation. Education is one of the most powerful tools that we have to make this shift towards peace.

“Social conflict is a phenomenon of human creation, located in relationships.” 1 That is people are actively involved in creating situations and interactions that they experience as conflict. These interactions are rooted in people’s history, experiences, perception, interpretations, and expressions of their “realities”. This intern is deeply linked to people’s “common sense” or understanding and accumulated experiences, which allow them to react or respond to a conflict. Social conflict therefore is a “socially constructed cultural event”. 2 It emerges through an interactive process based on a search for and creation of shared meaning. Shared knowledge and a group’s ability to name the world and their reality are pivotal to its manifestation. In short, conflict leads to transforming and renaming of the world and its realities and thus not only is it evitable, but a necessary force for a dynamic society. If conflict leads to evolution of thought and action and is a positive, inevitable force in the world, then what is needed is not the mere reduction or conclusion of conflicts but innovative mechanisms and interactions to transform conflicts into positive forces of social change, which education systems can help build.

As pointed out by Liesbeth Vroemen and John Galtang, peace, like war and justice, is a human creation. It is a process structure; that is, something dynamic which needs to be constantly addressed, thus a goal and a journey in itself. It is deeply connected to the notion of social justice, interconnectedness and realization of the full potential of (any/all) human beings. P eace thus is not an ultimate aim or goal but a continuum that is moving from more violence habituated systems towards lesser violence habituated systems, change being the only constant in it. Peace then is a process rather than an ultimate goal. It is also a structure which has movement in it, thus peace is a process structure. 3 There can be peace in maintaining the status quo, which is unjust, but that is not lasting peace. Thus when we speak of peace in and through education, we are talking specifically about “just peace”. Therefore, according to Johan Galtung, “peace is the absence of physical and structural violence”.

The epistemological root of the word education is from the Latin word “educare” which means to draw or lead out. Thus education seeks to lead out the knowledge within each individual. Peace education more so emphasizes the need to draw out the instinct to live peacefully which resides in each individual as a response to the world they live in.

These responses have been summed up beautifully by V. Cawagas and T. Swee-Hin (1991) into six categories:

Dismantling a culture of war
Living with justice and compassion
Promoting human rights and responsibility
Living in harmony with the earth
Building a culture of respect reconciliation and solidarity
Cultivating inner peace

To sum it up, “Peace education is the process of promoting knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to bring about behavior changes that will enable children, youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, inter-group, national or international level.” (UNICEF). Peace education is therefore both a philosophy and skill that prepares people, young and old, to negotiate on behalf of themselves and the world in a peaceful manner. It seeks to transform conflict using non-violent tools and bases itself in the values of compassion, interconnectedness, justice and harmony.

Peace education seeks to “create a culture of peace”. To understand the goal of peace education we need to understand the meaning of culture of peace. According to Groff and Smoker (2003), there are six dimensions to the culture of peace:

Absence of war – This implies that conflicts between and within states that are wars and civil wars must end for peace to prevail. Thus, it argues that killing has to stop for people to get more out of life and is a necessary prerequisite to create a peaceful society.

Balance of power – Peace is a dynamic and delict balance of power. It is a “balance involving political, social, cultural and technological factors, and that war occurred when this balance broke down” (Quincy Wright 1941).

Negative peace and positive peace – Drawing from Galtung’s understanding of peace as both absence of physical violence (negative peace) and structural violence (positive peace). This aspect insists the culture of peace to be one promoting both negative and positive peace.

Feminist peace – Pushing the limits of positive and negative peace, Brock-Utne includes violence against an individual as an important aspect of culture of peace. Thus “the new definition of peace then included not only the abolition of macro level organized violence, such as war, but also doing away with micro-level unorganized violence, such as rape in war or in the home” (Groff & Smoker).

Holistic Gaia peace – Highlights the need for peace not only between human beings, but peace with the environment as well. This shifts the focus of peace from a merely anthropocentric concept to include all species in the world and peace with nature. “Peace with the environment is seen as central for this type of holistic peace theory, where human beings are seen as one of many species inhabiting the earth, and the fate of the planet is seen as the most important goal” (Groff & Smoker).

Holistic inner and outer peace – This has been the latest addition to the concept of culture of peace as there has been much trepidation to add this sometimes controversial aspect to the field of peace studies. Though secularist may find it problematic, it is also recognised that peace without this aspect cannot exists. Many thinkers also believe that the world is the reflection of a person’s inner being. Accordingly, this aspect is of great importance for building a culture of peace. “Spiritually based peace theory stresses the centrality of inner peace, believing that all aspects of outer peace, from the individual to the environmental levels, must be based on inner peace” (Groff & Smoker).

There remain many dichotomies still unresolved in this field but no one can deny that peace education is one of the most important tools that we have today to transform society. As it emphasises the holistic dimension of living on earth, it compels each one of us to engage with everyday life to bring peace on earth. It faces its own unique challenges as well. Such that “by its very nature, education is not self-financing. Education that challenges the status quo and the power structures that support only one model of economic development will always find funding hard to come by” (L. Cronkhite). The lack of funding being just the tip of the iceberg, as the field tries to accommodate and negotiate diversities of perspectives and realities trying to strike the delicate balance to build peace. It is a dynamic field which can fine-tune itself with praxis. As M.K Gandhi once said, “there is no way to peace, peace is the way.”

Sceptics may question the tools and technique of peace education as an effective way forward to rebuild this war torn, conflict ridden and “terrorised” planet but one has to look around and we will find enough successful efforts in this direction. Pedagogy for peace intends to create attitudes; skills and knowledge amongst students, which help them, move form a violent habituated system to a more peaceful system. In the case of India it intents to break biases, question intolerance and othering, challenge the colonial legacy and create a new vocabulary suited to its experiences knowledge and needs. Pedagogy for peace can prove to be the synergy required to bring together various efforts both of governmental and non-governmental actors to bring about effective social change. Here we will examine 5 principals which are part and parcel of peace education framework and how they are being implemented in South Asia.

The Five Principals of Peace Education in India:

1) Conscientisation and critical pedagogy: freedom from the colonial legacy and banking system of education. According to Freire, oppressed (excluded) people need to develop critical consciousness in order to challenge the ideas of dominant groups who are their oppressors. They need to be able to critically assess the kinds of ideas, contexts and relationships which are usually ‘taken for granted’ or accepted as inevitable, in order to question the root causes of their oppression (Freire 1970). Through the process of conscientisation, or developing critical consciousness, excluded groups can learn to identify, interpret, criticize and finally transform the world about them. Crucial to this process is the notion of praxis by which Freire means being able to make the connection between experience, understanding and social action to bring about social change. It is a process which people must do for themselves because liberation or emancipation cannot be handed down from above. It must come from the bottom up. An example of work done in this direction can be seen in a movement called Jana Sanskriti or cultural movement in West Bengal India. It uses theatre of the oppressed in which the oppressed are not mute, passive observers expected to accept whatever solution is offered to them. The culture in our society is one of centralization and monologue where a few constitute a powerful force and the majority has no choice but to follow instructions blindly, even willingly. Jana Sanskriti wishes to break the culture of monologue. The success of Jan Sanskriti and its methods used offers a rich knowledge base for future educators looking for innovative and meaningful tool for their classroom. Jan Sanskriti is just one of the many groups working towards Conscientisation and Critical pedagogy.

2) Systems thinking: freedom from fragmentation and reactiveness in our education system increasingly has made us dependent on the scientific method or analytical thinking. Edward T Clark Jr. in his article, “The Design Solution: Systems Thinking”, puts forth “four methodological characteristics implicit in the scientific method: a) It is reductionistic and atomistic; b) it is rational, pragmatic and empirical; c) it assumes objectivity; and d) it assumes an either/or logic”. These assumptions lead to fragmentation, competition and reactiveness in our education system. Moreover it creates a mind, which is disinviting to paradoxes and duality in beings. The world is reduced to an inert, non-living being to be acted upon. Not denying the importance of the scientific method, one has to question its relevance and move towards a systems approach if we wish to create an education system, which is more capable of transforming conflict.

It is important to see analytical thinking and systems thinking as complementary rather than as a contradictory or an oppositional way of thinking.

Systems thinking also comes with its assumption:

It incorporates logic
It assumes a living universe
It values ecological thinking
It recognises that we live in a participatory universe
It is at the same time both local and global
It honours the long-range view

The works of NGOs like Society For Integrated Development of the Himalayas (SIDH) in partnership with the Sarva Shiksha Abhyan in Uttarancha, India and Urmul Trust in Rajasthan, India are powerful models for implementing the above. Encouraging non-formal centres of education and making education curriculum deeply linked to local knowledge not only increases student participation but also makes for a more responsive and community based learning process.

3) Compassion, cooperation and co-existence: Challenging competition as a tool to motivate learners. These values also challenge biases, suspicion of the “other” and man’s constant conquest over nature drawing deeply from the Buddhist principle of Universal Responsibility and the Gandhian principle of Sanmati. For too long, the fear of “communal” politics has led to an apprehension of using the existing cultural knowledge in this region which lends themselves to peace and social change. The rich wisdom of spiritual thinkers from the Buddha to Iqbal have been scarcely reflected upon or brought to light for the young to engage with. SPIC MACAY Gurkul Scholarship is a good example of how one can innovatively bridge this gap, exposing and engaging students to these ideas, looking beyond the current accepted system of education, and exploring ideas that are generally rejected by the dominant sensibilities. The three principles mentioned above find a deep resonance in the synchronic traditions and cultural wisdom of this region and should find a voice in the curriculum and teaching methods of this region.

4) Curriculum, context and dialogical learning: questions power, politics and pedagogy. What we teach is as important as how we teach. The content or the subject matter then becomes the lens from which you approach and view the given situation. Thus both the content and the method have to work hand in hand. Curriculum for pedagogy for peace has to be context sensitive and based on dialogical method of teaching which makes it dynamic and constantly being defined and redefined in the light of context. Curriculum has to free itself from prejudices at the same time not be apolitical and removed from reality. The Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme (HSTP) and Eklavya in Madhya Pradesh India is perhaps a good example of engaging curriculum free of prejudices. HSTP has attempted to base science education on the principles of “learning by discovery”, “learning through activity” and “learning from the environment” in contrast to the prevailing textbook centred ‘learning by rote’ method.

5) Contemplation and self-knowledge – questioning an education system that insists humans are nothing more than mere ‘human capital”: This aspect is normally missing or at best given lip service to at schools. Education as viewed by Gandhi has to have all three components, that which is for the mind, the body and the spirit. Therefore in his Nai Talim model for education, he has tried to break the hierarchy of knowledge, which puts mind above body and spirit. Self-knowledge is the fulcrum or anchor, which helps us build relationships in the world. Most educators and teachers in this region have emphasised its importance in the creative process and learning. It is the basis of action, which is based in thought and reflection rather than reaction. Thus from Krishnamurti to Aurobindo and Tagore, all have emphasised its importance, especially during the formative years of a child’s learning process. However, this aspect is normally restricted to what is known as “holistic school”. The Krishanmurti Foundation India and the “new progressive schools” in the metros are examples of this model. The lack of encouragement to this aspect cannot be justified on the basis of lack of finances or infrastructure to do it. It is merely matter of priorities of the education system, which is geared towards building human capital. This needs to be challenged, for only a people anchored in themselves are capable of creating something new rather than just human being programmed to solve problems.

References:

Boulding, E. (2000). Cultures of peace. The hidden side of history . New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 89-106.

Groff, Linda & Smoker, Paul (1996). Creating global/local cultures of peace. In UNESCO (Ed.) From a culture of violence to a culture of peace. pp. 103-127. Paris: UNESCO.

Potter, W. C. (2001). A new agenda for disarmament and non-proliferation education. Disarmament Forum . 3, 1-8. Available online at http://www.haguepeace.org.

Cronkhite, L. (2000). Development education: Making connections North and South. In Goldstein, Tara & Selby, David (eds) Weaving Connections : Educating for peace, social and environmental justice. (pp. 146-167). Toronto: Sumach.

UNESCO (2004). UNESCO-mainstreaming the culture of peace . Paris: Culture of Peace Co-ordinator, Bureau of Strategic Planning. pp. 1-9.

Footnote: 1 This understanding subscribes to the social constructionist view as developed by Peter L Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their book Social Construction of Reality (1966).

2 John Paul Lederach: Preparing for Peace: Chapter One

3 Procss structueres are natural phenomena that are dynamic, adaptive and changing, and yet at the same time sustain a functional and recognizable form and structure. For peace as process structure refer to the writings of Lederach and Maiesse at www.beyondintractability.org.

Bio: Shreya Jani is a MA student in the Peace Education programme at the University for Peace, Costa Rica.

+ - Font Size

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Supported by

China’s Extreme Fan Culture Makes Olympic Gold a Mixed Blessing

Fans have mobbed athletes in public and staked out their homes. State media outlets denounced their “visibly aggressive” behavior.

Share full article

A Chinese athlete, wearing a white long-sleeved shirt, is surrounded by fans at an airport.

By Vivian Wang

Reporting from Beijing

A gold medalist diver’s mother said she was afraid for her daughter to come home after their hometown was swarmed with her supporters. A champion swimmer whose hotel was staked out by admirers disbanded his official fan group and told an interviewer he would rather have performed worse if it meant he would be left alone.

Other athletes have been hounded by crowds at airports or been the subjects of vicious arguments online between rival fan camps, leading Chinese official media to denounce fans for being “visibly aggressive.” The police have even detained at least two people for allegedly defaming athletes.

After a stellar run at the Paris Olympics, where China tied the United States for the most gold medals, Chinese athletes are now facing a darker side of that success: extreme fans.

Celebrities globally have to deal with fans who are sometimes invasive , but in China this phenomenon can be especially intense. Fan groups spend lavishly on products endorsed by their idols, deploy bots to ensure their favorites stay atop social media trending lists and even mount harassment campaigns against other stars and their supporters. Some fans stalk their idols and sell their photos or personal information.

At first, the obsession was directed mostly at actors and musicians. But in recent years, it has turned to athletes, too.

In southern China’s Guangdong Province, the village of Maihe, population a few thousand, has been flooded with over 1,000 visitors every day, according to Chinese media. They are there to see the home of Quan Hongchan , 17, who won two diving golds in Paris.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Peace Education Reflection Paper.docx
Essay on importance of peace in the world. Why is world peace important
(PDF) Peace education in the Philippines
Essay On World Peace Day In English
How to Achieve World Peace Essay Example
Essay On Peace for School Students in 100

COMMENTS

Reflections on Peace Education
Reflections on Peace Education. Education for peace and respect for human rights is particularly important in this period, if we compare the values this education promotes with the daily violence, the horrors of war and the gradual destruction of values such as solidarity, cooperation and respect for others: all of them problems that assault us ...
Reflections on Transformative Education: Toward Peace Learning Systems
Global Transformation through Peace Learning Systems Over the past 15 years, I have worked on peace education programs in communities in the US and abroad and have personally seen community members, teachers, and students from a diverse array of social backgrounds engage in the work of transformative education. Peace education strives to empower future generations to use "the capacity and ...
Peace Education: A Year in Review & Reflection (2021)
The Global Campaign for Peace Education, and its community of partners and individual educators, worked tirelessly toward building a more peaceful world through education in 2021. Read our brief report of developments and activities, and take a moment to celebrate our shared achievements.
Can we teach peace? reflection, strategies, and practices
Can we teach peace? Explore reflections, strategies, and practices in this insightful discussion on fostering peace education and conflict resolution skills.
Reflections of a Peace Educator: The Power and Challenges of Peace
Download Citation | Reflections of a Peace Educator: The Power and Challenges of Peace Education With Pre-Service Teachers | This retrospective essay examines one long-standing peace and global ...
Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a
The above reflection from Alva's last exam as a peace and conflict studies (PCS) student inspired us to question the challenges of learning and practicing peace in formal higher education. Students' motivation to build peace is often met with some level of amusement; despite researchers' most ardent convictions of contributing to positive change in society, the loss of such rosy dreams is ...
What is peace education exactly and why do we need it?
Thus, peace education as a practice and philosophy refers to matching complementary elements between education and society, where the social purposes (i.e., why teach), content (i.e., what to teach), and pedagogy (i.e., how to teach) of the educative process are conducive to fostering peace" (Kester, 2010: 2). To help us better understand ...
Transformative Peace Pedagogy: Fostering a Reflective, Critical, and
This article by Tony Jenkins offers a brief philosophical and pedagogical framework and rationale for transformative peace pedagogy as a preferred approach and philosophy of teaching and learning in peace studies. Transformative peace pedagogy fosters the development of a self-reflective praxis and nurtures a holistic, inclusive relationship between the inner (personal) and outer (political ...
Peace Education in the Philippines: Measuring Impact
Abstract In this essay I discuss the education and experiences that were important for my formation as a Peace Educator and Advocate. The essay also briefly looks at the issue of peace research, teaching and activism, and how we at the Miriam College -Center for Peace Education believe that research and teaching are important but not enough.
The Dialogical Turn: A Review Essay of "Peacebuilding Through Dialogue
Peacebuilding Through Dialogue is a valuable collection of reflections on the meaning, complexity, and application of dialogue (Stearns, 2018). The collection advances our understanding of dialogue and its applicability in multiple and diverse contexts. In this review essay the general orientation as well as the specific reflections of dialogue in the domains of education, transformative ...
PDF Peace Education
Published in 2008 by the Center for Peace Education, Miriam College, Quezon City, Philippines With support from: Samuel Rubin Foundation ... reflection and participation; they are elements that should be integrated into the pedagogy of all teaching at all levels of education. This latest addition to the practical literature of peace education ...
Reflections on Transformative Education: Toward Peace Learning Systems
Abstract. In this article, I will highlight the presence of peace learning systems that integrate formal and informal education efforts at the community level. My hope is that this article will ...
PDF PEACE EDUCATION: A Pathway to a Culture of Peace
A Holistic Understanding of Peace and Peace Education RISHUVRQDO GLUHFW YLROHQFHDQGWKHSUHVHQFHRIVRFLDO MXVWLFH )RUEUHY LW\ KHSUHIHUVWKHIRUPXODWLRQV´DEVHQFHRIYLROHQFHµDQG´SUHVHQFH
Peace education in the 21st century: an essential strategy for ...
CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO. Peace education in the 21st century An essential strategy for building lasting peace This report provides an overview of the importance of peace education, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for using it in efforts to bring about lasting global peace. It reviews key research and is heavily inspired by the ...
Reflections on Peace Education and the Philippines
Mische, Patricia M. (2020) "Reflections on Peace Education and the Philippines," The Journal of Social Encounters : Vol. 4: Iss. 2, 78-89. This essay, written at the request of JSE editors as an introduction to its special section on Peace Education in the Philippines, discusses the meaning and importance of educating for peace in a globally ...
Peace Education Reflection Paper.docx
View Peace Education Reflection Paper.docx from SOCIO MISC at De La Salle College of Saint Benilde. CAMUS, Maeca Louisse P. DFM2 Peace Education Acquiring Peace is one of the major goals of our
The Role of Education to Build Peace and Reconciliation in Post
In addition to the INEE Minimum Standard, several post-conflict education frameworks have been proposed and implemented as methods of bringing about lasting peace and reconciliation. It is hoped that by use of these frameworks, which are discussed below, children will be effectively inculcated with the ethos of peace culture. Emergency Education
Essay On Peace Education
Essay On Peace Education. 1019 Words5 Pages. The human miseries and pains were always there in the history of mankind. Only there nature changed with the period of time. Today, in the modern world, where material development has crossed all boundaries man is moaning in pain that has been never before. Today on one hand human civilization has ...
Reflection on Peace Education.docx
Reflection on Peace Education Education for peace and respect for human rights is especially critical in this period, on the off chance that we compare the values this education advances with the everyday viciousness, the repulsions of war, and the slow devastation of values such as solidarity, participation, and respect for others: all of the issues that assault us each day. The definitive ...
What are Peace Studies and Peace Education?
Peace studies is a broad, interdisciplinary activity, which includes research, reflection, and dialogue concerning the causes of war, conflict, and violence and the orientation necessary to establish peace, conflict resolution, and nonviolence. Scholars, researchers, or students from nearly any discipline can participate in the systematic and ...
Understanding Peace Education: An Indian Perspective
Peace education is therefore both a philosophy and skill that prepares people, young and old, to negotiate on behalf of themselves and the world in a peaceful manner. It seeks to transform conflict using non-violent tools and bases itself in the values of compassion, interconnectedness, justice and harmony.
Essay On Peace in English for Students
Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.
NSTP 4
It is a Reflection Paper about Peace Education for the subject NSTP reflection paper peace education the second topic on the webinar focuses on peace education
China's Extreme Fan Culture Makes Olympic Gold a Mixed Blessing
Fans have mobbed athletes in public and staked out their homes. State media outlets denounced their "visibly aggressive" behavior.

Reflections on Peace Education

Other articles in this magazine

Reflections on Transformative Education: Toward Peace Learning Systems

Transformative Education—A Systemic View

Emergent Peace Learning Systems

Planetary Education and Action

Add comment Cancel reply

Can we teach peace? reflection, strategies, and practices

What does peace mean to you?

Peace and Education

Integrating Peace Education: Strategies for Curriculum Development

Suggestions for Global Education Resources

Shaping Peace: Harnessing Our Superpower

Starting from Within

Start with yourself. Enhancing your peace skills.

Loving-Kindness Meditation Exercise for Conflict Resolution

Nurturing Peace through Social-Emotional Learning

Learn more about Satchel Pulse in your district

Recent posts

Subscribe to Email Updates

Article Contents

“Peace” Emerging within and Beyond Academia

Classrooms for Peace, to What End?

Engaged Pedagogy

Practicing Reflexivity

Envisioning Peace

Email alerts

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

What is peace education exactly and why do we need it?

Featured Regions:

Featured Action Areas:

Featured Cooperation Circle(s):

The Dialogical Turn: A Review Essay of “Peacebuilding Through Dialogue: Education, Human Transformation, and Conflict Resolution”

The Dialogical Turn

Peacebuilding Through Dialogue

The Dialogical Turn in Moral and Political Philosophy

Deontological Moral Constructivism

Communitarianism

Michael Walzer’s Interpretative Approach

Capabilities Theory

Join the Campaign & help us #SpreadPeaceEd!

Related Posts

Memorias para la Vida: Dialogues for the Construction of Deep Cultures of Peace in Colombia

In memoriam: Daisaku Ikeda

The bishops of Tierra Caliente and Chiapas: Violence and insecurity are destroying the Mexican people

We20: A Peoples’ Summit resolves to strengthen efforts to protect rights

Reflections on Peace Education and the Philippines

Recommended Citation

Included in

Recommended

Beyond Intractability

Emergency Education

Education Access and Opportunity

Resources Development

Professional Teacher Development

Curriculum Reform

Peace Education

The Intractable Conflict Challenge

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Conflict Frontiers

Conflict Fundamentals

BI in Context

Colleague Activities

Radford University

What are Peace Studies and Peace Education?

Understanding Peace Education: An Indian Perspective

Essay on Peace

Importance of Peace

How to Maintain Peace

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

China’s Extreme Fan Culture Makes Olympic Gold a Mixed Blessing

IMAGES

COMMENTS