Peace education

Peace education programs centered on conflict resolution typically focus on the social-behavioural symptoms of conflict; they train individuals to resolve inter-personal disputes through negotiation and (peer) mediation. The main elements of these programs include: learning to manage anger, "fighting fair"; improving communication through skills such as listening, turn-taking, identifying needs, and separating facts from emotions. Participants are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and to brainstorm together on compromises.[16]

In general, approaches of this type aim to "alter beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours ... from negative to positive attitudes toward conflict as a basis for preventing violence" (Van Slyck, Stern and Elbedour, 1999).[17] Various styles or approaches in conflict resolution training (ADR, Verbal Aikido, NVC) can give the practitioner the means to accept the conflictual situation and orient it towards a peaceful resolution. As one peer mediation coordinator put it: "Conflict is very natural and normal, but you can't go through your entire life beating everybody up—you have to learn different ways to resolve conflict".[18]

Peace education programs centered on democracy education typically focus on the political processes associated with conflict. They postulate that with an increase in democratic participation, societies are less likely to resolve conflict through violence and war. At the same time, "A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance" (U.S. Department of State, The Culture of Democracy, emphasis added).[19] Programs of this kind foster a conflict-positive orientation in the community by training students to view conflict as a platform for creativity and growth.

Approaches of this type train participants in critical thinking, debate, and coalition-building; they promote the values of freedom of speech, individuality, tolerance of diversity, compromise and conscientious objection. They seek to produce "responsible citizens" who will hold their governments accountable to the standards of peace, primarily through adversarial processes. Activities are structured to have students "assume the role of the citizen that chooses, makes decisions, takes positions, argues positions, and respects the opinions of others".[20] These skills, which sustain multi-party democracy, are assumed to decrease the likelihood of violence and war. It is further assumed that they are necessary to create a culture of peace.

Education for justice is the process of promoting the rule of law (RoL) through educational activities at all levels. Education for justice teaches the next generation about crime prevention, to better understand and address problems that can undermine the rule of law. This approach promotes peace and encourages students to engage actively in their communities and future professions.[21]

Making the RoL and a culture of lawfulness a priority is not just about transmitting knowledge, but also about values and behaviours that are modelled and enforced daily through the 'hidden curriculum'. ‘The ‘hidden curriculum’ of the classroom and school transmits norms, values and beliefs to learners in ways other than formal teaching and learning processes. This ensures that learners develop skills to engage in society as ethically responsible citizens.[21]

Peace education programs centered on raising awareness of human rights typically focus on policies that humanity ought to adopt to move closer to a peaceful global community. The aim is to engender a commitment among participants to a vision of structural peace in which all individual members of the human race can exercise personal freedoms and enjoy legal protection from violence, oppression and indignity.

Approaches of this type familiarize participants with the international covenants and declarations of the United Nations system; train students to recognize violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and promote tolerance, solidarity, autonomy and self-affirmation at the individual and collective levels.[22]

Human rights education "faces continual elaboration, a significant theory-practice gap and frequent challenge as to its validity".[23] In one practitioner's view:

"Human rights education does not work in communities fraught with conflict unless it is part of a comprehensive approach... In fact, such education can be counterproductive and lead to greater conflict if people become aware of rights which are not realized. In this respect, human rights education can increase the potential for conflict"[24]

To prevent these negative outcomes, many such programs are now being combined with aspects of conflict resolution and democracy education schools of thought, along with training in nonviolent action.[25]

Some approaches to peace education start from psychological insights, which recognize the developmental nature of human psychosocial dispositions. Conflict-promoting attitudes and behaviours characterize earlier phases of human development; unity-promoting attitudes and behaviours emerge in later phases of healthy development. H.B. Danesh (2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008a, 2008b)[26] proposes an "Integrative Theory of Peace" in which peace is understood as a psychosocial, political, moral and spiritual reality. Peace education, he says, must focus on the healthy development and maturation of human consciousness through assisting people to examine and transform their worldviews. Worldviews are defined as the subconscious lens (acquired through cultural, family, historical, religious and societal influences) through which people perceive four key issues: 1) the nature of reality, 2) human nature, 3) the purpose of existence, 4) the principles governing appropriate human relationships. Surveying a mass of material, Danesh argues that the majority of people and societies in the world hold conflict-based worldviews, which express themselves in conflicted intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, and international relationships. He subdivides conflict-based worldviews into two main categories, which he correlates to phases of human development: the Survival-Based Worldview and the Identity-Based Worldview. Acquiring a more integrative, Unity-Based Worldview increases human capacity to mitigate conflict, create unity in the context of diversity, and establish sustainable cultures of peace - at home, at school, at work, or in the international community.

Modern forms of peace education relate to new scholarly explorations and applications of techniques in peace education internationally, in plural communities, and with individuals. Critical Peace Education (Bajaj 2008, 2015; Bajaj & Hantzopoulos 2016; Trifonas & Wright 2013) is an emancipatory pursuit that seeks to link education to the goals and foci of social justice - disrupting inequality through critical pedagogy (Freire 2003). Critical peace education addresses the critique that peace education is imperial and impository mimicking the 'interventionism' of Western peacebuilding by foregrounding local practices and narratives into peace education (Salomon 2004; MacGinty & Richmond 2007; Golding 2017). The project of critical peace education includes conceiving of education as a space of transformation where students and teachers become change agents that recognise past and present experiences of inequity and bias, and where schools become strategic sites fostering emancipatory change.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33]