Comprehensive Peace Education

C Comprehensive Peace Education Tony Jenkins International Institute on Peace Education, Washington, DC, USA external political action necessary for social and political change. This entry proposes comprehensive peace education as the most holistic, transformative, and adaptable approach to educating for peace in different contexts; introduces some of its theoretical and practical bases; and considers the necessary preparations of educators for its pedagogical practice. Introduction Peace education is education both about and for peace. It is an academic field of inquiry, and the practice(s) of teaching and learning, oriented toward and for the elimination of all forms of violence, and the establishment of a culture of peace. Peace education has its origins in responses to evolving social, political, and ecological crises and concerns of violence and injustice. The field has adapted, and learned, from thinking and trends emerging in the dialogical interplay between peace research, peace education, and peace action. These evolving origins have led to a wide range of theories and approaches to teaching peace. In the early 1980s, peace education pioneer Betty Reardon called for the development of comprehensive peace education, a holistic and integrative approach most applicable for the pursuit of a culture of peace, and potentially unifying for a field comprised of many seemingly disconnected approaches. Comprehensive peace education is rooted in critical and transformative pedagogies. It is especially futures oriented, seeking to nurture those inner peace capacities that are essential to © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 M. A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_319-1 A Brief History of the Field The history of peace education comprises formal, non-formal, and informal developments, with the still contested formalization of the academic field emerging in the latter half of the twentieth century. Its evolutional path, similar to other transdisciplinary social and educational sciences, is reflective of the learning praxis of those who were and are actively engaged in the field. The origins of peace education can be traced to informal, cultural practices and community-based education interventions. This history is also connected to activism, where early efforts were pursued primarily by activist educators. Many early approaches were responses to historical experiences of violence and wars, especially WWI and WWII. Early formal efforts reflected these realities and stressed content and pedagogy focused on the abolition of war, disarmament education, and world order. These early orientations focused on achieving “negative peace,” or the absence of direct forms of violence (Galtung 1969). Global issues of 2 poverty, global inequality, and development and underdevelopment were also introduced to the field. The lens of development studies introduced critical, liberatory, and consciousness-raising pedagogies, such as those experimented with and utilized by Paulo Freire (1973) in Brazil as he sought to emancipate the powerless and poor through critical literacy learning. The development approach presupposed equitable global development as a necessary precondition for peace and global security. It therefore called for both pedagogy of the oppressed (Freire 1970) and pedagogy of the privileged (Reardon and Snauwaert 2015), both of which are necessary in addressing the systemic nature of global poverty. To transform the global order of inequity requires all participants to have an awareness of their relation and contributions to the dynamic systems of which they are a part. In the 1970s, feminist peace researchers, largely through the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association, introduced women’s perspectives and feminist analysis to peace education (Pervical 1989). Women’s concerns were largely ignored and considered peripheral to the issues of war, disarmament, and traditional peace and security. The feminists countered this false logic through structural analysis showing the interconnections between women’s issues and experiences of violence and the war system. The feminist researchers argued that any structural changes would be unsuccessful without change and transformation in human relationships, values, behaviors, and worldviews. The affective, intuitive, creative, psychological, care, and relational dimensions of peace – largely considered inferior women’s concerns – had a significant impact on broadening the scope of peace education. There was a call for the personal to be given as much attention as the political. The feminist perspective was relational rather than conflict centered, recognizing that the resolution of conflicts was meaningless if the underlying relationship was not also addressed and made whole. The goals and purposes derived from this perspective intimate a “positive peace” orientation (Galtung 1969), calling for building and establishing the conditions Comprehensive Peace Education necessary for peace to flourish. This emphasis is not at the expense of the pursuit of negative peace or the resistance to violence and the dismantling of war, rather, the feminists thought it essential to pursue both. Feminist peace researchers view holism and interconnectedness as vital to the process of educating for a culture of peace. Many early approaches focused of the transmission of knowledge and development of peacemaking skills, without considering the personal, inner, or transformative dimensions and the development of supportive attitudes and capacities, called forth by the more inclusive feminist vision. Educating for a Culture of Peace A present phase of peace education development is rooted in the vision of a culture of peace. A culture of peace, articulated in the 1999 UN Declaration and Program of Action on a Culture of Peace, is based upon “a set of values, attitudes, traditions and modes of behavior and ways of life” (UN General Assembly 1999, Article 1) that flow from several interrelated principles including respect for life, human rights, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, sustainable development and ecological integrity, gender equity, and human dignity. The pursuit of a culture of peace is now well integrated into the UN system and is pursued through the educational work of governments and NGOs. It has also shaped a positive peace orientation within international political discourse, highlighting the increased need for prevention, visioning, and futures planning. A culture of peace calls for a shift in cultures, institutions, and consciousness of a level yet to be fully pursued by peace education. The culture of peace approach to peace education calls for nothing short of a paradigm shift in societies, especially in the educational institutions that give rise to, support, and sustain dominant worldviews and ways of being. Transformation is the key pedagogical characteristic and social purpose aligned with this approach. Transformation implies a fundamental change of belief systems and the accompanying institutions that support them. In the context of peace education, such transformations Comprehensive Peace Education are pursued through modes of learning that are elicitive, reflective, contemplative, ruminative, futures oriented, and essentially learner centered. Transformations in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are pursued through such learning modes and accompanied by the development of critical and reflective capacities that support transformation as an ongoing and organic process, constantly open to reinterpretation and change. Betty Reardon (Reardon and Snauwaert 2015) points out the same principle holds true for the transformation of cultures and institutions. While the various approaches and developments outlined above are presented as historical evolutions, they may be better understood as crisscrossing pathways. Peace education is approached contextually, reflecting historical, cultural, and lived circumstances of violence. Thus, in countries or regions emerging from war and armed conflict, disarmament education is most salient. While in other contexts, where structural violence and oppression are primary concerns, human rights education and critical pedagogy are the most relevant entry points and approaches to the pursuits of peace and justice. Each approach has its limitations. For example, some recent peace education scholars have identified that the very futures oriented, post-modern, culture of peace approach, which is deeply rooted in Western values, may be ineffective as a tool of consciousness raising. These scholars have called for a reclamation and return to emphasis of critical peace education. These critiques are particularly useful at drawing attention to possibly overlooked and forgotten scholarship that should remain relevant in the discourse. At the same time, these critiques also reveal a possible level of distrust by scholars in the ability of educators to identify and design learning and educational interventions most relevant to their realities. Scholars should be critically conscious of the possible prejudices afforded to their relative positions of privilege. To what degree might academics and educators, as Freire suggests, have a “lack of confidence in the people’s ability to think, to want and to know” (Freire 1970, p. 60)? Betty Reardon suggested that “comprehensive peace education” might be the next evolutionary step. Comprehensive Peace Education: 3 Education for Global Responsibility (Reardon 1988), one of the first general theoretical works in the field, is “comprehensive” in many aspects. It seeks to remedy the fragmentation derived from a disconnected diversity of approaches to peace education. It acknowledges the need to eliminate violence, negate negative approaches to conflict, and to promote a culture of peace to transform and transcend a culture of violence. It pursues knowledge holistically, recognizing that holism is essential for conceiving a transformed world order. The content of learning in comprehensive peace education is derived from the relevant macro and micro contexts of the learners and is pursued holistically. The contents are thus wide and varying (depending upon contextual conditions), studied transdisciplinarily, and draw from all spheres of peace knowledge. Also implied is a transformative, active, and futures orientation, addressing both the political and psychological dimensions essential to the task of social and cultural change necessary for human flourishing and well-being. The modes of transformative learning most relevant to these goals are those derived from feminist approaches and various forms of critical pedagogy. These include learner-centered, reflective, integrative, and inquiry-based learning approaches. Developing critical and reflective consciousness is seen as an essential basis for the possibility of social action and engagement as well as the pursuit of a good and meaningful life. These purposes, goals, and pedagogies are articulated in Table 1 below. “Teaching” Comprehensive Peace Education Comprehensive peace education is far from formulaic. Teacher preparation in peace education is itself a transformative process. It is through the struggle of seeking to change our everyday reality that we begin to challenge patterns of thinking and action that may lead to paradigm shifts and system change. For the educator, this implies developing reflective learning practices, what Paulo Freire described as a form of “praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire 1970, p. 51). It is this same praxis that 4 Comprehensive Peace Education Comprehensive Peace Education, Table 1 Fundamental purposes, goals, and characteristics of comprehensive, transformative peace education Fundamental purposes, goals, and characteristics of comprehensive, transformative peace education Purpose To acquire the knowledge, develop the skills, nurture the attitudes, and build those capacities necessary for human well-being and flourishing and the achievement of a culture of peace. Overarching goals To reduce and eliminate all forms of violence (direct, structural, and cultural) Establish the conditions for positive peace and human rights to flourish Orientation/disposition Transformative (personal, social, and cultural) in nature Directed toward action Organic and dynamic, ever evolving, open to new learning and change Futures oriented Cosmopolitan/ecological relationships Emphasizes learning and process as important as outcomes Scope Comprehensive and holistic Includes learning essential for personal, interpersonal, social, political, institutional, and ecological change and transformation Lifelong learning Includes formal, nonformal, and informal learning opportunities Learner centered Pedagogy/methods Preferred modes of Reflective (personal, critical, speculative, and ruminative) transformative learning Integrative Inquiry based Cooperative/collaborative Perspective taking and worldview examination Futures thinking and envisioning Conflict resolution/transformation (restorative practices) Reflective, engaged, and deep listening practices Contents Explored transdisciplinarily Drawing from all spheres of peace knowledge (research, studies, action, and education) Rooted in human rights and international standards Supportive of gender equity/gender sensitivity Sustainable development (poverty/inequality) and peace economics Social justice Disarmament/militarism Democracy – democratic participation and civic engagement Nonviolence (principled and strategic) Futures thinking/visioning (and strategic planning) World order Conflict transformation/restorative justice Peacebuilding Theories of learning and change Conflict processes (interpersonal, mediation) Cultural proficiency Global agency Global citizenship/cosmopolitanism Healing and reconciliation Spirituality Ecological sustainability/environmental justice peace education seeks to nurture within all learners. For the educator, this praxis shapes a general disposition that is aptly captured by Reardon’s notion of the edu-learner. An edu-learner is “a practitioner/theorist whose primary activity is learning while trying to help other people learn. . . The most fundamental aspect of the edu-learning process is the role of the teacher as learner and the view of learning as a lifelong process of experience reflected upon and integrated Comprehensive Peace Education into new learning in an organic, cyclical mode, a mode that is conscious of the relations between the inner experience and the outer realities.” (Reardon 1988, p. 47). An edu-learner approaches learning as a process of mutual engagement, modelling learning with and from students in a process of co-learning. An edu-learner is also critically aware of how their relationship to students can shape learning outcomes that can either reproduce or challenge societal norms. The nature of the relationship between the teacher and the student is the most significant and impactful aspect of the teaching-learning process. Learning via comprehensive peace education, anchored in this edu-learner awareness, is generally pursued through a cyclical praxis. While not intended as prescriptive, this praxis might include several stages of learning and action, beginning with a process of eliciting the concerns of the learners rooted in their subjective experience of the world; followed by nurturing a critical analysis of that reality, both individually and communally; supplemented by ethical reflection, and articulation and consideration of preferences and desired values; and culminating in designing and modelling alternative, preferred realities. Consistent with critical pedagogy, comprehensive peace education seeks to draw forth, or elicit, the intention of the learner through varying modes of reflection on experience. Critical consciousness requires intentional reflection on reality. Patterns of thinking and habits of mind derived from systems of injustice condition the learner to fatalism. Thus, eliciting awareness of one’s subjective reality is a necessary precondition to social and political emancipation. Critical consciousness cannot be instructed or imparted, rather it is made possible through inquiries and forms of embodied learning supporting self-reflection. Educators help orient reflective inquiries to address concerns named by the learner. This internal reflection is then complemented by communal inquiry. Hearing others’ reflections on reality moves one’s internal interpretation from subjective to objective. Such awareness is essential for collective political action. 5 Naming reality is a necessary precondition for changing reality. But what changes are desired? Can a vision of a desired order be found within the present system? Freire observed that the oppressed view what it means to be fully human in the image of the oppressor. However, the situation of the oppressor is only made possible by the subjugation of the oppressed. Thus, transformative peace pedagogy also encourages ethical reflection. What values and ethical principles should inform our preferences? Who and how do we want to be? Reflecting upon and naming what is right and wrong, good or bad, helps to establish criteria from which we can evaluate alternatives as well as the processes and pedagogies through which we might pursue their achievement. Human rights, and the principles articulated by the UN’s culture of peace work, are collectively derived frameworks that have helped name some of these preferences. We must, of course, reflect upon and revise these normative frameworks, as they too were derived from within the framework of the system as is. Nonetheless, they provide substantive material upon which we might design inquiry for our own preferences. Ultimately, ethical reflection is a capacity peace education seeks to develop. Ethical reflection is a lifelong learning practice and is foundational to living with integrity. Finally, transformative peace pedagogy, as liberating praxis, is not possible without action. Without action peace education is merely an intellectual and speculative exercise. The true substance of peace education is the subjective reality of the learner and their pursuit of authentic peace and freedom. Thus action, and reflection on that action, is essential to transformation. Comprehensive peace education should invite students to design, model, and engage in change processes leading to their preferred realities. At a bare minimum, reflection upon action supports the possibility of improved and more ethically consistent future action. Reflection on action can also bring the praxis full-circle, fostering agency and political action pursued with integrity. 6 Comprehensive Peace Education Being the Change Comprehensive peace education is not offered here as an attempt to universalize peace education. Rather, it is put forward as a guiding framework to support educators in reflecting upon and discerning the substance and transformative practices that may be most relevant to addressing contextual manifestations of violence and pursuing peace. As education both about and for peace, the substance of peace education (past, present, future) cannot be separated from the reality of the learner. This has long been a primary claim of Betty Reardon: Among the changes that have to be made. . .the most significant ones are within ourselves. The way in which we move toward those inner changes, the way in which we envision and struggle for peace and try to construct that new paradigm, is the most essential means through which we will be enabled to make the larger structural changes required for a peace system. (Reardon and Snauwaert 2015, p. 112) Engagement in everyday action for change is premised upon establishing lifelong, reflective learning practices. Similarly, teaching comprehensive peace education requires the educator to be a reflective practitioner – reflecting on their own reality while simultaneously reflecting upon and learning from the reality of the learners. At the heart of peace education is the intentional reflection of the educator as edu-learner. Comprehensive peace education may be best utilized as a framework to aid the reflective practitioner in discerning the issues, and designating the pedagogies, most relevant to facilitating personal, normative, and structural change essential to the emergence of a culture of peace. References Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. Pervical, M. (1989). An intellectual history of the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University Microfilms International (Accession Order No. 8913128). Reardon, B. (1988). Comprehensive peace education: Educating for global responsibility. New York: Teachers College Press. Reardon, B., & Snauwaert, D. (Eds.). (2015). Betty A. Reardon: A pioneer in education for peace and human rights. New York: Springer. UN General Assembly. (6 October 1999). Declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace. UN Document Number A/RES/53/243. Retrieved from: www. un-documents.net/a53r243b.htm