CHAPTER 2
Conventional and Critical Approaches
to Peace Education
Abstract Peace and education are both “essentially contested concepts.”
Welding them together in one single term—peace education—raises
tough questions about what it is that is being proposed and done. With
their normative, morally appellative and culturally universalist focus on
the individual learner, conventional conceptions and practices of peace
education do not easily relate to variable, heterogeneous and contextdependent notions and realities of peace and education in violenceinflected societies. They also shy away from taking account of asymmetric
and unequal power relationships. Evoking the importance of building
“cultures of peace” falls short of addressing these realities. Critical
approaches to peace education forefront empowering individuals as well
as collectives to become agents of social transformation. Education for
peace is understood as social action geared towards finding solutions
to manifold manifestations of direct, cultural and structural violence,
injustice and inequality. Critical peace education is more attuned to the
thorny issues of power and exclusion. However, it faces the challenge of
showing how the empowerment and emancipation of the marginalised
and oppressed through formal and informal education for peace can
lead to broader institutional transformation. The chapter illustrates peace
education’s challenges in relation to the case of Colombia.
Keywords Peace education · Cátedra de la Paz (Peace Chair) · Violent
conflict · Colombia
© The Author(s) 2022
M. Schultze-Kraft, Education for Sustaining Peace through Historical
Memory, Memory Politics and Transitional Justice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93654-9_2
13
14
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Since the early days of peace research in the 1960s, it has often been
noted that what is labelled peace education or education on and/or for
peace is a field of scholarly enquiry and educational praxis that cannot
be easily classified and delimited (see, for instance, Banks 1974; Cremin
2016; Galtung 1974; Jaeger 2014; Lum 2013; Mushakoji 1974; Nicklas
and Ostermann 1974; Salomon 2002; Wiberg 1974).1 However could
it, one must ask, given that both peace and education are terms that
defy straightforward definition? Peace—as a notion, reality, ideal and
utopia—carries a plurality of meanings, promises and hopes across time
and space.2 To some, it may mean the absence of varying forms of
direct, structural and cultural violence, as in Johan Galtung’s negative
conception of the term (Galtung 1969, 2012, 2017).3 For those more
inclined towards the Norwegian peace scholar’s positive conceptualisation, it may refer to “an optimal environment in which human potential
can flourish” (Institute for Economics & Peace 2019: 67), where “hatred,
antipathy and indifference” between individuals and collectives, such as
communities, states and nations, are replaced by “sympathy” and “cooperation” (Galtung 2012: 53). More emphatically even, peace is seen
1 It is worthwhile to recall here the observation of Johan Galtung, the seminal Norwegian peace and peace education scholar-practitioner, that in its beginnings peace research
had a challenging time becoming established at universities in Europe and North America.
When the emerging academic discipline finally moved from the margins and from what
today would be called thinktanks into the higher education sector, it was strong on
research but weak on education (Galtung 1974). While many efforts have since been
made to integrate research and education on peace, and a plethora of study and learning
programmes have been set up at universities and specialised training institutes, including
in countries of the South, research and education on peace and violent conflict still
do not communicate as much as they should with one another (Senghaas, cited in
Frieters-Reermann 2009).
2 In illustration, based on a search of the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database
on “articles published in English since 2000 with ‘peace’ in their title,” Peter Coleman
found more than “40 terms distinguishing different types or aspects of peace. […] Peace
can differ in a variety of ways, including by level (interpersonal to international to global
peace), direction (internal and external peace), durability (from fragile to enduring peace),
source or conditions (peace through coercion, democratic participation, economic incentive, etc.), type (negative, positive and promotive peace) and scope (local to global peace)”
(Coleman 2013: 103).
3 According to Galtung, direct violence involves acts geared towards inflicting physical
harm and destruction on others, while structural and cultural violence manifest in the
exploitation of others and patterns of justification of both direct and structural violence,
respectively (Galtung 2012).
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
15
as a “moral aspiration, social good, universal value and a human right
(author’s translation)” (Arias 2016: 244). It is “a linchpin of social
harmony, economic equity and political justice,” which, however, is always
at peril of being “ruptured by wars and other forms of violent conflict”
(Webel 2007: 5–6). Dialectic in nature, peace “as social formation has
forces and counter-forces” prompting cyclical movement from peace to
peacelessness and back again. In this movement, returning to the point
of peaceful equilibrium requires, however, that these cycles are “handled
non-violently-constructively-creatively” (Galtung 2012: 12). Others still,
operating at the fringes of the realist paradigm in International Relations,
would like to make us believe—misleadingly, to my mind—that peace is
nothing but the seedbed of, and a somehow artificial interval between,
never-ending violent conflict and war (Walt 2016).
Not as contentious as peace, education—conventionally defined as the
“process of teaching, training and learning, especially in schools, colleges
or universities, to improve knowledge and develop skills” (Hornby 2000:
401)—too is not free of ambiguity and controversy. Recall, for instance,
the powerful post-colonial critiques put forward by pedagogues like Paulo
Freire in the 1960s, who saw modern education as either an elitist
instrument designed to integrate (some of) the young into the extant
social and economic systems and achieve conformity or to strengthen,
in much broader and inclusionary fashion, the upcoming generations’
ability to seek freedom and develop their potential to transform the world
(Freire 1968; Harber 2004). Several decades later, in the early twenty-first
century, education appears to be on the way to becoming more standardised as well as more widely accessible across countries and cultures.
But “education is […] in crisis,” writes Hilary Cremin, “because it has
failed to bridge the growing gap between the rich and the poor. […]
Processes of marketisation have resulted in education being reduced to a
commodity to be consumed like any other” (Cremin 2016: 5). Significant
variations in approach and levels of access to, and provision of, education remain. Pedagogical practice and quality, from primary through to
tertiary and vocational education and adult learning, and the very definition of the ultimate ends of education vary, sometimes greatly, within
and between countries—and not only between those in the global North
and South (Cremin 2016; Tierney 2011). “In many ways,” observes Liz
Jackson, “global convergence around educational policies, practices, and
values can be observed. […] Yet educational borrowing and transferral
16
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
remain unstraightforward in practice, as educational and cultural differences across social contexts remain, while the ultimate ends of education
[…] are essentially contested” (Jackson 2020: 17).
Hence, welding together the concepts of peace and education in one
single term—peace education—is bound to raise questions, as was already
noted by Håkan Wiberg close to half a century ago (Wiberg 1974), about
what it is that is being proposed and done; and how it is done and by
whom and for what purpose. As a political scientist with a practical interest
in peace education in countries affected by violent conflict, I am under the
impression that the field continues, after decades of scholarly and applied
efforts, to wrestle with defining more clearly its identity as an academic
and educational discipline and ground lofty aspirations more firmly in
evidence and theory. This is echoed, for instance, by outspoken authors
like Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, who chastises peace education researchers and practitioners for not engaging sufficiently with “the reciprocity of its two
fundamental concepts, […] peace and […] education; […] and the relation between power and violence [as well as] the fruitful tension between
peace and freedom” (Gur-Ze’ev 2010: 172). Others, such as Norbert
Frieters-Reermann and Uli Jaeger, highlight peace education’s inherent
value and desirability but are clear that the field—still— lacks a solid theoretical base which cannot be built without generating more hard evidence
about its effectiveness and impact (Frieters-Reermann 2009, 2010; Jaeger
2006, 2014). For the time being, “peace education [therefore] remains
[…] indispensable but controversial, value-oriented but without a claim
to truth (author’s translation)” (Jaeger 2006: 16).
2.1
Conventional Approaches to Peace Education
The hallmark of conventional peace education scholarship and practice,
which is characterised by a normative outlook, is its focus on shaping
individual attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and values with the aim of shaping
“hearts and minds” in support of peace (Salomon 2010). According to
one seminal exponent of this school, “peace studies tend to focus on
the causes of war, and alternatives to war, whereas peace education is
more generic, attempting to draw out of people their natural inclinations
to live in peace. […] Peace educators […] are interested in all distinct
aspects of violence from the interpersonal to the geopolitical. They see
that education provides an important strategy to achieve peace, because
it provides awareness about different peace strategies (emphasis added)”
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
17
(Harris 2002: 18). Focussed on changing attitudes in individuals, that
is, students, but ultimately aiming at bringing about behavioural change,
Ian Harris posits that peace education works on five levels: it “(1) […]
explains the roots of violence; (2) […] teaches alternatives to violence; (3)
[…] cover[s] different forms of violence; (4) [understands] peace itself
[as] a process that varies according to context; and (5) [recognises that]
conflict is omnipresent” (Harris 2004: 6).
Harris’ (2002, 2004) approach, as well as that of others writing in
a similar vein (Bar-Tal 2002; Harris and Morrison 2013; Howlett and
Harris 2010), rests on the premise that peace education “represents an
indirect solution to the problems of violence. As a strategy it depends
upon millions of students being educated, who first transformed their
inner hearts and minds and then must turn work to transform violence”
(Harris and Morrison 2013: 31). However, acknowledging that we do
not know with certainty “how and why [and whether] peace education
programmes work” (Harris and Morrison 2013: 31),4 this scholarship
concedes that “the struggle to achieve peace takes place at both the individual and social levels” (Harris 2004: 16). Thus “peace education theory
has to account for efforts to achieve peace at both the micro and macro
levels” (Harris 2004: 16).
Yet it is precisely this question about how to link the level of the individual, on the one hand, and the social and/or political-institutional or
macro-levels on the other that in conventional approaches remains unresolved (Ross 2010). Some scholars have attempted to address the issue by
taking recourse to socialisation and reconciliation theory (Bar-Tal 2002;
Bar-Tal et al. 2010; Boulding 1974, 2002; Harris and Morrison 2013;
Zwick 2006). These approaches are based on the premises that the “emergence and development of the human personality is dependent upon […]
the social and material living conditions that exist at a certain point in
time in the historical development of a society (author’s translation)”
(Hurrelmann, cited in Zwick 2006: 13); and that “reconciliation supports
and solidifies peace as a new form of intergroup relations and serves
4 The difficulty of establishing the effects and impact of peace education on students’
attitudes, behaviours, beliefs and values is a recurrent topic in the literature. If at all, thus
far authors have offered mostly anecdotal evidence about such effects, while it is recognised that there is a need for more systematic and methodologically more sophisticated
evaluations of peace education (Bar-Tal 2002; Danesh 2008; Frieters-Reermann 2010;
Harris and Lewer 2005; Ross 2010).
18
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
as a stable foundation for cooperative and friendly acts that symbolise
these relations” (Bar-Tal et al. 2010). Even when the mentioned conception of socialisation has been critiqued for suggesting too plainly that
the social and material environment in which humans—especially children and youngsters—live and develop agency is constituted in such a
clear-cut manner that individuals can and will adopt established (traditional) cultural norms and values rather unambiguously, it is nonetheless
held that peace pedagogy can contribute to “socialising” learners into
becoming peaceful, non-violent members of society (Zwick 2006; see also
Boulding 1974).
Put simply, pro-peace attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and values can
be proactively fomented in individuals if and when they are supported
by, and reflected in, their broader social and material environment.5
Vice versa, positive socialisation effects achieved through peace education
are believed to strengthen and enhance the sustainability of a peaceful
environment. Likewise, peace education is styled as “one of the most
prominent and efficient methods for promoting reconciliation” because
it helps to “construct students’ worldview […] in a way that facilitates
conflict resolution and […] that prepares them to live in an era of peace
[…]” (Bar-Tal et al. 2010). However, while one can imagine such positive
feedback and reconciliation processes occurring in more stable environments where levels of violent conflict, polarisation and social exclusion
and inequality are low, we cannot be sure that this also applies to communities and countries affected by elevated levels of political and other forms
of violence. Researchers who are more attuned to the challenges peace
education faces in violent contexts and settings characterised by deep
ethnic and other cleavages suggest that there is no convincing evidence
that would support any such claims.
In this respect, Gavriel Salomon (2002, 2010) is to be credited with
contributing a basic three-tier typology of peace education contexts in
which he distinguishes between contexts of (a) relative tranquillity, (b)
latent ethno-political tensions and (c) intractable and belligerent conflicts.
5 In an early contribution to this debate, Elise Boulding suggested that the “life experience of persons committed to a belief in, and action on behalf of, non-violent social
change” must include such high-aiming features as “optimal opportunities as a child for
development of emotional, cognitive and intuitive capacities in home, school and community […]”; “substantial exposure to a variety of adult and peer role models in different
kinds of social settings” and “experiences of rewarding social feedback in the playing out
of roles and solving problems” (Boulding 1974: 103–104).
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
19
While peace education is frequently practised at schools and other educational establishments in countries that may be considered to be settings
of “relative tranquillity,” such as in Europe and North America, it is in
settings with intractable armed conflicts that “peace education faces its
real test for here it is about making peace with the real enemy. […]
The proposed contextualisation sharpens awareness of the need for peace
education programmes to be precisely aligned to the specific conflict
setting” (Jaeger 2014: 4). According to Uli Jaeger, peace education in
violent conflict settings “aims to initiate and support integrated, holistic
learning processes […]. In these learning processes, the main goal is […]
to promote constructive ways of dealing with the potential for conflict
and violence and thus help build the peace skills of individuals and groups
alike” (Jaeger 2014: 5).
Recognising the centrality of the broader social and cultural context
in which peace education takes place, the cultures of peace movement, which since the 1990s has been promoted by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), seeks to
support creating the conditions for fomenting “values, attitudes, modes
of behaviour, and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by
tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations” (UN General Assembly
1998).6 In this conceptualisation of peace education as educating towards
building cultures of peace, UNESCO broadly defines culture as “the
practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the
instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—
that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part
of their cultural heritage” (UNESCO 2003).7 According to Christoph
6 Raised at the international level for the first time at the International Congress on
Peace in the Minds of Men in Cote d’Ivoire in July 1989, the culture of peace concept
was inspired by a 1986 educational initiative of Peru called “Cultura de Paz.” The Sevilla
Manifesto of 1986, in which scientists from around the world stated that war and violence
have no biological origin and are not to be seen as an essential part of human nature
but are social inventions, also served as a catalyst for the launch of UNESCO’s Culture
of Peace Programme in 1994 (Labrador 2003; Lum 2013). The culture of peace initiative reverberates to this day in the Sustainable Development Goals. Target 4.7 explicitly
includes the “promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence” under the heading
Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship (UN General Assembly
2015).
7 In a similar vein, Boulding defines peace culture as a “mosaic of identities, attitudes,
values, beliefs, and patterns of behaviour that lead people to live nurturantly with one
20
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Wulf, “education for peace plays a central role in the development of a
culture of peace” (Wulf 2018: 8). Vice versa, peace education can only
develop its full potential when it is embedded in a culture of peace, and
not a “culture of violence and war” (Wulf 2018: 7), since it is in the
former that “social structures change, and people’s actions are oriented
towards the values of peace” (Wulf 2018: 6).
Peace education, which “can contribute to the preservation of peace,
[but] […] is not able to secure it” (Wulf 2018: 6), is thus perceived as
an intervening variable that can support the building of cultures of peace.
To be effective, however, authors like Wulf acknowledge that culturally
oriented peace education also has to “deal with the conditions of war,
violence and material need, and look for ways of helping to reduce them.
[…] It does not forget that war and violence are often macro-structurally
caused systemic problems, the reduction of which is only partly possible
with the help of education. […] Education for peace must continue
to draw back on key concepts such as ‘organised peacelessness,’ ‘structural violence’ and ‘social justice’” (Wulf 2018: 9)—and human rights
and inclusive development, one should add. Yet this last point is not
strongly reflected in UNESCO-promoted culture of peace discourse and
programmes. The focus of such programmes, which are often based on
universalising and homogenising conceptions of peace and culture, has
been on shaping distinct sets of values, attitudes, beliefs and modes of
behaviour of individuals without offering much by way of addressing the
structural causes and drivers of organised violence and war.
2.2
Critical Approaches to Peace Education
Contentious and ambivalent as they are, peace education scholarship and
praxis have always been subject to critical interrogation regarding their
purpose, means and goals. At the risk of oversimplifying what has been a
protracted, sometimes torturous and enduring debate within the disperse
international peace research and education movement, in its earlier days
the issue was one of the new fields having difficulty finding their own
identity vis-à-vis the more established social science disciplines, such as
sociology, anthropology, economics and political science (Banks 1974;
Wiberg 1974). Self-conscious criticism came mostly from within the field
another and the earth itself without the aid of structural power differentials, to deal
creatively with their differences and share their resources” (Boulding 2002: 8).
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
21
itself,8 while the social science establishment simply shrugged their shoulders: who cares? With the advancement and diversification of the social
sciences in general, and of peace research and education in particular, in
the past couple of decades this initial phase of soul-searching has gradually
given way to a more self-confident stance.
In my view, critical peace scholars and pedagogues, including those
from the South, have contributed in no small manner to this development; not least because they have directed the spotlight away from
the conventional—“individualistic and morally-appellative” (Zwick 2006:
2)—focus on influencing and shaping attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and
values of learners and promoting (universalising and homogenising)
cultures of peace (Cremin 2016), to paying more attention to building
“new forms and structures of education through curricula, pedagogy,
participatory learning, dialogue-based encounters, and multiple perspectives on historical narratives (emphasis added)” (Bajaj and Hantzopoulos
2016: 3; see also Spence and Makuwira 2005). In this vein, the promotion of cultures of peace through education is critiqued for striving to
govern “peace through global rationalities of security. These rationalities—embodied in programmes of action, training and capacity-building
schemes and information-sharing practices—are geared towards investing
in people in ways that individualise them and govern their conduct in
the future. Campaigns for ‘a culture of peace’ attempt to make particular
individuals and groups responsible for acquiring certain kinds of values
of ‘peace’ and ‘security’” (Ilcan and Phillips 2006: 59). In this critical
reading, “security is being redefined as a civil, even scientific issue, and
[is] no longer seen as a matter of warheads and delivery systems. It is
[thus] not surprising that the principal agent for developing a culture of
8 Among the issues that haunted first-generation peace researchers cum pedagogues
was whether peace education should be on or for peace. In other words, should peace
education focus on teaching the insights and results gained from academic peace studies
(what could be called the “scientific” approach) or should it strive to educate learners
so that they would become peaceful and peace-supporting citizens of the world (what
could be called the “normative” and “applied” approach) (see, for instance, Nicklas and
Ostermann 1974; Wiberg 1974). In a contribution to the debate published in 1974,
Galtung called for “peace education [to] be taken seriously” and “peace research, peace
action, and peace education […] find[ing] each other and integrate into the natural unified
whole” (Galtung 1974: 153). Interestingly, and very much in counterflow to conventional
academia, his proposal for how to achieve these important goals is based on the idea that
the form of peace education ought to guide the development of its contents.
22
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
peace is thought to be the individual and not so much the state” (Ilcan
and Philipps 2006: 63).
In contrast, one of the principal goals of critical peace education and
scholarship, influenced as they are by Freire’s conscientisation approach,
is to “empower learners as transformative change agents who critically
analyse power dynamics and intersectionalities among race, class, gender,
ability-disability, sexual orientation, language, religion, geography and
other forms of stratification (emphasis added)” (Bajaj and Hantzopoulos
2016: 4). Here, it is instructive to quote Monisha Bajaj and Maria Hantzopoulos, who offer a crisp characterisation of the differences between
critical and conventional peace education.
[…] While all peace educators draw from analyses of violence, critical peace
educators pay attention to how unequal social relations and issues of power
must inform both peace education and corresponding social action. […]
Critical peace education pays close attention to local realities and local
conceptions of peace, amplifying marginalised voices through communitybased research, narratives, oral histories, and locally generated curricula.
[…] Other critical approaches […] also explore the politics and possibilities
of enacting peace education in places where contested narratives, identitybased violence, and entrenched structural violence abound. […] Normative
[…] frameworks for understanding peace and peace education must be
interrogated and challenged across local and regional contexts (emphasis
added). (Bajaj and Hantzopoulos 2016: 4, 7)
Critical peace education, with its outlook on local emancipation and
empowerment, is sometimes also framed as “pedagogies of resistance […]
that encompass reciprocity, solidarity and […] horizontal decision-making
structures” (Bajaj 2015: 157). Taking issue with “modern concepts
of peace that promote suffocating homogeneity, security, assimilation,
false ideals and limited horizons” and are “deeply embedded within
warrior ethics, fear and in/security” (Cremin 2016: 3), the critical school
perceives peace in an open manner as a desirable context-specific condition of humanity that results from “the abolition of direct or physical
violence and structural and cultural violence, [and of] the entrenched
inequality and social hierarchies that deprive individuals of their basic
human rights” (Bajaj 2015: 156). However, critical discourse concedes
that “whether schooling or sites of education themselves can achieve this
Herculean task […] is a constant tension in discussions of peace education
and critical peace education” (Bajaj 2015: 156; see also Cremin 2016).
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
23
Furthermore, critical approaches are under pressure to show convincingly
how individual empowerment and emancipation could lead to broader
collective and institutional transformation—even if such approaches are
more cognisant than conventional ones about “the ways in which human
agency dynamically interacts with structures and forms of violence” (Bajaj
and Hantzopoulos 2016: 4).
While these issues remain to be resolved at the theoretical, empirical and pedagogical levels, they are of little practical import for
peace researchers and educators in countries ravaged by all manner
of violences, injustices, inequalities and human rights abuses. In other
words, in settings characterised by “intractable and belligerent conflict”
(Salomon 2002, 2010) and historic “organised peacelessness” (Wulf
2018) where access to education and schooling is limited and highly
unequal, promoting peace through education is a task that in any case
cannot be accomplished by working (mostly) from within formal institutional structures. Witnessing daily the immediacy of different types
of direct, structural and cultural violence and how they affect individuals, families and communities, scholars and pedagogues in countries
like Colombia, many of whom are women, would find it difficult not
to engage in transformative and empowering peace education discourses
and practices, including by leaving the confines of schools and higher
education institutes and working with victims’ and other social organisations at the local level and in rural communities (Focus Group 2020;
see also González 2016; Ortega 2016). Their contributions to the field
of peace education tend to be of a critical type. However, I suggest that
this is primarily the case not because they have chosen to work within a
critical peace education framework but because their immediate violenceinflected socio-political context leaves them no other option. It is for this
reason that I believe that both the critical and conventional schools of
peace education in the North have much to learn from their peers in the
South, while also ensuring that their own work is shared more broadly
across the globe.9
9 The literature review conducted for this research reveals that meaningful learning and
exchange between peace researchers and pedagogues in democratic and prosperous countries, on the one hand, and violence-inflected developing countries on the other remains
limited. For instance, Colombian scholars and educators appear to have little access to
relevant international debates and discourses, especially to those of Anglo-American and
European provenance. This is reflected in the fact that only few international contributions
24
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
2.2.1
Comparative Features of Conventional and Critical
Approaches to Peace Education
Based on the discussion of conventional and critical approaches to peace
education presented in the previous two subsections, which explicitly
serves the purpose of broader illustration and is not to be understood as
exhaustive, in Table 2.1 below I summarise some key comparative features
of the two schools of thought regarding their respective (a) outlook; (b)
conceptions of peace, education and pedagogy; (c) underlying theory of
change and (d) level of education.
Table 2.1 Comparative features of conventional and critical approaches to
peace education
Analytical domains
Conventional peace education
Critical peace education
Outlook
Normative, individualistic and
morally appellative, apolitical,
universalist; geared at influencing
and shaping attitudes, beliefs,
behaviours and values of young
individuals to become “good,”
non-violent citizens of the world;
peace education as indirect solution
to problems of violence
Peace
Absence of diverse forms and
processes of context-specific physical
and other violence; presence of
universally accepted attitudes, beliefs,
behaviours and values that enable
individuals and collectives to live in
harmony
Emancipatory, political and
radical; geared at
empowering people as well
as collectives to become
agents of structural social
transformation, especially
at the local level; peace
education as social action
aimed at finding structural
solutions to violence and
inequality
Presence of social equity
and justice and empathy;
absence of all forms of
physical, psychological,
structural and cultural
forms of violence and of a
system of peacelessness;
absence of unequal social
relations; absence of power
relationships that deprive
people of their human
rights
(continued)
to the field are being discussed in the Colombian literature. This book seeks to contribute
to bridging some of the gaps between these distanced academic and pedagogical worlds.
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
25
Table 2.1 (continued)
Analytical domains
Conventional peace education
Critical peace education
Education
Process of shaping individual
learners’ attitudes, beliefs, behaviours
and values to promote non-violent
coexistence
Pedagogy
Teachers influence and shape
learners’ attitudes, beliefs, behaviours
and values; value-oriented teaching
and learning; focussed more on the
“what” than the “how” of teaching
Theory of change
Promoting peace through massive
individual socialisation in formal
educational establishments, and
individual-collective reconciliation in
cultures of peace
Level of
education10
Mostly primary and secondary
school; undergraduate university
courses
Process of empowering
people and collectives to
acquire competences and
skills to bring about social
transformation
Teachers and learners
cooperate in participatory,
dialogue-based,
open-ended, critical,
inclusionary, experiential
and problem-based
learning; focussed on the
“how” and the “what” of
learning and teaching
Promoting peace through
localised, bottom-up
empowerment of people in
formal and informal
educational establishments,
and direct transformative
social action in wider
society
Mostly secondary school
and undergraduate and
graduate university
courses; adult learning
Source Own elaboration based on the literature discussed and cited in this book
2.3
Peace Education in Colombia:
Context and Challenges
Not a new field of scholarly enquiry and pedagogical praxis, in recent
years work on peace education at Colombian schools and higher education institutes has gained momentum. This development has been
promoted by the peace process between the Santos administration and
FARC, which officially unfolded in Cuba in the period 2012–2016
and resulted in the signing of a final peace accord in November 2016.
10 Given that peace education scholars and pedagogues often do not specify to which
level of education they are referring, my characterisation of this particular feature of the
conventional and critical approaches to peace education is tentative.
26
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
While the agreement in itself contains only scant references to education,
Colombian academia, the educational sector and civil society have seized
upon the opportunity afforded by the peace process and several pieces of
associated legislation, particularly Law 1448 (2011) on victims and Law
1732 (2014) on the Cátedra de la Paz (Peace Chair), to energise peace
education. This is evidenced by a flurry of academic and civil society activities in relation to peace education that the country has witnessed in the
past few years, such as a string of forums and conferences at higher and
vocational education institutes, and the creation and/or further development of several university centres and specialised study programmes on
peace education and peacebuilding.11 On the part of the government,
attention to peace education in schools and higher education institutes
is reflected in several pieces of legislation, foremost Law 1448 of 201112
and Law 1732 of 2014.13
11 Among such conferences and forums were the National Meeting on Peace Education
(Encuentro Nacional de Educación para la Paz) in October 2015; the First International Congress on Education and Society: the role of education in peacebuilding (Primer
Congreso Internacional de Educación y Sociedad: el papel de la educación en la construcción de la paz) at Universidad de La Salle in November 2016; the annual conferences of
REDUNIPAZ, a university alliance on peace education dating back to the late 1990s; and
a series of public debates organised by Colombia’s National Vocational Training Service
(SENA in Spanish), in one of which the author of this study participated in Cali in 2017.
At the level of the Andean region, the UNESCO Chair on Culture and Education for
Peace at Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja in neighbouring Ecuador began establishing collaborations with higher education institutes in Colombia, such as the Centro
de Investigación y Estudios en Paz, Conflictos y Desarrollo (CIPAZ) at Universidad de
Pamplona (Santander department). Recently created study programmes and higher education centres that focus on peace education or include an emphasis on peacebuilding are the
Centro de Estudios en Educación para la Paz at Universidad de La Sabana, the UNESCO
Chair on Education and a Culture of Peace at Universidad del Rosario, and the MA in
Peacebuilding at Universidad de Los Andes, among others. Entrusted with coordinating
the MA in Government at Universidad Icesi in Cali in the period 2016–2018, the author
of this book developed the extant curriculum to include a focus on the challenges and
governance of peacebuilding in Colombia.
12 Law 1448, popularly known as “victims’ law,” is a key piece of legislation proposed
by, and adopted during, the Santos administration. Focused on legally recognising the
victims of the armed conflict, safeguarding their fundamental rights and providing guarantees for the non-repetition of human rights abuses and atrocious crimes, the law stipulates
the creation of a “social pedagogy that promotes the constitutional values that form the
basis for reconciliation” and the “design and implementation of pedagogical strategies that
empower victims legally (author’s translation)” (Gobierno de Colombia 2011: art. 149).
13 Some Colombian authors also include Law 975 of 2005, the so-called “justice and
peace law,” in the list of pieces of legislation promoting peace education in contem-
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
27
Seeking to institutionalise peace education as part of its broader peace
effort, in 2014–2015 the Santos administration instituted the Peace Chair
through Law 1732 of 2014 and Regulatory Decree 1083 of 2015. The
new legislation, which was elaborated centrally and did not result from
broader consultations by the national government with Colombia’s wider
education sector (Grajales 2018),14 stipulates that all educational entities
in Colombia—from primary school through to university—must establish and operate a Cátedra de la Paz by 31 December 2015 (Gobierno
de Colombia 2014, 2015). The Peace Chair’s stated overarching goal
is to “encourage the process of appropriation of knowledge and skills
related to territory, culture, economic and social context and historical
memory, with the aim of reconstructing the social fabric, promoting
prosperity and ensuring the effectiveness of the principles, rights and
duties enshrined in the Constitution (author’s translation)” (Gobierno de
Colombia 2015: art. 2). This is to be achieved through learning, reflection and dialogue on: (a) a culture of peace; (b) peace education and (c)
sustainable development.
In keeping with what is an extraordinarily broad underlying conception of peace education, the regulatory decree lists 12 thematic areas that
are to constitute the core contents of the Peace Chair: “(a) justice and
human rights; (b) the sustainable use of natural resources; (c) protection
of the nation’s cultural and natural wealth; (d) peaceful conflict resolution; (e) prevention of harassment in schools; (f) diversity and plurality;
(g) political participation; (h) historical memory; (i) moral dilemmas;
(j) social impact projects; (k) the history of national and international
peace accords; (l) life projects and risk prevention (author’s translation)”
(Gobierno de Colombia 2015: art. 4).
While schools are required to incorporate at least two of the listed
thematic areas into their curricula, they can choose which ones at their
porary Colombia (Herrera and Pertuz 2016; Rodríguez 2016). Highly controversial at
the time it entered into effect as well as thereafter, Law 975 stipulates that demobilised
members of illegal armed groups are entitled to training and education to facilitate their
reincorporation into civilian life (Gobierno de Colombia 2005: art. 66).
14 It is also noteworthy that the legislation gave educational establishments precious
little time to introduce peace education into curricula. Issued on 25 May 2015, the
regulatory decree stipulates that all pre-school, primary and secondary school programmes
are to implement the Peace Chair before 31 December 2015, that is, a mere six months
after the legislation’s issuance!
28
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
own discretion. Furthermore, the legislation does not provide any guidance on whether peace education should be offered as a subject in its
own right or whether any two of the 12 broad topics could simply be
grafted onto already existing curricula, such as in ethics and democratic
citizenship education (Grajales 2018). With respect to higher education,
the scope of indeterminacy and flexibility is even bigger. Referring to
article 69 of the country’s constitution, which stipulates the autonomy
and self-determination of higher education institutes, the national government resolved to leave it up to them to decide what they deem opportune
and necessary to offer students by way of peace education.
Of course, it is a truism that one cannot expect any piece of legislation—however well-crafted—to result by virtue of its own existence in
positive institutional and social change. Furthermore, it should be stressed
that Colombian pedagogues and students have seized in creative fashion
upon the opportunity presented by the peace process and the Cátedra de
la Paz to further develop existing local discourses on, and practices of,
peace education (Focus Group 2020).15 This sense of a new beginning is
well captured in the words of Ignacio Mantilla, who between 2012 and
2018 served as the rector of the National University of Colombia:
Our post-conflict university must set an example and its role will be to
build a new culture, grounded in respect and ethics; a culture of peace and
progress based on […] equality and social inclusion. [This new culture]
should replace political intimidation with participation, […] the pamphlet
and the harangue with constructive reflection; it should liberate scientific capacity; and, definitively, it should prevent the vices of politicking
from penetrating and becoming entrenched in the university (author’s
translation). (Mantilla 2016)
This notwithstanding, I believe that overall the Santos administration
and lawmakers did the country a small favour with this particular legislation. Ostensibly seeking to pay heed to the SDGs and UNESCO’s
cultures of peace approach, the terms in which the Cátedra de la Paz
is framed come across as arbitrary and too broad for the Peace Chair
to galvanise the promotion of peace through education (Focus Group
15 Recent contributions to the literature on peace education in Colombia include
Corredor et al. (2018), Diazgranados et al. (2014), Echavarría and Cremin (2019),
González (2016), Grajales (2018), Ortega (2016), Salamanca et al. (2016), Vargas et al.
(2018), and Villalobos (2018).
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
29
2020; Grajales 2018; Ortega 2016). Although thus far no systematic
evaluations of current Colombian peace education are available, first indications are that the field is facing significant challenges (Acevedo and
Baéz 2018; Focus Group 2020; Gómez-Suarez 2017; Rodríguez 2016;
Semana 2019). I suggest that in part this is due to the conceptual fuzziness of Law 1732 and its failure to prioritise certain key contents, such as
education on and for the recovery and preservation of historical memory,
over more nebulous ones like “moral dilemmas” or the “protection of the
nation’s cultural and natural wealth.”
Determined not to allow the Cátedra de la Paz to suffer the same
fate as past government initiatives on peace education, which tended to
obliterate the long-term structural causes of peacelessness and prioritise
a focus on civic and ethical issues (Rodríguez 2016), Colombian peace
scholars, pedagogues and students are presently engaged in providing
the Peace Chair with deeper and more concrete meaning. This includes
orienting the field towards critical reflection and a focus on how it could
galvanise broader social action beyond the confines of the classroom
(Focus Group 2020). Interestingly, this work-in-progress, which is more
in line with critical approaches to peace education, is often associated with
the recovery and preservation of historical memory among learners and
survivors of the armed conflict (Corredor et al. 2018; Focus Group 2020;
Girón 2016; Herrera and Pertuz 2016; Merchán 2016; Ortega 2016;
Torres 2016). Leading on from my discussion of the (dis)contents of
historical memory, which I offer in the following chapter, I present an
argument about the challenges but also the relevance and usefulness of
historical memory-oriented peace education in countries wrestling with,
and emerging from violent conflict, in Chapter 4.
References
Acevedo, Aurymayerly, and Adriana Báez. “La educación en cultura de paz.
Herramienta de construcción de paz en el postconflicto.” Reflexión Política
20, no. 40 (2018).
Arias, Rosa. “Elementos para pensar una educación para la paz integral.” In Bitácora para la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para una
Colombia en paz, edited by Piedad Ortega, 243–262. Bogotá: Universidad
Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
Bajaj, Monisha. “‘Pedagogies of resistance’ and critical peace education praxis.”
Journal of Peace Education 12, no. 2 (2015): 154-166.
30
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Bajaj, Monisha, and Maria Hantzopoulos. “Introduction: Theory, research,
and praxis of peace education.” In Peace Education. International Perspectives, edited by Monisha Bajaj and Maria Hantzopoulos, 1–16. London:
Bloomsbury, 2016.
Banks, Michael. “A critical appraisal of research and teaching on problems of
peace and conflict resolution.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by
Christoph Wulf, 35–42. Frankfurt am Main and Oslo: International Peace
Research Association, Education Committee, 1974.
Bar-Tal, Daniel. “The elusive nature of peace education.” In Peace Education.
The Concept, Principles, and Practices Around the World, edited by Gavriel
Salomon and Baruch Nevo, 27–36. New York and London: Psychology Press,
2002.
Bar-Tal, Daniel, Ygal Rosen, and Rafi Nets-Zehngut. “Peace education in societies involved in intractable conflicts.” In Handbook on Peace Education,
edited by Gavriel Salomon and Ed Cairns, 21–43. New York and Hove:
Psychology Press, 2010.
Boulding, Elise. “The child and non-violent social change.” In Handbook on
Peace Education, edited by Christoph Wulf, 101–132. Frankfurt am Main:
International Peace Research Association, Education Committee, 1974.
Boulding, Elise. “Peace culture.” In Toward a Compassionate Society, edited by
M. Afkhami, 8–15. Bethesda, MD: Women’s Learning Partnership, 2002.
Coleman, Peter. “Crises and opportunities: Six contemporary challenges for
increasing probabilities for sustainable peace.” International Journal of
Conflict Engagement and Resolution 1, no. 1 (2013): 96–113.
Corredor, Javier, María Emma Wills, and Mikel Asensio-Brouard. “Historical
memory education for peace and justice: Definition of a field.” Journal of
Peace Education 15, no. 2 (2018): 169–190.
Cremin, Hilary. “Peace education research in the twenty-first century: Three
concepts facing crisis or opportunity?” Journal of Peace Education 13, no. 1
(2016): 1–17.
Danesh, H. “The education for peace integrative curriculum: Concepts, contents
and efficacy.” Journal of Peace Education 5, no. 2 (2008): 157–173.
Diazgranados, Silvia, James Noonan, Steven Brion-Meisels, Lina Saldarriaga, and
Berta Daza, Minerva Chávez, and Irena Antonellis. “Transformative peace
education with teachers: Lessons from Juegos de Paz in rural Colombia.”
Journal of Peace Education 11, no. 2 (2014): 150–161.
Echevarría, Josefina, and Hilary Cremin. “Education for territorial peace in
Colombia: What role for transrational peace?” Journal of Peace Education 16,
no. 3 (2019): 316–338.
Focus Group. “Written comments by members of a group of former students
(3) and academic peers (2) at Universidad Icesi on previous versions of this
study.” Transcript. Universidad Icesi, 2020.
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
31
Freire, Paolo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary edition. New York:
Bloomsbury, 1968/2000.
Frieters-Reermann, Norbert. Frieden lernen. Friedens- und Konfliktpädagogik
aus systemisch-konstruktivistischer Perspektive. Duisburg and Köln: WikuWissenschaftverlag Dr. Stein, 2009.
Frieters-Reermann, Norbert. “Herausforderungen der gegenwärtigen Friedensbildung und Friedenspädagogik.” Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 33, no. 4 (2010): 4–12.
Galtung, Johan. “Violence, peace and peace research.” Journal of Peace Research
6, no 3 (1969): 167–191.
Galtung, Johan. “On peace education.” In Handbook on Peace Education,
edited by Christoph Wulf, 153–172. Frankfurt am Main: International Peace
Research Association, Education Committee, 1974.
Galtung, Johan. A Theory of Peace: Building Direct Structural Cultural Peace.
Oslo: Kolofon Press, 2012.
Galtung, Johan. “Peace: A peace practitioner’s guide.” Ideas for Peace 13 (2017):
1–16.
Girón, Claudia. “La dimension psicosocial de la educación para la paz.” In Bitácora para la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para
una Colombia en paz, edited by Pilar Ortega, 159–185. Bogotá: Universidad
Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
Gobierno de Colombia. “Decreto 1038 de 2015 (mayo 25).” Diario Oficial
(2015). Accessed 29 May 2020: http://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDo
cument.asp?ruta=Decretos/30019815
Gobierno de Colombia. “Ley 1732 de 2014 (septiembre 01).” Diario Oficial
(2014). Accessed 4 June 2020: http://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocum
ent.asp?ruta=Leyes/1687408
Gobierno de Colombia. “Ley 1448 de 2011 (junio 10).” Diario Oficial
(2011). Accessed 10 June 2020: http://wp.presidencia.gov.co/sitios/normat
iva/leyes/Documents/Juridica/LEY%201448%20DE%202011.pdf
Gobierno de Colombia. “Ley 975 de 2005 (julio 25).” Diario Oficial (2005).
Accessed 10 June 2020: http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/bas
edoc/ley_0975_2005.html
Gómez-Suarez, Andrei. “Peace process pedagogy: Lessons from the no-vote in
the Colombian peace referendum.” Comparative Education 53, no. 3 (2017):
462–482.
González, Luisa. ed. Pensar en educación para la paz. Apuestas del Encuentro
Nacional de Educación para la paz. Bogotá: Pictograma Creativos SAS, 2016.
Grajales, Nathalie. “Construcción de paz y pedagogía: pensando los contenidos
de la cátedra de la paz para Colombia.” Revista Ciudad Paz-ando 11, no. 1
(2018): 1–16.
32
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Gur-Ze’ev, Ilan. “Philosophy of peace education in a postmetaphysical era.” In
Handbook on Peace Education, edited by Gavriel Salomon and Ed Cairns,
171–183. New York: Psychology Press, 2010.
Harber, Clive. Schooling as Violence. How Schools Harm Pupils and Societies.
Abingdon: Routledge Falmer, 2004.
Harris, Ian. “Conceptual underpinnings of peace education.” In Peace Education.
The Concept, Principles, and Practices Around the World, edited by Gavriel
Salomon and Baruch Nevo, 15–26. New York: Psychology Press, 2002.
Harris, Ian. “Peace education theory.” Journal of Peace Education 1, no. 1
(2004): 5–20.
Harris, Ian, and Mary Morrison. Peace Education. Third edition. Jefferson:
McFarland & Company, Inc., 2013.
Harris, Simon, and Nick Lewer. “Post-graduate peace education in Sri Lanka.”
Journal of Peace Education 2, no. 2 (2005): 109–124.
Herrera, Martha, and Carol Pertuz. “Cuento para no olvidar.” In Bitácora para
la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para una Colombia
en paz, edited by Pilar Ortega, 187–218. Bogotá: Universidad Pedagógica
Nacional, 2016.
Hornby, A. S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Sixth edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Howlett, Charles, and Ian Harris. Books, Not Bombs: Teaching Peace Since the
Dawn of the Republic. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 2010.
Ilcan, Susan, and Lynne Phillips. “Governing Peace: Global Rationalities of Security and UNESCO’s Culture of Peace Campaign.” Anthropologica 48, no. 1
(2006): 59–71.
Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2019: Measuring Peace in
a Complex World. Sydney: Institute for Economics & Peace, 2019.
Jackson, Liz. “Globalization and education.” In Oxford Research Encyclopaedia,
Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.
1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.52.
Jaeger, Uli. “Friedenspädagogik: Grundlagen, Herausforderungen und Chancen
einer Erziehung zum Frieden.” In Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Eine
Einführung, edited by Peter Imbusch and Ralf Zoll, 537–557. Fourth edition.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006.
Jaeger, Uli. Peace Education and Conflict Transformation. Berlin: Berghof
Foundation, 2014.
Labrador, Carmen. “La cultura de paz, marco para la ciudadanía.” Revista de
Educación, special issue (2003): 155–168.
Lederach, John Paul. The Moral Imagination. The Art and Soul of Building
Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Lum, Jeannie. “Peace education: Past, present, and future.” Journal of Peace
Education 10, no. 3 (2013): 219–229.
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
33
Mantilla, Ignacio. “Firmemos la Carta Magna de universidades colombianas.” El
Espectador, 5 February 2016. Accessed 7 October 2021: https://www.elespe
ctador.com/opinion/columnistas/ignacio-mantilla/firmemos-la-carta-magnade-universidades-colombianas-column-615036/.
Merchán, Jeritza. “La pedagogía en la Ley de Víctimas y en los posacuerdos
de paz.” In Bitácora para la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y
educadores para una Colombia en paz, edited by Pilar Ortega, 115–134.
Bogotá: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
Mushakoji, Kinhide. “Peace research and education in a global perspective.” In
Handbook on Peace Education, edited by Christoph Wulf, 3–18. Frankfurt am
Main: International Peace Research Association, Education Committee, 1974.
Nicklas, Hans, and Änne Ostermann. “Reflections on a curriculum of peace
education.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by Christoph Wulf, 173–
184. Frankfurt am Main and Oslo: International Peace Research Association,
Education Committee, 1974.
Ortega, Pilar. “La Cátedra de la Paz: Una propuesta de formación.” In Bitácora para la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para
una Colombia en paz, edited by Pilar Ortega, 221–242. Bogotá: Universidad
Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
Rodríguez, Sandra. “Lecciones históricas para pensar una cátedra de la paz.” In
Bitácora para la cátedra de la paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para
una Colombia en paz, edited by Pilar Ortega, 135–157. Bogotá: Universidad
Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
Ross, M. “Peace education and political science.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by Gavriel Salomon and Ed Cairns, 121–134. New York and
London: Psychology Press, 2010.
Salamanca, Manuel, Mery Rodríguez, Juan Cruz, Ramiro Ovalle, Miguel Pulido,
and Adriana Molano. Guía para la implementación de la Cádedra de la Paz.
Bogotá: Editorial Santillana SAS/Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá,
2016.
Salas, Angela, Gloria Gallo, and Adela Higuera. “La formación ética en la administración y la gestión pública: experiencias de enseñanza en la educación
superior colombiana.” Integritas. Revista de Ética 2, no. 3 (2019): 82–97.
Salomon, Gavriel. “The nature of peace education: Not all programs are created
equal.” In Peace Education. The Concept, Principles, and Practices Around
the World, edited by G. Salomon and B. Nevo, 3–14. New York: Psychology
Press, 2002.
Salomon, Gavriel. “Peace education. Setting the scene.” In Handbook on Peace
Education, edited by Gavriel Salomon and Ed Cairns, 1–7. New York:
Psychology Press, 2010.
34
M. SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Semana. “Esto es lo que enseñan en la normal Montes de María.” 3 September
2019. Accessed 5 June 2020: https://www.semana.com/Item/ArticleAsync/
604758?nextId=604552&nextId=602153
Spence, Rebecca, and Jonathan Makuwira. “Do we make a difference? Teaching
and researching peace at tertiary level.” Journal of Peace Education 2, no. 1
(2005): 17–31.
Tierney, William. “The role of tertiary education in fixing failed states: Globalization and public goods.” Journal of Peace Education 8, no. 2 (2011):
127–142.
Torres, Ingrid. “Pedagogías de la memoria y la enseñanza de la historia para la
construcción de una conciencia histórica.” In Bitácora para la cátedra de la
paz. Formación de maestros y educadores para una Colombia en paz, edited by
Pilar Ortega, 263–282. Bogotá: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 2016.
UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Paris: UNESCO, 2003. Accessed 10 June 2020: https://ich.unesco.org/en/
convention
UN General Assembly. Resolution A/RES/52/13 on Culture of Peace, 15 January
1998. Accessed 10 June 2020: https://undocs.org/A/RES/52/13
Vargas, Nelly, Andrea Vargas, and Sandra Fragua. “Paz y convivencia escolar:
Una experiancia en Ciudad Bolívar.” Revista Inclusión y Desarrollo 6, no. 1
(2018): 3–15.
Villalobos, Yeraldo. “Los instrumentos de la Cátedra de Paz, como estrategia
en la reconstrucción social de una nueva Colombia.” Revista ED 5, no. 1
(2018): 19–35.
Walt, Stephen. “The case against peace.” Foreign Policy, 17 June 2016.
Accessed 10 June 2020: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/17/the-caseagainst-peace-syria-europe-brexit-donald-trump/.
Webel, Charles. “Toward a philosophy and metapsychology of peace.” In Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, edited by Charles Webel and Johan
Galtung, 3–13. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.
Wiberg, Håkan. “Peace research and peace education: A pessimistic note.” In
Handbook on Peace Education, edited by Christoph Wulf, 137–149. Frankfurt am Main and Oslo: International Peace Research Association, Education
Committee, 1974.
Wulf, Christoph. “Culture of peace and education for peace.” In Culture of Peace.
A Contribution to UNESCO’s Educational Mission: Building Peace in the
Minds of Men and Women, 6–14. Berlin: UNESCO Club Berlin/UNESCO
Associated Schools in Germany, 2018.
Zwick, Elisabeth. “Pax iusta: Überlegungen zu Grundlagen und Wegen
einer Friedenspädagogik.” Bildungsforschung 3, no. 1 (2006). Accessed 10
June 2020: https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2014/4646/pdf/bf_2006_1_
Zwick_Pax_Iusta.pdf.
2
CONVENTIONAL AND CRITICAL …
35
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.