Role of Language in Peace Education

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2014 ISSN: 2321-8819 (Online) 2348-7186 (Print) Impact Factor: 0.923 (JIF) The Role of Language in Peace Education Arshad Masood Hashmi, Associate Professor in Urdu, Gopeshwar College, Hathua, Gopalganj. 841436. Abstract: It is a well recognized fact that peace education is one of the most planned processes to raise learners‟ critical consciousness. Mostly peace educators believe that it provides students with a deep understanding of their social and political contexts while at the same time considering the possibilities for action and change. Many speak that the process of education can impart in all students social „goods‟, values and skills; once we give the relevant information and experience, individual students can be the agents in promoting local, national and international peace, thus transforming the societies into a peaceful one. While we analyze the present situation of the absence of peace in the contemporary world, we can hardly find any nation living an ideal peaceful life which is free from various kinds of peace issues. These include violation of human rights, social injustice, and gender discrimination, intolerance towards other cultures, crime against women, child abuse, religious conflicts, inhumane treatment with minorities and the non-serious attitude towards environmental sustainability. Taking into account our own society in India, where we are facing the same issues, we urgently need to address such issues in our education system to step forward towards peace and tranquility. There are many different paths to peace that are explained to students while teaching about peace education programs. Each different form of peace issue requires a unique way of teaching. For reflecting ideas, beliefs and concepts, children are encouraged to cooperate with peers to share information. Discussion is considered as a valuable form of interaction between the students and the educator. Students are left to discuss, comment, or decide about the solution to the problem. Teachers‟ questions are the best way to start a discussion; students are also invited to ask questions throughout the peace education class. However, language is the core requirement for teaching peace education, as it is impossible to communicate and comprehend learning about the issues without having the ability to understand the language spoken. Keywords: Peace, Peace Education, Language and Peace Education, Peace Education in India, Indian Classrooms and Peace Education, Language of Peace Among all the modalities of human communication, visual and vocal/auditory systems most highly structured. Both of these systems play a vital role in the classroom teaching are. The visual system is well established in human beings. We need only think of all the facial expressions and bodily gestures…hand-signals, winks, raised eyebrows…which communicate a great deal of information (Crystal, 1982, p.240). The auditory system of communication, besides its indicative, descriptive and convictional languages, has much to express in the way the facts, opinions or points are being delivered in a classroom to the children who consider their teacher a role model. The spoken language and its delivery are situational variants. More often than not, the style of communication in a classroom arises from a structurally determined choice of expression that speaks about the teacher‟s mode of thinking too. The classroom language, as a mode of verbal expression and interaction, is a specific conceptual horizon, toward the specific need of the students, and it must be used in a motivating, stimulating and interesting way with a purpose of nurturing ethical development, inculcating global human values and peace in the delicate minds of the younger generation. The world history is witness to innumerable wars, genocides, and pogroms. Since time immemorial war has been the only, or at least the most effective, tool to resolve conflicts. Even in modern times after the UN‟s coming into existence and instead of great efforts to avoid wars and resolve the issues on the table, thousands of people are being killed. What is more perturbing is that, unlike ancient and medieval ages when only rulers, emperors and armies were involved in wars, now there are clashes, riots, and wars that involve civilians as both perpetrators and victims. In such times, reflections on peace are more pertinent than ever. Peace education provides learners with the skills and values to work towards comprehensive peace (Reardon, 1988). The process of education can impart in all students social „goods‟, values and skills; once we give the relevant information and experience, individual students can be the Available online at www.ajms.co.in 76 The Role of Language in Peace Education agents in promoting international peace. local, national and stereotypical images and sweeping generalizations that cause misunderstandings. Most of the peace educators believe that peace education provides students with a deep understanding of their social and political contexts while at the same time considering the possibilities for action and change. Many speak that the process of education can impart in all students social „goods‟, values and skills; once we give the relevant information and experience, individual students can be the agents in promoting local, national and international peace, thus transforming the societies into a peaceful one. Among the advocates and pioneers of peace education, Reardon (1997) considers human rights and nonviolence to be its core principle. Jardine (1997) and Selby (2000) argue that ecological concerns and environmental consciousness must be the foundation of peace education. Selby further asserts that both rebuilding and reconnecting to the earth are integral to the peace education process (Simpson, 2004, p.3). Cultural diversity, environmental issues, social responsibility, human rights, non-violence, and global solidarity are considered basic issues of peace education by Carson and Lange (1997). They, besides Hicks (1988), believe that among all the aspects of peace education, personal peace is of foremost importance. The multidimensional approach of promoting personal peace “offers a variety of entrance points for educators who wish to implement peace education into their classrooms” (Simpson, 2004, p.6). Language being used by a teacher can be considered as one of the important factors of this approach. There are many different paths to peace that are explained to students while teaching about peace education programs. Each different form of peace issue requires a unique way of teaching. For reflecting ideas, beliefs and concepts, children are encouraged to cooperate with peers to share information. Discussion is considered as a valuable form of interaction between the students and the educator. Students are left to discuss, comment, or decide about the solution to the problem. Teachers‟ questions are the best way to start a discussion in the context of peace education. Language is the core requirement for teaching peace education, as it is impossible to communicate and comprehend learning about the issues without having the ability to understand the language spoken in all its subtleties. Among various means to establish peace in the world is education. All the subjects and disciplines can be a vehicle for promoting peace provided that the curriculum is designed keeping in mind peace as an objective. With regard to peace education, language has various roles. Communicating in a language in the classroom and the kind of language used by a teacher, both these aspects are of great importance in a pluralistic society. In fact, teaching of different languages has a pride of place in peace education. Languages are of great significance, as linguistic differences plague heterogeneous societies. Teaching a language other than the first helps the youth to understand and empathise with other societies, their cultures, and their ethos. Taking into account our own society in India, where we are facing the same issues, we urgently need to address such issues in our education system to step forward towards peace and tranquility. Most of the conflicts are caused by misinformation, inaccurate perceptions, and half truths. Knowledge of another language enables people to form an informed opinion. It offers an opportunity to build understanding of those belonging to a different linguistic group in the same country or elsewhere. It eradicates the Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6) June, 2014 One of the most important steps in terms of language teaching is to recognize that all languages are worthy to be given equal position. This is crucial especially in countries with linguistic diversity. Secondly, teaching languages, such as English, French, Chinese, and Arabic with a world view liberates learners from their respective ghettos. Countries that have recognized their linguistic plurality are a step forward in promoting peace through democratic and peaceful spirits. It is incumbent to promote the self-esteem of the languages of each community and, at the same time, provide access to a language of universal scope. Multilingualism without dominant international languages will instill confidence in the marginalized linguistic groups. Multilingual education can be helpful for the cause of peace. In fact, learning another language enables to empathize with another culture, with other linguistic groups, and understand and appreciate their view of the world. Language instructors can be trained to transform respect of friendship between different cultures, celebrate linguistic diversity, promote tolerance, and to respect differences; besides designing the curriculum to meet such an end. Language allows learners to initiate dialogues with a different group in their language. When a learner learns a language that is not his/hers, he/she is likely to understand people who aren't like him/her. He/she can be a friend of people coming from other linguistic/racial groups. “Language is not only a tool for communication and knowledge but also a fundamental attribute of cultural identity and empowerment, both for the individual and the group. Respect for the languages of persons belonging to different linguistic communities therefore is essential to peaceful cohabitation” (King, 2003, p.16). Plato was the first to recognize that language is an instrument, or tool, associated with a specific art- the art of communicating and distinguishing, 77 The Role of Language in Peace Education and Aristotle was the first to formulate that a language is governed by different structures that implicitly use different sets of rules. Aristotle argued that language is meaningful by virtue of a structure which is reflected in rules which govern the language. He, in On Interpretation, argues that languages have sub-structures as well, that depend upon the end for which the sentences are being used and the rules which govern this usage (Wittgenstein, 1953, p.46e). Peace Education needs a language of conviction that is, contrary to indicative language, concerned with the “totality of reality” (Zuurdeeg, 1958, p.59). A peace educator is supposed to use this convictional language that speaks about “the totality of reality as he sees it in the light of his specific convictions” as a Peace educator. Convictional language is considered non-cognitive, emotive, volitional and appealing. In a plural society a peace educator, on account of his convictions, is morally bound to express himself in a specified policy of behavior because students are faced with “conflicting sets of core values from which they must create their individual belief systems” (Simpson, 2004, p.3). Identifying this problem, Simpson (2004, p.7) posits that in such a society where many students feel alienated due to any number of factors, it is imperative that the students be encouraged to express their feelings and negotiate their understandings so that they do not feel torn between the teaching at home and those in the classroom. Besides Hindu nationalism and Muslim separatism, there are a host of issues that have been plaguing India for a long time. These include caste conflicts, crime against women, child abuse, unrest in the North-Eastern states and Kashmir, and human riots violation of minorities and marginalized groups, and of dissenters. Some of these issues loom over the curriculum of different schools in India that are affiliated to State School Boards, Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E. ), Indian Council for Secondary Education (I.C.S.E.), and other schools run by private management bodies. There is no system to check and evaluate the books or study materials being prescribed in these schools although the National Council for Educational Research and Training (N.C.E.R.T.) has done commendable efforts to plan a curriculum that may be molded for Peace education. It is worth mentioning that recently, during an N.C.E.R.T. sponsored teacher-training program for peace education in Pune, the participants unanimously said that there is no text-book lesson on peace education. The situation is not much different even today. A systematic analysis of the books of Social Studies and Moral Education prescribed in, for example, the D.A.V. and Sarsawati Shishuu Mandir chain of schools throughout India reveal that they fall short in providing the chapters that Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6) June, 2014 may be helpful in developing attitude and structure for peace making and peace keeping. In accordance with the prescribed syllabi, the teachers, instead of pro-social behavior, promote pro-religious behavior, and the language they use in the classroom while dealing with such chapters is equally devoid of speaking with positive emotional expression. The books like Dharma Shikkhshaa (Tulsiram, 2012) glorify conflicts, hatred and violence instead of creating an atmosphere of inquiry, respect, and understanding that may encourage students to look for “structural inequities in their personal surroundings” (Simpson, 2004, p.3). For these schools, culture is synonymous to a specific religion and its traditions. The Islamic seminaries and some of the school runs by that particular religious group are also engaged in creating a group of such youngsters who never experienced their classrooms as a microcosm of a just world order. These self-glorifying rightist and orthodox educators have their own vocabulary and language, and they are a big hurdle in promoting the global concept of peace education. While elaborating language teaching as education for peace, Freudenstein (2003, p.6) rightly asserted that even if one has to use traditional materials (in the classroom), the idea of peace must not be neglected. But, contrary to the National Policy on Education and bluntly rejecting the concept of Global and Peace education, such schools are equipping students with anti-social behavior. Glorifying Haqeeqat Rai and using derogatory language for another group (Tulsiram, 2012, pp.40-43) by a particular section is as dangerous as glorifying Aurengzeb by another group. The former speaks against other religious groups without any reservations, and the latter teaches its students to be separatists. Snauwaert opines that, peace, as a cosmopolitan moral order, is in turn contingent upon the capacity of individual persons to respond to the inherent dignity, the intrinsic value of others. Principles of rights and duties are essential but they remain powerless without the internal moral resources that equip one to morally respond to others (Bajaj, 2008, p.70). Bajaj (2011), using human rights as the central tenet, has beautifully demonstrated the changes that can take place in the Indian schools if they introduce Human Rights Education, an integral part of Peace Education, in its true spirit. She has discussed the role of an NGO, Indian Human Rights Education, in promoting UNESCO‟s concept of Human Rights in some of the schools. Mention should have been made of OUTREACH, Peoples Initiative Networks, and the Anekal Rehabilitation Education and Development (READ) Centre that are among the many NGOs involved in such activities. These NGOs need to add a comprehensive program of educating the teachers on the use of appropriate language in the classroom. While discussing the National Policy 78 The Role of Language in Peace Education Framework for Teacher Education, Bajaj didn‟t point out the fact that the emphasis of the National Curriculum Framework (2000) on national identity and unity as a significant priority for education was set in such a background that it became a departure from the previous policy frameworks that focused on scientific advancement and economic development. It gave rise to such institutions that got themselves engaged in dismantling the society famous for its multi-ethnicity and composite culture. This exercise is still in practice everywhere. It was reported, way back in 2005, that Ekal Vidyalaya schools had the goal of spreading hatred against Indian minorities and that they used a curriculum steeped in instilling hatred against nonHindu religious minorities (Wikipedia). There are the madrasas and some of the schools run by Muslim bodies that generally portray nonMuslims in one of three ways: (1) kafirs (infidels) or mushrekeen (pagans), (2) dhimmis (nonMuslims living under Islamic rule), or (3) murtids (apostates), and on the other hand there are the schools like Vidya Bharati, Shishu Mandir, Sewa Dham School and Srimad Bhagavad Gita Vidyalaya that use a curriculum that glorifies militant Hindu nationalism and give rise to hatred against some other religious beliefs and their followers. All too often, such schools and madrasas promote intolerance and extremism. These attitudes are one of the reasons of increasing violence which consequently threatens to consume the entire country with deadly effect. “…The nearly 300 boys here at the Sewa Dham school, most of them from what are called the tribal belts of central and northeastern India, hew to a rigorous daily schedule from 5 in the morning until 10 at night…They are regaled with tales of brave Hindu warriors and saints and quizzed on the ravages of the Muslim emperor, Babur” (Sengupta, 2002). India's democracy, commonly described as the biggest in the world, has become so vulnerable to religious extremism in some of its classrooms. Nationalism, patriotism and love for one‟s own customs and beliefs, if not taught with a view to instill understanding and respect for all ethnic, linguistic, religious groups of a nation and the world, then neither self-esteem and dignity for oneself will be promoted nor the feelings and rights of others will pave a way. This attitude will never help students to be more aware of negative emotionality of a language and its effect on communication. One must bear in mind that the language in the classrooms is needed for pro-social behaviors such as cooperation, collaboration, affirming others, and expressing feelings clearly in ways that do not accuse others – in other words, the language of peace (Duffy, 2011, p.2). There is such a phenomenal unrest among the masses that oftentimes a mere word, remark or statement Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6) June, 2014 incites conflict, confrontation and violence. Humiliating words used by the teachers in the classroom, remarks passed by the colleagues, statements of political leaders, slogan shouting in a religious procession and speech of hatred by the statesmen are also a great hurdle in communicating peace. Peace Education is a state of mind, and language is the most effective tool to promote and imbue self-respect and respect for the others too. It is an undisputable fact that language leads to violence. It has always been a means of conflict and confrontation. Language conflict in India has often been a result of regional, religious and ethnic confrontations. A teacher is supposed to be careful in the classroom about the kind of language he/she uses while dealing with the topics that speak about any conflict, whether it be religious, linguistic, sectarian, ethnic, cultural, social or moral. Moral sentences are used not to describe, but to guide conduct, and in so doing have a use and, consequently, are meaningful despite the fact that they are non-descriptive. The primary use of a moral assertion is the intention of the asserter to act in a particular sort of way, specified in the assertion (Clarke, 1966, p.28). Thus language becomes a tool of conflict resolution. When a teacher acquires this role, addressing the classroom involves the whole personality. “Sometimes we see that education itself can result in the absence of peace, that depends on what (and how it) is taught. Fostering of tolerance and positive attitudes of other ethnic and religious groups in the safe environment of the classroom remains a pivotal issue in peace education” (Mansoob, 2012, p.3). Niebuhr (1941, p.71) alludes that to think in the language of revelation is “to think with poets rather than with scientists”, likewise, to think about oneself in the classroom as belonging to a specific (read superior) religious/linguistic/ethnic group is to think with a language that can be conceived not to exist rather than with a language which cannot be conceived not to exist. If peace education reflects an attempt to respond to the problem of conflict and violence on scales ranging from global and national to the local and personal (Hicks, 1988, p.5) then there must be an atmosphere of change in the classroom and school environment wherein language becomes a tool for creating harmony, self-respect and respect for others instead of continually glorifying one‟s own creed and belief on the cost of demonizing and dehumanizing the other group. UNESCO (King, 2003, p.30) supports language as an essential component of intercultural education in order to encourage understanding between different population groups and ensure respect for fundamental rights Two important elements that contribute to peaceful living in a multicultural society are valuing diversity among the cultures and the nations of the world and tolerance of differences between 79 The Role of Language in Peace Education people hold dear (Mansoob, 2012a, p.62). The E-9 Summit held in New Delhi in 1993 reflected on the idea that the abusive language or „verbal violence‟ has its origin in violent thinking hidden in the mind. Unless one thinks ill of another, he/she cannot use violent or abusive words (Mukhopadhyay, 2005, p.1). Therefore, considering these notions, I believe that in the classrooms of a multicultural country like India teachers must not use a language that makes them appear a firm believer in the superiority of their own culture. It is imperative that a teacher must avoid imposing his personal ideology on the learners to help the communities come to terms with past hatred and violence. ourselves and others (Duffy, 2011, p.60). Therefore, even if the syllabus committee of a Board or a group of schools remains stick to a curriculum that is not in accordance with the UNESCO‟s Peace Education program, or in tune with the recommendations of National Education Policy, and if the curriculum uses the contexts that may give birth to conflict and violence that may generate the feeling of hatred for another linguistic/ethnic/religious group then a teacher must use his own conscience to make his students love and respect each other, and he should bear in mind that language is the best tool to teach tolerance and non-violence, two basic principles of peace education. Culture is not only the collection of certain ways of living, it also includes the values that (The author would like to express his greatest gratitude to Farhat Mansoob of Teachers’ College, Columbia University, New York, for providing her research papers and inputs for this paper.) References: Bajaj, M. 2011. Schooling for Social Change: The Rise and Impact of Human Rights Education in India. New York: Continuum Publishing. Carson, T. R. & Lange, E. A.(1997). Peace Education in Social Studies. In A. Sears & Wright (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Canadian Social Studies. Vancouver:Pacific Educational Press. Clarke, B. L. (1966). Language and Natural Theology. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Crystal, D. (1982). Linguistics. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Duffy, C. (2011). Peace Education. Retrieved from http://eca.state.gov/ forum/journal /pea5 background.htm Ekal Vidyalya. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. org/wiki/Ekal_Vidyalaya Retrieved October 15, 2012 from http:// en.wikipedia. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Freudenstein, R. (2003). Teaching Communicate Peace in the Second-Language Classroom. Retrieved from http://humiliationstudies.org/news-old/archives / 000704.html Hicks, D. (Ed.). (1988). Education for Peace: Issues, principles, and practice in the classroom. New York: Routledge. Jardine, D. (1997). “To Dwell with a Boundless Heart”: On the integrated curriculum and the recovery of the earth. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.). The Curriculum Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. King, L. (Ed.). (2003). Education in a Multilingual World. UNESCO Education Position Paper, Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0012 /001297 /129728e.pdf Mansoob, F. (2012). Integrating Peace and Human Rights Education into Grade 1V Curriculum, in the City of Karachi, Pakistan. (Unpublished term paper). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Mansoob, F. (2012a). Know Your World. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Mukhopadhyay, M. (2005). Peace Education Framework for Teacher Education. New Delhi: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/ 0015/ 001502/150262e.pdf Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). The Meaning of Revelation. New York: Macmillan and Co. Reardon, B. (1997). Human Rights as education for Peace. In G. J. Andrepoulos & R. P.Claude (Eds.). Human Rights Education for the Twenty-first Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sengupta, Somini. (2002, May 13). Hindu Right Goes to School to Build a Nation. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com /2002/05/13/world/hindu-right-goes-to-school-to-build-anation.html? pagewanted=all&src=pm Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6) June, 2014 80 The Role of Language in Peace Education Simpson, Kris. (2004). Making Connections: Wholistic Teaching through Peace Education. Retrieved from http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/css/css_383/ARsimpson _connectionswholisticpeace .htm Snauwaert, Dale T. (2008). The Moral and Spiritual Foundations of Peace Education. In Monisha Bajaj (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Peace education. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Tulsiram. (2012). Dharma Shikhsha. Delhi: D. A. V. College Management Committee. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. (G. E. M. Anscobe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Zuurdeeg, W. (1958). An Analytical Philosophy of Religion. New York: Abingdon Press. Biographical Note Born in 1968, Arshad Masood Hashmi is serving as an Associate Professor in the Department of Urdu in a Government College in Bihar, India. His published doctoral dissertation was on the topic “The Psychic Experiences and the Act of Literary Creation” while his published post-doctoral research that lead to the award of Litt. D. was on the topic “A Comparative Study of the Art of Premchand and Lu xun”. He has published nine books on criticism, translation and comparative literature besides three edited books. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6) June, 2014 81