The Contradiction that Faces Peace
Education
By: Zainab AkMukhtar
At many times, the word
peace is misunderstood and wrongly interpreted. One view of peace is
that it has two aspects (Positive Peace which defines a condition of
good management, orderly resolution of a conflict, harmony associated with
mature relationship, gentleness and love, and Negative Peace that reflects the
absence of turmoil, tension, conflict and war) (Johan Galtung, 1964)
Boulding on the other
hand, refuses this distinction and
mainly assists in the reduction and elimination of national warfare,
which he named “ table peace” instead of ”negative peace” which priories knowledge that will illuminate, enhance and extend what he names
as “ larger order”.(K Boulding, 1978).
As “Negative Peace“ is
mainly defined as the absence of war reached by the prevention and gradually
elimination of armed conflict, it mostly focuses on the research and education about wars, arms race and non violent
conflicts.(Reardon, 1988)
Galtung assisted on an the importance of looking at the roots of
armed conflicts which could lie as “structural Violence” not necessarily as
war. It is necessary to overcome forms of structural violence to build a
condition of positive peace.(Galtung, 1969).
In this sense Positive Peace looks at peace
as a whole state that involves aspects like reduction of poverty, disease and
illiteracy and others .
Betty Reardon goes to the
importance and strong connection between both kinds of peace, such that “Negative Peace” sets the basic
foundation for the growing and
establishing of “Positive Peace” in conditions such as justice and equality
.(Reardon, 1988).
She also mentions that most of peace education efforts at that
time are of negative peace education while some do reflect positive peace.
Summarizing definitions negative peace means
the total abolition of war as a human institution, while positive peace is
considered as a social order in which the resort to armed conflict is no longer
to be expected and certainly not accepted.(Reardon, 1988)
Seville’s
Statement
One of the main obstacles that faced peace
education in the “Theory of Violence” is a philosophical theory that
says humans are violent in nature or organized
human violence is biologically determined and thus justifies violence.
To defend against this theory, Dr David
Adams, Dr Federico Mayor and Dr Zarangoza invited scientists of Biology,
Psychology, History, Artopology, Neurology, Education and Economics.
The “Statement on Violence” was adopted by
the international meeting of
scientist, convened by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986.
It was subsequently adopted by UNESCO at the twenty-fifth session of
the General Conference on 16 November 1989. The statement, then known as a
“Statement on Violence” or “Seville’s Statement”, was designed to refute
"the notion that organized human violence is biologically
determined".
The statement contains five core ideas.
These ideas are:
1.
"It
is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make
war from our animal ancestors."
2.
"It
is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is
genetically programmed into our human nature."
3.
"It
is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there
has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of
behavior."
4.
"It
is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain'."
5.
"It
is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any
single motivation."
The statement concludes: "Just as
'wars begin in the minds of men', peace also begins in our minds”. The same
species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies
with each of us.( Wahlstrom, 2003)
Peace
Education
While education for the
purpose on negative peace is mainly focused on the causes of wars which falls
into a lot of ambiguities due to different views which depend on who is looking
at the issue and where. Another main concern is how to prevent the war or
conflict. It has been noted that due to the growing complexity of the world
there has been a rise in violence whether national, or in small extents such as
school and playground violence which are greatly influenced by the general
violent nature of wars (Reardon)
The general goal of
peace education for negative peace could be stated as: To develop well-informed
citizens to favor and more to take actions towards the achievement of peace and
disarmament.
Beer sees that weapons are the major cause of
violence as he states” Every weapon ever invented, it appears, has ultimately
been used”. And contrary to the theory of deterrence, the continued refinement
and production of nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to war than to prevent
it(Beer, 1983) in this scope armament prevention is a part of peace education
for negative peace.
While positive peace education interprets a
holistic and comprehensive approach to peace and interests in roots that cause
violence and how to reform the society towards no violence, it also involves
areas like: Global Justice, education for international understanding and
global education, environmental education, development education and human
rights education. It struggles for peace in the spirit of Ghandi’s admonition “There
is no way to peace. Peace is the way”
As Betty A.
Reardon mentions, Education for peace
is primarily concerned with knowledge and skills related to the requirements
and or obstacles to the achievement of peace. The general aspects which peace education include are:
·
Human Rights
Education
·
Development
Education
·
Civil Education
·
Gender Education
·
Children
Education(1989)
·
Environmental
Education
·
Security Education
·
Human Security
Noting that the actual content of peace
education is related to the cultural and political situation where the
education is to be held which is referred to as the contextual situation.
Fully Agreeing with
Seville’s Statement, and assisting on the importance of peace education towards
better lives for humans all over the world, a natural question puts itself
forward and that is:
“ How can people be
educated for peace when mostly violent happenings are triggered by holders of
economical or political powers, and involve manipulators that benefit from
violent situations plus simple people who are brain washed by some or other
agendas to be implement and be killed during violence? What is the best way to
explain such a contradiction?”