PEACE EDUCATION AS A TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL PROCESSES IN NATIONAL UNITY
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The renowned Journal of Peace Education describes peace education not only as a flourishing academic discipline but, indeed, as an active global social movement “that can collectively unify, fuel, and inspire dialog among scholars, researchers, activists, educators, government leaders, and the myriad of public peacemakers committed to creating cultures of peace throughout the world” (Lum 2013, 121). A network of individuals, groups and organisations has formed, whose activities reflect the full diversity of peace education approaches practised worldwide. A good insight into the “scene” is provided by the Newsletter of the Global Campaign for Peace Education.1 Launched in 1999, the Campaign’s goal is to provide peace education with an internal forum and an external voice (Wintersteiner 2013). Along with this heightened attention, there are also growing expectations and, indeed, challenges. In view of what appear to be constantly self-reproducing cultures of violence in many societies, there are increasingly urgent calls for a reliable peace education tool box. Organisations engaged in non-violent conflict management and development cooperation now generally regard education programmes as extremely important, and peace education is being integrated into many of them. As a result, the question which increasingly arises is what contribution it can make, focusing, on the one hand, on the theoretical foundations of peace education and, on the other, on developing context-appropriate practical approaches and documenting and analysing the impacts. The United States Institute of Peace, in a review of its grantmaking in the area of peace education, pays tribute to the successes achieved and the progress made on conceptualisation and implementation, but also calls emphatically for greater differentiation and focusing of approaches, and proposes more intensive dialogue between academics and practitioners in this context (Fitzduff/Jean 2011). The first part of this paper therefore develops a basic concept of internationally oriented, context-related and process-oriented peace education with clearly defined target groups. Against this background, the second part presents a comprehensive and practical approach to peace education in crisis and conflict regions, the aim being to promote conflict transformation. In this context, a fundamental distinction is made between direct peace education (encounter, inspiration, training) and structural peace education (pilot projects, curricula, implementation). The context-related interaction between these two basic forms is identified as a promising approach and offered up for discussion. Brief case studies from the practice of peace education are presented for the purpose of illustration
.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
It is not surprising that although now in its 10th year, the Journal of Peace Education is still asking one key question: “What is peace education?” (Lum 2013, 121). Researchers and practitioners agree that a single recognised definition does not, and probably cannot, exist. The approaches are too diverse, as are the contexts in which peace education programmes are discussed, conceptualised, trialled and evaluated. The diversity ranges from programmes to prevent violence among preschool children and mediation programmes in schools to encounter workshops with members of different conflict parties in crisis regions and ideas on how to redesign education systems in a conflict-sensitive manner and develop curricula and learning materials in post-conflict societies. Numerous recent monographs, collections of articles and manuals bear witness to this state of affairs (Frieters-Reermann 2009; Grasse/Gruber/Gugel 2008; Harris 2013; Kössler/Schwitanski 2014; Lenhart/Mitschke/Braun 2010; Nipkow 2007; McGlynn et al. 2009; Salomon/Cairns 2010).In the past, various attempts have been made at structuring the field. A good example is the much discussed approach advocated by Gavriel Salomon, Emeritus Professor at the University of Haifa, who has worked tirelessly for many years for more clarity and conceptual thinking about peace education. In his view, the contextualisation of peace education is crucial. Salomon distinguishes between
• contexts of relative tranquillity with no tension
• contexts of latent ethnopolitical tensions
• contexts of collective, intractable and belligerent conflicts.
In the latter, peace education, according to Salomon, faces its real test, for here, it is about making peace with a real enemy: “[W]ith somebody you really hate, who really threatens you” (Salomon 2004, 10). From his perspective, a prototype can be developed from this – albeit without devaluing peace education in the other contexts. The proposed contextualisation sharpens awareness of the need for peace education programmes to be precisely aligned to the specific conflict setting. At the same time, some of the individual measures can be deployed in different contexts.
In addition to contextualisation, the process-, personality- and relationship-forming aspects of peace
education are important. Together with his colleague Ed Cairns, he writes: “Peace Education is primarily an educational process operating within the context of war, threat, violence, and conflict that addresses attitudes, beliefs, attributes, skills, and behaviors” (Salomon/Cairns 2010, 5).
Overcoming habitual patterns of behaviour is a key challenge in initiating learning processes. “Peace
education has the difficult task of transforming habits that entrench a lack of peace as the normality,”
according to theologian Karl-Ernst Nipkow (2007, 354). How are these habitats manifested? Very often, people are habituated to the use of violence because this is perceived to be, or has validity as, a successful, if not the only option for action in conflict situations. Even habituation to war as an apparently legitimate means of doing politics and asserting interests can be observed. But there is also habitual self-perception as a helpless victim or a powerless individual buffeted by the violent upheavals taking place in the locality or the world.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE TERM PAPER
The main thrust of this study is to examine peace eduction as a transformative social processes in national unity, to achieve this; the researcher has the following objectives as it points.
- To find out the workerbility of peace education in national unity.
- To ascertain the remote and immediate causes of boko Haram crisis in Nigeria.
- To ascertain the Political,economic and psychological implication of peace education in national unity.
- To make suggestions to the federal governmet on how to live in unity through peace education
- To determine the ways in which the citizens can serve as a helping hand in
promoting peace education
6.to initiate and support integrated, holistic learning processes that are guided by the concept of peace.
- to promote constructive ways of dealing with the potential for conflict and violence and thus help to build the peace skills of individuals and groups alike.
at ameliorating the escalating level of violence in various forms so that
individuals can live and work in a relatively peaceful atmosphere that could ultimately engender “a global culture of peace”. Peace education therefore primarily intends to develop in the individual skills, attitudes, and knowledge with cooperative and participatory learning methods and an environment of tolerance, care and respects.
CHAPTER TWO :
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Nwodo (2010; p.17) posist that peace education is the medium through which sustainable peace and development are connected; considering the fact that tranquility attracts foreign investors and development partnerships” according to the coalition of Nigerian NGOs on health, population and development, (CONNOHPD). Peace education is the cultivation of proper conflict resolution knowledge and skill applications that promote peace and social justice. Peace education creates awareness and enlightens people on the right at tides towards handling situations that could lead to conflict. It also helps individuals to be conflict sensitive , know the ingredients of conflict and avoid them.
Gumut (2006,P.165) sees peace education as “the deliberate attempt to educate children and adults in the dynamics of conflict and the promotion of peacemaking skills in homes, schools, and communities throughout the world , using all the channels and instruments of socialization”. He maintains that it provides education for global security and focuses on direct , organized violence , especially the institutions of war and armed conflicts, while employing a framework based on recent theories of human security.
Akpuru –Aja (2007,p.26) posits that peace education is “the process of proactive enlightment on the knowledge and skills of observing and responding early warning indicators”. Peace education stimulates attitudinal and behavioral changes. It also promotes transformational leadership; it is right to point out here that peace education makes it possible for individual and groups to appreciate peace and get to know that peace is synonymous with development. Peace education makes it possible from all walks of life to be enlightened on issues that concern peace, conflict violence and even crisis as well as their connection. According to UNICEF peace Education refers to the process of promoting the knowledge ,skills , attitudes and values needed to bring about behavior changes that will enable children , youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence , both overt and structural ; to resolve conflict peacefully
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL PROCESS
According to Maclueri “social process is the manner in which the relations of the members of a group , once brought together acquire a distinctive character . Ginsherg (2002)defined social processes “as the various modes of interaction between individual or groups including cooperation and conflict , social differentiation and integration development , arrest and decay”. According to Harton and Hunt “the term social process refers to the repetitive form of behavior which are commonly found in social life”. Social process refers to forms of social interaction that occur repeatedly . by social processes we mean those ways in which individuals and groups interact and establish social relationships.
2.1 REVIEW OF THE PAST INCIDENCE PHENOMENON BEING STUDIED
The concept of peace lends itself to several interpretations and definitions, which cannot be
exhaustively discussed here. Ordinarily, peace means the absence of conflict or violence at a particular time and place. It evokes the climate of freedom from fear, intimidation and harassment, oppression and brutalisation by external forces or agents. Ibeanu (2006), observed that philosophers are not in agreement as to a universally acceptable view of peace. Rousseau’s position that peace implies the original state of existence in which man was born as “a free gentle savage” – “a state of nature”, is synonymous with a state of ignorance. For Thomas Hobbes, this “state of nature” was marred by frequent conflict and violence, which rendered life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. In order to avoid this ugly situation, men decided to surrender their rights to an overriding force, and thereby created a “social contract” for a more peaceful and orderly life (Sabine and Thorson, 1973). Plato, from the social context perspective, argues that justice is the fulcrum of ordered social life (Ibeanu,
2006). It is in this regard that Iwe (1978) states that “justice stands erect like a tree planted on the fertile ground of truth and liberty with all other virtues as its branches, rights and duties its fruits; and order and peace its harvest”. In other words, where justice reigns, social order and harmony will prevail, while conflict and violence will be minimal, thereby giving room for both human and material resources development through formal educational activities. Hence, the presence of conflict and violence in any society necessitates peace education. Peace education, in essence, implies efforts to promote peace, especially in conflict or violence – ridden areas through educational activities. There is no consensus among scholars as to what peace education means. As a result, the lack of conceptual clarity impedes educational attempts to promote peace (Porath, 2003). It is in this connection that Dupuy (2011) states that: “There is no uniform concept of peace education and the international discourse on this topic is still in its infancy.” He further posits that for a shared and clearer understanding to be achieved, the various socio-economic and political, historical and cultural contexts must be taken into account. This is because since after World War II, many educators have made spirited efforts to establish a humanistic theory and practice of peace education, but without success (Porath, 2003). This stems from the fact that different regions of the world place different emphasis on peace education program. According to Salomon (2002), regions of relative tranquility stress education for cooperation and harmony, thereby promoting the idea of a general “culture of peace”, whereas regions of conflict emphasise “education for violence prevention”. Violence here implies the direct and the structural aspects. For example, direct violence includes personal assault, rape, brutality, terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing, institutional war, state sponsored terror, institutional war, industrial destruction of plants and animals (Dupuy, 2011). Indirect violence, on the
other hand, is characterized by sexism, racism, discrimination, poverty, lack of education and health services
2.2 THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK
Direct peace education: Key elements of this approach are generally about encounter, inspiration and
training. It could also be described as peace education for empowerment, with a focus on personal capacity development or identity-building. Direct peace education focuses on the conflict-transformative power of human encounter. Indeed, it could be said that without encounter, peace education cannot take place at all. However, these are not random encounters but “staged” forms of encounter, at which people (such as members of different conflict parties) are invited to workshops, seminars and even major (sports) events for which a specific dialogue format or learning arrangement has been developed. The encounters also bring together members of conflict parties who are hostile to one another. In ethno political conflict societies, it is important to facilitate contact between people with different ethnic or religious affiliations. In every case, peace education deliberately creates learning spaces in order to increase the likelihood that these encounters will have positive, conflict transformative effects. It is about initiating learning processes that facilitate the development of the counter-habits. Providing opportunities for inspiration is part of these processes.
Direct peace education has another goal as well: to provide the right inspiration for the right people at
the right time at the right place. This can have a lasting effect, as an example from Peace Counts on Tour in India shows. After a workshop in New Delhi in March 2009, several participants took the Peace Counts concept back to their own regions (primarily the crisis regions in North-East India) and, since then, have run a steadily growing number of workshops either independently or with support from the Peace Counts team in Germany. They are also working on the delivery of a Peace Counts curriculum at several universities. The life history approach adopted in the Peace Counts reports is very much in keeping with this form of peace education. Biographical learning, or learning from best practice models, has an important role to play in direct peace education, especially when working with young target groups. A critical exploration of role models who are “different” may prove fruitful: “Their conflict-rich life situations and the options for action that were available to them create productive learning opportunities for peace education,” says theologian Hans Mendl in direct reference to the Peace Counts approach (2006, 198). The prerequisite is value-oriented model-based learning. For Mendl, model-based learning is successful if the attitudes, positions and behaviour patterns of a person who has been the subject of reflective and value-oriented learning can be expressed/integrated in the daily life of the (young) target groups. What is more, as Mendl sees it, an approach which uses others’ life stories as a basis for reflection on one’s own thinking and action necessarily creates scope for more differentiated consideration of negative role models. Direct peace education teaches people that peace counts – on a micro and a macro level. In an impressive study conducted at Malmö School of Education, various dimensions of the linkage between the micro and macro levels were examined from a violence prevention, conflict management and peace education perspective (Carlsson 1999). Two key findings are: (1) If, based on their personal experience, people favour violence as a way of resolving conflicts, they will favour violent conflict resolution at the
international level as well. (2) If people gain positive experience of non-violent conflict management, their feelings of powerlessness and lack of influence on conflicts in the international context diminish, and there is an increased willingness to opt for non-violent engagement for peace.
CHAPTER THREE: IMPLICATION/EFFECT/CONSEQUENCES
SOCIAL :
peace education will, to a reasonable extent, address the problems of structural and cultural violence. Structural violence consists of deliberate policies and structures put in place by government that cause human suffering, death and harm, while cultural violence includes cultural norms and practices that create discrimination, injustice, etc. (Ibeanu, 2006). Peace education, if introduced, will create an awareness that could minimize the degree of poverty and social inequalities – the bases of social restiveness in many parts of the country.
Moreover, the Nigeria’s twin problems – ethnicity and religious extremism, make the introduction of
peace education inevitable. Many conflicts in Nigeria stem from tribal sentiments and religious intolerance. A well-conceived and articulated peace education programme that takes the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria into consideration, and implemented by dedicated and concerned cream of teachers, will facilitate national integration of the various ethnic and religious groups, and thereby promote mutual relationships that can foster national unity in all its ramifications.
POLITICAL :
In the political arena, politicians in this country have thrown morality, decorum, decency and probity to the winds, hence a needed panacea could be found in peace education so that future generations could save Nigeria from disintegration and economic collapse. The political leadership have encouraged many social vices such as tribalism (i.e., discrimination against a citizen because of his place of birth), corruption, nepotism, assassination of political opponents, among others. These can be checked or drastically reduced through a comprehensive peace education programme, designed for our leaders, who should be given periodic orientation courses while in office to ensure that those in the echelon of power can speak and flow in the stream of peace education.
The political crisis, under the influence of ethnic rivalry and violence, has recently killed hundreds of people and destroyed property, including burning of houses. Such crisis has erupted due to the lack of peaceful means to address grievances.
ECONOMIC
peace education would have far-reaching effects on the national economy. This is so because the curriculum contents, which should include among others; rights, civics and citizenship education, would frontally confront corruption – the endemic disease in our national fabric. Igwe (2010) observes that although corruption is viewed as illegal everywhere, “but everywhere it is woven deep into the fabric of everyday life”. To Achebe (1983), “Corruption in Nigeria has passed the alarming and entered the fatal stage; Nigeria will die if we keep pretending that she is slightly indisposed”. The war against corruption and other social vices will not end until it is fought in the sub-conscious minds of the individual citizens through peace education. Furthermore, peace education, when introduced and properly adopted, could minimize, if not eradicate, the incidents of school violence resulting from cult-related activities, and the attitudes or behaviours of some over-bearing teachers and unruly students. The result of these anti-social behaviours have in many cases
disrupted educational programmes and activities, and also maimed and/or untimely terminated the lives of both students and teachers alike.
PSYCHOLOGICAL .
The literature identifies limitations tothe impact of psychosocial support programmes in terms of teacher capacity and the need to provide family support (Boyden 1996), but there is a common theme that education can provide children with opportunities to rebuild trusting relationships and regain confidence (Machel 1996).
CHAPTER FOUR: SOLUTION, RECOMEMENDATION, AND CONCLUTION
SOLUTION
To enhance national unity through peace education
• there must be ample time to train staff/teachers, so that they can both internalize concepts and skills of peace education themselves, and be adequately prepared to convey those concepts and skills to others (Metis, 1990);
• Using cooperative and interactive methods that allow for active student participation and practice (Stevahn, et. al., 1996);
• Teaching generic problem-solving skills through the use of real-life situations (Tolan and Guerra, 1994);
• . Consistent reinforcing of conflict resolution skills learned at school in non-school contexts, for example, through educating parents andcommunity groups in the same skills taught in the school (Metis, 1990);
• Ensuring gender and cultural sensitivity in programme design andimplementation, as well as appropriateness for the age group (Blakeway,1997);
• Incorporating analysis of conflicts in the community and/or the wider society, as well as of interpersonal conflict, in the programme (Institutefor Conflict Analysis and Resolution, 1994);
• Providing young people with the opportunity to engage in constructive, peace-building activities in their school and community (Tolan andGuerra, 1994);
RECOMENDATION
First and foremost, the message of peace will reach a huge number of people if communities are trained in skills of conflict resolution. Secondly, people within communities are at the same time the ones who in one way or another will expand the peace message to other people, at home, at church, at the shop, at the market, at work and so on or will help resolve conflict within their own environmental milieu. Hence the need to also situate peace education curricula to fit into the contextual realities of the community.
This of necessity implies that there should be educational reforms that are divergently inclusive of component of the peace process that could engender equity, justice and national unity. Peace education, in the present circumstance, is inevitably necessary because every citizen should be educated so that he/she can understand the society and the dynamics of social harmony. Peace education should be such that is inclusive, because educational inclusion is critical for maintaining peace as it can redress grievances that can motivate individuals to engage in conflicts or violence (Dupuy, 2011). Inclusive education here, especially within the ambit of “Education For All” perspective, does not just refer to those with physical or mental disabilities and/or learning difficulties”. Rather it should be seen from the systemic point of view which has to ensure that all pupils can have access to the whole range of educational and social opportunities offered by the school (so that they can) avoid segregation and isolation as well as prejudice. The all inclusive education also takes into cognizance the socio-cultural environment under which individuals are nurtured.
CONCLUSION
Peace education therefore primarily intends to develop in the individual skills, attitudes, and knowledge with cooperative and participatory learning methods and an environment of tolerance, care and respects. Where the contents of peace education are inculcated in and imbibed as well as are practised by the individuals, there will be appreciable level of national unity. In other words, a situation where there is social justice, equity, gender equality, and amelioration of poverty, national unity would be facilitated. In this connection, peace education is premised on the popular maxim: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed” We can never have national unity if peace education is been neglected.
REFERENCES
Clarke-Habibi, S. (2005). “Transforming Worldviews: The Case of Education for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1): 33-56
Danesh, H. B. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3(1): 55–78.
Danesh, H. B. (2007). Education for peace: The pedagogy of civilization. In Z. Beckerman and C. McGlynn (Eds.), Addressing ethnic conflict through peace education: International perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Danesh, H. B. (2008a). Creating a culture of healing in schools and communities: An integrative approach to prevention and amelioration of violence-induced conditions, Journal of Community Psychology.
Danesh, H. B. (2008b). The education for peace integrated curriculum: Concepts, contents, efficacy. Journal of Peace Education.
Danesh, H. B., and Clarke-Habibi, S. (2007). Education for peace curriculum manual: A conceptual and practical guide. EFP-International Press.
Danesh, H. B., and Danesh, R. P. (2002a). A consultative conflict resolution model: Beyond alternative dispute resolution. International Journal of Peace Studies, 7(2): 17–33
Danesh, H. B., and Danesh, R. P. (2002b). Has conflict resolution grown up? Toward a new model of decision making and conflict resolution. International Journal of Peace Studies, 7(1): 59–76.
Danesh, H. B., and Danesh, R. P. (2004). Conflict-free conflict resolution (CFCR): Process and methodology. Peace and Conflict Studies, 11(2), 55–84.
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 48: 510-517;.
Dupuy, K. (2001). Education for Peace: Building Peace and Transforming Armed Conflict Through Education Systems. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.
Guerra, N. G., Eron, L., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. and Van Acker, R. (1997). A cognitive-ecological approach to the prevention and mitigation of violence and aggression in inner-city youth, in: D. P. Fry and K. Bjorkqvist (Eds) Cultural variation in conflict resolution: alternatives to violence (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum), 199–213.
Hägglund, S. (1999). Peer relationships and children’s understanding of peace and war: a sociocultural perspective, in: A. Raviv, L. Oppenheimer and D. Bar-Tal (Eds) How children understand war and peace (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 190–207.
Ibeanu, O. (2006). “Conceptualising Peace”. In Best, S.G. (Ed.) Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Iheoma, E.O. (1983). “Education and National Development”. In Journal of Education in Developing Areas. (2): 120-127.
Mello, R (2001). The Power of Storytelling: How Oral Narrative Influences Children’s Relationships in Classrooms. ERIC. Pg.1-15.
Moscovici, S. (1993). Introductory address given at the First International Conference on Social Representations, Ravello, Italy.
Okowa, W.J. (2005). “Oil, ‘Babylonian Matheconomics’ and Nigerian Development”. An Inaugural Lecture, University of Port Harcourt.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Lagos: Panaf Publishers Ltd. Sabine, G.H. and Thorson, T. I. (1983). A History of Political Theory . New York: The Dryden Press.
Rouhana, N. and Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: the Israeli-Palestinian case, American Psychologist, 53(7): 761–770.
Salomon, G. (2002). “The Nature of Peace Education: Not All Programmes are Created Equal”. In Salomon, G. and Nevo, B. (eds.) Peace Education: The Concept, Principles and Practices in the World.
image source : https://steemit-production-imageproxy-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/DQmQyLFWnDY8xZGe2EoxBXWfgPP2mNaGHrNCUFMyVS8HP5u