| Peace is the most fundamental of human rights and the basis of all human development. The 2014 Global Peace Index ranks 162 countries covering 99.6% of the world’s population. Using 22 indicators, the Index gauges global peace using three themes: the level of safety and security in society, the extent of domestic or international conflict, and the degree of militarisation. Since 2008, 51 countries have improved peace index rankings, while 111 countries have deteriorated. The 11 least peaceful countries are embroiled in violent conflict. Will this trend get worse? What can we do to reverse it? The Global Peace Index shows that we need to invest in the attitudes, structures, and institutions that underpin peaceful societies. By creating peace, we create the optimal environment for human potential to flourish. The Global Peace Index has been published each year since 2007 by the organization Vision of Humanity (www.visionofhumanity.org). Vision of Humanity's website offers a wealth of accessible research reports, interactive maps, and news of value to peace researchers, policy makers and practitioners. The Global Peace Index draws on a framework created by the Institute for Economics and Peace which is described in the report entitled "Pillars of Peace". The research outlined in this report shows that peace does not exist in its own right. The relative peace of a society is underpinned by the material and cultural circumstances of that society, whether it is the efficiency of the formal institutions of government, the strength of the economic conditions, or the strength of the cultural and informal norms that relate to corruption. The figure to the left is a visual representation of the Pillars of Peace. The eight Pillars can be seen as highly interconnected and interacting in varied and complex ways to form either virtuous or vicious cycles, with causality running both ways. The animated relationships between the Pillars are purely indicative and are not literal interpretations of the various statistical associations identified. The strength of the various interactions will depend on the historical, political, economic and cultural circumstances of particular societies. |
Distinguishing Peace Education, Peacebuilding through Education, and Conflict-Sensitive Education1/15/2015
I am often asked what the differences are between 'peace education', 'peacebuilding through education' and 'conflict-sensitive education'. In brief, I understand the relationship between these different terms and approaches as follows:
The term 'peace education' typically refers to particular curricula, pedagogies, and practices aimed at cultivating in students knowledge, values, attitudes, skills and behaviours that are conducive to peaceful, violence-free communities. 'Peacebuilding through education' and ‘conflict-sensitive education’ refer to engagement with the wider educational system within which peace and conflict dynamics are shaped, and in which peace education may be present. In conflict-affected and post-conflict societies, the values espoused by peace education programmes can appear at odds with prevailing policies and practices in the school, wider education system, and society. As a result, the credibility and practical value of such ideals can be questioned and their adoption short-lived. A peacebuilding approach therefore strives to cultivate systemic change in order to strengthen peace processes (including peace education) and render their positive impacts more sustainable. Peacebuilding through education thus takes a systemic view and a multi-levelled approach to engaging with education policies, modes of management and decision-making, access to resources and opportunities, curricular reform and pedagogy, so that they work in a more concerted fashion to support peace. Peacebuilding through education is highly contextual, and can involve many different types of engagement, from rebuilding educational infrastructure after violent conflict, to providing psychosocial recovery support to schools affected by violence, to reformulating curricula in alignment with peace principles, to reforming teacher education practices, to building community-based and institutional networks, to advocating for new education policies and standards that are conducive to social justice, integration and cohesion, to growing teachers' capacity for agency, to building new learning partnerships through community participation, and more. It begins with understanding the interaction between a given education system and the dynamics of conflict and peace in the wider society. In other words, peacebuilding through education involves an examination not only peace education curriculum and practice, but interactions between educational professionals, classrooms, schools and communities as situated within historical and cultural contexts, policy landscapes, educational structures and power dynamics that may, if overlooked, impede or undermine peacebuilding processes. The literature on conflict-sensitive education (CSE) intentionally distinguishes itself from peacebuilding. Whereas the latter seeks to actively promote peacebuilding measures within and through educational structures and settings, a conflict-sensitive approach focusses simply on doing no harm. Drawing on Mary Andersen’s book Do No Harm (1999), the INEE's CSE guidance note reveals how education can contribute to tensions or connections in the conflict-affected societies in numerous ways:
Like peacebuilding, conflict-sensitive education begins with understanding the interaction between a given education system and the dynamics of conflict and peace in a particular society. It then focuses on ensuring that educational planning and provision is, as much as possible, inclusive and equitable, free from bias and partisan profiteering, and free of conflict-producing content, methods, or modes of educational access, financing and management. It does not concern itself much with the particulars of curricula or pedagogy, nor does it aim at particular peacebuilding gains. What it offers is a framework of principles for educational planners and providers to audit their operations and interventions in conflict-affected settings. In general, it is regarded as a foundation upon which more explicit peacebuilding engagement can be built. However, there are instances in which the two approaches can contradict one another. This subject is treated in one of my forthcoming articles. |
AuthorIn July 2017 I completed my PhD at the University of Cambridge, exploring issues of peacebuilding through education in the wake of violent intergroup conflict. This is a space I use to share thoughts and discoveries related to my research. Archives
October 2022
Categories |