Below I share selected highlights and reflections on current and future directions of peace education research and practice that emerged during this exchange.
The report expands upon the concepts, contexts and experiences of peace education in Europe and the Israeli and Palestinian contexts, touching upon a number of observations that resonate with my fieldwork in the Western Balkans regarding the delicate task of promoting peace education in contexts affected by violent conflict.
One regards the potential utility of having an internationally supported yet contextually-specific approach to peace education in Israel and Palestine, as was done in the context of Germany and France following WWII, and Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Dayton Peace Agreement. Such an approach, coordinated by an international body or authority and strategically linked to the promotion of a new, aspirational and shared social and political identity (e.g. ‘European’ in the cited cases), can become a powerful organising framework within which intercommunity exchanges and collaboration are then regularly and systematically organised, in parallel to other strategic efforts such as schooling integration and textbook reform. Experience suggests that the impact and sustainability of peace education relies on both bottom-up and top-down contributions. Vertical and horizontal partnerships and collaborations with other peace actors are needed. Indeed, seizing flashes of goodwill among strategic gatekeepers remains part of the equation, even when the wider context remains resistant to the notion of 'peace'.
Another conclusion from the report with which I agree is that peace education, when properly understood, extends beyond the teaching of a discrete set of values and norms in a single lesson 'here or there'. Rather, peace education has wider applicability across all subjects in the curriculum, across all levels and forms of education, and their respective sectors in society. Peace cannot take root in a conflicted society via small-scale extracurricular projects alone when the rest of the educational system is reinforcing cultures of direct and indirect violence. The political and developmental importance of education has far-reaching implications for transforming the roots of societal conflict. Therefore, peace education must be brought from the margins into the mainstream of peace negotiations and wider policy reforms concerning the aims of education and its governance.
Untangling the unique contributions of disciplinary perspectives on peace education theory and practice
Where I think the report could go further is making more clear how different disciplines (first philosophy, then political science, then environmental studies, social psychology, more recently sociology, cultural studies, and critical education research, and returning again to psychology) have, over the past 60 years, shaped the evolution of conflict and peacebuilding theories, priorities, research and practices. Each discipline – speaking from its respective order of magnitude – has redefined the aims of peacebuilding, highlighting unique challenges and opportunities for this work which scholars and practitioners are still learning how to combine in context-relevant and interdisciplinary ways.
Understanding the evolution of peace pedagogies
Another issue for further exploration is that of ‘pedagogical reforms’ (or rather, 'peace pedagogies') that have evolved over the past 60 years in response to specific events and movements in the world (see above) and how these have shifted the aims and outcomes of peace education. The question of pedagogy has significant implications for how peace education is actually practiced in classrooms – pedagogies function like specific lenses through which we look at the project of education, shaping what questions are posed, around which topics, for stimulating what kind of reflection, towards which learning goals? Here I’m referring to pedagogical developments that have moved beyond rote-learning of peace values and human rights conventions, and which rather open up transformative learning processes. Recognizing the similarities and especially differences between pedagogies for democratic citizenship, for global stewardship, critical pedagogies, pedagogies of remembrance, and pedagogies of healing and reconciliation, among others, is important for having a deeper conversation around teacher education (i.e. what competences do teachers need in order to be able to teach about and for peace effectively?)
Attending to intergenerational tensions in conflict-affected contexts
A third area has to do with recognizing that conflict contexts are themselves constantly shifting, in significant ways, from one generation to the next. Perspectives, attitudes and worldviews, salient concerns and discourses shift over time. With each generation, the barriers to peace also shift, as do the motivations for peace. And so must our recognition of the key entry-points for peace education that we seize in the classroom, along with the key topics we select, and the rationales for peace and the activities that we offer. Schools assemble multiple generations in one setting, but it would be false to assume that peace education conceptualisations that satisfied previous generations are adequate to the needs and concerns of younger generations. Peace education has to stay current within these dynamic contexts in order to appeal to the life concerns of each generation. Indeed, as promoters of peace education we need to learn to speak on different channels simultaneously, using tailored narratives for each generation and stakeholder group within one society, even one school community, in order secure engagement and confidence in the peacebuilding process.
Addressing the transmission of violence-inflicted societal wounds
At the same time, there are some fundamentals, particularly in violence-affected contexts that cannot be ignored: identity is a big one of course, but so too is the issue of violence-inflicted wounds in the society. We talk a lot about victimhood and the lack of trust that results from it. But we speak much less about an even more painful topic: that of owning one’s own perpetratorhood – how we have participated in and/or been complicit with past and current instances of violence and injustice, and the responsibility we have to face ourselves as individuals and as communities and to take a greater role in pursuing the four pillars of 'transitional justice': truth, accountability, reparations, and guarantees of non-repetition. The reluctance of conflict parties to admit their own participation in violence – to excuse their aggression as righteous – is one of the greatest barriers to breaking the cycle of violence. This is the same reason why, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the educational authorities in the Republika Srpska refuse to collaborate substantively in peace education initiatives and apply pressure and intimidation tactics on teachers who dare to. Conflict parties demonstrably prefer to cling to their victimhood rather than engage in the real and very hard – but ultimately rewarding – work of building inclusive, just and sustainably peaceful and prosperous futures with and for their children.
Removing barriers to peacebuilding agency
In each of these ongoing conflict contexts, we see that adults are often the greatest barrier to young people on the path to peace – adults choose to transfer the burdens of intractable conflict onto their children. How strange. And this raises two further issues of importance: that of teacher education (pre-service and in-service continued professional development) and that of youth involvement in setting peace agendas and exercising peacebuilding agency. Conflict- and violence-affected educators struggle with the topic of peace even if it is an ideal that they cherish. Teacher education programmes must equip teachers not only with peace knowledge and skills, but also support them as they struggle through reflecting on and healing from their own conflict-inflicted wounds, so that they can address conflict and peace in the classroom without becoming a barrier to the next generation’s peacebuilding agency. Young people, likewise, need to feel effective as peacebuilders in order to have the motivation and confidence to struggle against the tidal wave of negative forces in society. Self-efficacy can be experienced in the context of applied peace pedagogies that focus on youth agency and engagement with the wider society. Supporting youth to take the driver’s seat in devising encounters, collaborations, community dialogues, humanitarian work, arts projects and other civically-engaged work which brings antagonized communities together in action, has been shown to nurture – gradually but significantly – greater confidence in the possibility for social change, while also strengthening a new generation of peace leaders who, in time, will create even greater openings for peace.
I greatly appreciated the contributions of each of the speakers and participants. More dialogue that compares and contrasts experiences of peace education in Israel and Palestine, in Europe, and around the world, would be beneficial. Thoughts? Please comment below!