Peace Education The Concept, Principles, and Practices

Around the World - 1st Edition

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/peace-education-the-concept-principles-and-practices
-around-the-world-1st-edition/

Click Download Now

 Contents

Preface xi
Contributors xv

PART I: THE CONCEPT

1 The Nature of Peace Education: Not All Programs Are Created Equal
3
Gavriel Salomon
2 Conceptual Underpinnings of Peace Education 15
Ian Harris
3 The Elusive Nature of Peace Education 27
Daniel Bar-Tal
4 Paradoxes of Peace and the Prospects of Peace Education 37
David Perkins
5 The Gordian Knot Between Peace Education and War Education 55
Ruth Firer
6 Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Peace Education 63
Svi Shapiro
7 From Healing Past Wounds To the Development of Inclusive Caring:
Contents and Processes of Peace Education 73
Ervin Staub

PART II: UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

8 Understanding the Conditions and Processes Necessary for

Intergroup Contact to Reduce Prejudice 89
 Nurit Tal-Or, David Boninger, and Faith Gleicher
9 Conciliation Through Storytelling: Beyond Victimhood 109
Dan Bar-On
1 Friendship, Contact, and Peace Education 117
0 Charles Kadushin and David Livert
11 Postresolution Processes: Instrumental and Socioemotional Routes to
Reconciliation 127
Arie Nadler
1 The Commonality of the Body: Pedagogy and Peace Culture 143
2 Sherry B.Shapiro
1 Memory Work and the Remaking of the Future: A Critical Look at
3 the Pedagogical Value of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
for Peace 155
Crain Soudien

PART III: THE PRACTICE

1 Belgium: The Triangle of Peace—Education, Legislation, Mediation

4 165
Johan Leman
1 Croatia: For Peace Education in New Democracies 177
5 Dinka orkalo
1 Israel: An Integrative Peace Education in an NGO—The Case of the
6 Jewish-Arab Center for Peace at Givat Haviva 187
Sarah Ozacky-Lazar
1 Cyprus: A Partnership Between Conflict Resolution and Peace
7 Education 193
Maria Hadjipavlou
1 Israel: Empowering Arab and Jew—School Leadership in Acre 209
8 Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz and Devorah Eden
1 Northern Ireland: The Impact of Peacemaking in Northern Ireland on
9 Intergroup Behavior 217
Ed Cairns and Miles Hewstone
2 Rwanda: Attaining and Sustaining Peace 229
0 Cecile Mukarubuga
2 South Africa: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a Model
1 of Peace Education 237
Penny Enslin

PART IV: THE RESEARCH

2 Head First versus Feet First in Peace Education 247

2 Clark McCauley
2 Conceptual Mapping and Evaluation of Peace Education Programs:
3 The Case of Education for Coexistence Through Intergroup
Encounters Between Jews and Arabs In Israel 259
Ifat Maoz
2 Peace Education Programs and the Evaluation of their Effectiveness
4 271
Baruch Nevo and Iris Brem

Author Index 283

Subject Index 289
 Preface
The many local wars, conflicts, and intergroup religious, ethnic, and tribal
tensions among different groups are said to be the sign of our times. These
wars and conflicts have at least two major components—the political-
economical and the psychosocial. These two components are in a tight
reciprocal relationship, affecting each other and providing meaning for each
other. One cannot think of political tensions and conflicts without their
psychosocial underpinnings of collective hatred, distrust, fear, and hope. It
would be equally difficult to think of the latter without understanding the
historical, economical, and political aspects of a conflict, including
adversaries’ desires to reach independence, claims for land, struggle for
self-determination, or fight for equality.
While politicians and civil leaders are struggling, for better or worse,
with the political-economical aspects of conflicts, educators, psychologists,
clergymen, and other concerned individuals address themselves to the
human-psychological sides of conflicts. Employing a variety of means and
approaches that range from shared seminars to courses on peace and from
collaborative artistic projects to joint soul-searching encounters, they try to
cultivate understanding between adversaries, reconciliation, mutual
tolerance, skills and dispositions of conflict resolution, and the healing of
past wounds. Indeed, the field—often called Peace Education—is very
active all over the world, involving large numbers of both school children
and adults, professionals (teachers, social workers), and political leaders.
However, although very active, particularly in regions of continuous
conflict such as Northern Ireland or Israel, the scholarly aspects of the field
of peace education lag somewhat behind practice. As Galtung, one of the
founders of the field, once commented, there is more research on peace
than peace action, but when it comes to peace education, the converse is the
case: There is more action, all over the world and under a range of labels,
accompanied by what appears to be insufficient scholarship.
This relative paucity of scholarship results, first, in some conceptual
confusion: what is peace education and how does it differ from its next of
kin such as conflict resolution or multicultural education? Second,
insufficient scholarship is often reflected in well-intended but not very clear
goals for peace education: What should its attainable goals be? What can
realistically be attained and what conditions have to be met to attain them?
What educational and psychological principles should be applied to attain
effective peace education?
Third, wanting scholarship of the field means insufficient empirical
examination of the way it works and—most importantly—the results it does
or does not yield. One of the editors of this book, Baruch Nevo, has
conducted a survey of recently published works on peace education and has
found that only approximately 30% of all relevant programs entail some
kind of an evaluation component. Thus, we have only very limited
knowledge of how effective the practice of peace education is. Who
benefits more from encounter groups, and whose stereotypes become
reinforced as a result of involvement in one or another kind of peace
education program? Do encounter groups among past enemies lead to a
greater mutual acceptance, or do they cause increased divisiveness? When
and under what conditions does the former happen and when does the
latter? One way to answer such questions is to actually evaluate programs
empirically. Another way is to scan existing programs in different parts of
the world and search for generalizable lessons that can be learned from
them. What could peace educators in, say, Kosovo learn from the
experience with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa?
What lessons can be derived from the day to day contact between Catholic
and Protestant neighbors in Northern Ireland that would be of interest to
peace educators in Rwanda?
This book is a modest attempt to address these issues and by so doing
help to advance the scholarship of the field of peace education. Toward this
end, an international group of thirty peace education scholars from a variety
of countries—ranging from Rwanda to the USA and from Croatia to the
Palestinian Authority—conducted a week-long joint workshop at the
University of Haifa, Israel in May of 2000. This book is the result of that
workshop—the Andre Salama International Workshop on Peace Education.
Based on the workshop’s deliberations, we address here four major
scholarly issues pertaining to peace education, which constitute the four
parts of the book. The first part, the concept of peace education, presents
seven views on the nature of peace education, its history, and relationships
to neighboring fields. The second part, underlying principles, entails six
critical examinations of relevant psychological and pedagogical principles
such as the contact experience, conciliation through personal storytelling,
reckoning with traumatic memories, body-work, and the socioemotional
aspects of reconciliation. The third part, the practice, represents a number of
peace education practical approaches in such countries as Northern Ireland,
Cyprus, Belgium, Croatia, and Israel, practices from which some
generalizable lessons could be learned. Finally, in the fourth part, the
research, one study and two reviews of research are presented. The size of
this part of the book is a fair representation of the paucity of empirical
research in the field.
We owe thanks to many individuals who helped us organize the
workshop and edit the book; they are too many to mention them all.
However, we are particularly thankful to the Salama family, who found a
wonderful way to commemorate Mr. Andre Salama by providing generous
support for our international workshop and thus making it possible.
Gavriel Salomon
Baruch Nevo
Haifa, Israel
June, 2001
 Contributors
Bar-On, Dan
PRIME (Peace Research Institute in the Middle East)
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Israel
Bar-Tal, Daniel
School of Education
Tel-Aviv University
Israel
Boninger, David
Department of Psychology
University of Haifa
Israel
Cairns, Ed
Department of Psychology
University of Ulster
North Ireland
orkalo, Dinka
Department of Psychology
University of Zagreb
Croatia
Eden, Dvora
Nothern Galilee College
Israel
Enslin, Penny
School of Education
University of Witwatersand
South Africa
Firer, Ruth
The Truman Research Institute for Advancement of Peace
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Israel
Gleicher, Faith
Department of Communication
University of Haifa
Israel
Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, Maria
Department of Social and Political Science
University of Cyprus
Cyprus
Harris, Ian
Department of Educational Policy and Community Studies
University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee
USA
Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rachel
Faculty of Education
University of Haifa
Israel
Hewstone, Miles
Psychology Department
University of Cardiff
Wales
Kadushin, Charles
Department of Sociology
Brandeis University
USA
Leman, Johan
Federal Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism
Belgium
Maoz, Ifat
Department of Communication
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Israel
McCauley, Clark
Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict
Psychology Department
University of Pennsylvania
USA
Mukarubuga, Cecile
Agency for Cooperation and Research for Development
Kigali
Rwanda
Nadler, Arie
Institute for Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation
Tel Aviv University
Israel
Nevo, Baruch
Department of Psychology and the Stronach Center for Research on Peace
Education
University of Haifa
Israel
Ozacky-Lazar, Sarah
The Jewish-Arab Center
Givat Haviva
Israel
Perkins, David
Graduate School of Education
Harvard University
USA
Salomon, Gavriel
Faculty of Education and the Stronach Center for Research on Peace
Education
University of Haifa
Israel
Shapiro, Sherry
Dept. of Health, Phisical Education, and Dance
Meredith College
North Carolina
USA
Shapiro, Svi
School of Education
University of North Carolina
USA
Soudien, Crain
School of Education
University of Cape Town
South Africa
Staub, Ervin
Department of Psychology
University of Massachusetts
USA
Tal-Or, Nurit
Department of Psychology
University of Haifa
Israel
 I
The Concept
 1
The Nature of Peace Education: Not All
Programs Are Created Equal
Gavriel Salomon
University of Haifa

Imagine that medical practitioners would not distinguish

between invasive surgery to remove malignant tumors and
surgery to correct one’s vision. Imagine also that although
different kinds of surgery are practiced, no research and no
evaluation of their different effectiveness accompany them.
The field would be considered neither very serious nor very
trustworthy. Luckily enough, such a state of affairs does not
describe the field of medicine, but it comes pretty close to
describing the field of peace education. First, too many
profoundly different kinds of activities taking place in an
exceedingly wide array of contexts are all lumped under the
same category of peace education as if they belong together.
Second, for whatever reason, the field’s scholarship in the
form of theorizing, research, and program evaluation sadly
lags behind practice.

In this chapter, I wish to offer some basic, conceptual distinctions between

different kinds of peace education as they pertain to programs in politically
different regions. My argument is that neither scholarly nor practical progress
can take place in the absence of clear conceptions of what peace education is
and what goals it is to serve. Second, I focus on one class of peace education
programs, the class that takes place in regions of intractable conflicts, claiming
that other kinds of peace education are subsumed under it; I outline what (in
my opinion) its goals and major mission should be.
Peace education has many divergent meanings for different individuals in
different places. For some, peace education is mainly a matter of changing
mindsets; the general purpose is to promote understanding, respect, and
tolerance toward yesterday’s enemies (Oppenheimer, Bar-Tal, & Raviv, 1999).
A prime example would be peace education programs in regions of intractable
conflict such as Northern Ireland, Israel, or Bosnia (e.g., see chapter 19 by
Cairns, this volume). For others, peace education is mainly a matter of
cultivating a set of skills; the general purpose here is to acquire a nonviolent
disposition and conflict resolution skills. Prime examples for such would be
school based, violence-prevention programs, peer mediation, and conflict
resolution programs (Deutsch, 1993). For still others, particularly in Third
World countries, peace education is mainly a matter of promoting human
rights (Toh & Floresca-Cawagas, 1996; see also Svi Shapiro, chap. 6, this
volume), whereas in more affluent countries it is often a matter of
environmentalism, disarmament, and the promotion of a culture of peace (e.g.,
Harris, chap. 2, this volume).
Is there a common core to all the different varieties of peace education, or is
it no more than a loose collection of programs that differ from each other in
important ways? Indeed, what is common to schoolyard, violence prevention,
multicultural understanding, tolerance toward yesterday’s enemy, and the
collective striving for dignity and equality? In the absence of clarity of what
peace education really is, or how its different varieties relate to each other, it is
unclear how experience with one variant of peace education in one region can
usefully inform programs in another region. Could experience with peer
mediation in a Los Angeles school district enlighten peace educators in
Belfast? Would evidence of attitude change as a result of a Swedish program
about Peace on Earth inform educators struggling with interethnic tensions in
New York? In the absence of conceptual clarity, the benefit of experience and
wisdom is unlikely, and the accumulation of a body of scholarship uncertain.
 NOT ALL PROGRAMS ARE CREATED EQUAL
What is peace education? What is the core of peace education, its prototypical
attributes? What, if anything, distinguishes its most prototypical instantiations
from other, similar fields? How does it relate to its relatives—conflict
resolution, mediation, democratic education, civil education, multicultural
education, and the like—or are all of these to be treated as variants of each
other? Given the fact that some programs are designed to cultivate particular
skills of interpersonal conflict resolution, whereas others are designed to
promote reconciliation with a political adversary, it becomes clear that
subsuming all of these programs under one superordinate category of peace
education harmfully blurs important distinctions. For example, programs
designed to cultivate a positive outlook on peace in general are profoundly
different in their assumptions, the challenges they face, and the goals they
hope to attain from programs designed to promote a peaceful disposition
toward a particular ethnic or racial group.
It is obvious that peace education is not a single entity. A variety of
distinctions can be offered. For one, peace has more than one meaning, and so
does its absence—violence. Galtung (1973) distinguished between positive and
negative peace, with the former denoting collaboration, integration, and
cooperation, and the latter denoting the absence of physical and direct violence
between groups. He also coined the construct of “structural violence,”
denoting societal built-in inequalities and injustices. A second, possible
distinction pertains to the sociopolitical context in which peace education takes
place: regions of intractable conflict (Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998), regions of
racial or ethnic tension with no overt actions of hostility (e.g., Leman, chap.
14, this volume), or regions of tranquility and cooperation. A third distinction
can be made between desired changes: changes on the local, microlevel, for
example, learning to settle conflicts and to cooperate on an interpersonal level,
versus desired changes on a more global, macrolevel, for example, changing
perceptions, stereotypes, and prejudices pertaining to whole collectives.
Although in both cases individuals are the targets for change, the change itself
pertains to two different levels: more positive ways of handling other
individuals versus handling other collectives. Still another possible distinction
is between the political, economic, and social status of peace education
participants: racial or ethnic majority versus minority, conqueror versus
conquered, and perpetrator versus victim. Clearly, peace education for the
weak and dominated is not the same as for the strong and dominating (for
important distinctions, see chapter 3 by Bar-Tal, this volume).