Peace is too grave a matter to be left solely to politicians. With
the possibility of a rapprochement between adversaries, in the
absence of reconciliation processes, mutual understanding and
tolerance are likely to be precarious. Reconciliation may need the
support and facilitation of educational interventions, both
school-based and out-of-school, community and media-based
activities. For these reasons, peace education programs have been
carried out in a great variety of formats all over the world for at
least 30 years (e.g., Burns and Aspeslagh, 1996). The importance of
such programs has recently been amplified by UNESCO's call for the
development of a worldwide "Culture of Peace" (Adams, 2000). With
the growing interest in peace education, the development of the
scholarly aspects of this enterprise, to inform and to be informed
by practice, is becoming an urgent matter.
Obstacles on the Road to Peace Education Scholarship
This urgent task is facing two major obstacles.
The first concerns conceptual ambiguity; it emanates from the many
profoundly different kinds of activities and the divergent array of
goals, all of which are grouped under the same label of "peace
education." One would face difficulties finding a common core for
educational programs on school-based violence prevention,
multicultural education (Banks, 1993), and the promotion of mutual
understanding between real enemies as in Kosovo or Israel. Indeed,
can programs designed to cultivate skill in classroom-based
cooperation or schoolyard interpersonal conflict (e.g., Deutsch,
1993) be grouped together with programs designed to cultivate
mutual tolerance between whites and Latinos in Los Angeles schools
or between Catholics and Protestants in Belfast?
In this paper we argue that, basically, peace education programs
are designed to educate for peace with a real ethnic, racial or
national adversary. Such programs face mutually exclusive
collective narratives, anchored in painful historical memories that
are accompanied by grave inequalities (Azar, cited in Fisher,
1997). We thus offer below a conception of peace education in such
intergroup contexts, defined as "intractable conflicts" (Rouhana
and Bar-Tal, 1998), a conception that sees peace education as
affecting one's way of treating the "other's" collective narrative
as a legitimate one, which, in turn, appears to facilitate a
relatively optimistic view of future reconciliation and a
willingness to act toward it (Bar-Tal, in press).
The second obstacle concerns the paucity of research and evaluation
of peace education as an educational challenge. This is to be
distinguished from research on either basic social psychological
processes or research on programs which, as we see it, are only
tangentially related to genuine peace education. We distinguish
between, on the one hand, research that pertains to programs
designed to change a student's way of relating to another
individual, as is the case with most conflict resolution and
mediation programs (e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 1996), and, on the
other hand, between programs designed to change one's way of
relating to another collective - racial, ethnic, national or
religious group, as is the case with peace education in contexts of
intergroup conflict (e.g., Fisher, 1997). Thus, would research on
peer mediation in New York schools enlighten peace educators in
Belfast? Our search through the relevant literature reveals that
scholarship pertaining to the latter kind of programs lags far
behind practice (Harris, 1992).
In this paper we try to address the two difficulties mentioned
above. First, we offer a conception of peace education in contexts
of intractable conflict and then raise a sample of research
questions that emanate from that conception. We suggest that
empirical answers to such questions might well advance the field
and improve its practices.
The Essential Nature of Peace Education - Basic
Distinctions
Peace education programs differ from each other in a variety of
ways: the location of programs, students' ages, program duration,
specific content and foci, and the like (Nevo and Brem, in press).
However, perhaps the most important and influential dimension
distinguishing between different classes of peace education
programs is the sociopolitical context in which peace education
takes place. It makes a profound difference in terms of the goals,
practices and success criteria whether peace education programs
take place in regions of intractable conflict, such as Northern
Ireland or Cyprus; in regions of racial or ethnic tension, such as
the United States; or regions of tranquility and perceived harmony,
such as Sweden. Whereas peace education in the two former contexts
aims at changing ways of perceiving and relating to a real
collective adversary or discriminated minority, the latter faces no
real target for peace. It is more education about peace than
education for peace with somebody else. In this sense, it makes a
large difference whether the Culture of Peace, currently promoted
by UNESCO, is to be cultivated in Rwanda, between the Hutus and the
Tutsis; in Norway; in Chicago, between blacks and whites, or in New
Zealand.
Peace education as designed and practiced in contexts of
intractable conflict, inter-ethnic tension, or racial friction, can
be seen as the prototypical, all-encompassing, superordinate case
of peace education for at least two reasons. First, peace education
in such regions faces the most difficult challenges, such as
collectively held narratives, shared painful memories, grave
inequalities, and common national or ethnic views of self versus
the "other." Other programs, such as multicultural education,
conflict resolution or education for democracy, are based on
rationales and employ intervention designs, which in many cases are
variants of those used in peace education programs in regions of
intractable conflict. In other words, conflict resolution, violence
prevention and multicultural education seem to be subsets of peace
education in both rationale and practice. Second, research on peace
education in contexts of intractable conflict may be more
informative for program designs in less severe contexts than the
other way around. For example, high-school educators facing
tensions between the Jocks and the Goths can learn from research on
peace education between Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland.
Three Challenges
Unlike many other programs such as school-based conflict
resolution training, peace education programs in contexts of
conflict and inter-group tension do not deal primarily with
interpersonal conflicts; they deal with conflicts based on "ethnic
[racial, national or religious] hostilities crossed with
developmental inequities that have a long history and a bleak
future" (Fisher, 1997). Such a conception highlights three major
challenges that peace education in regions of intractable conflict
uniquely faces and has to deal with.
Conflicting collective narratives: First, peace education faces a
conflict between opposing collective narratives. These narratives
describe the conflict from each side's point of view, provide the
backbone of a group's sense of identity (e.g., "our" superior
qualities versus "theirs") (Tajfel, 1978), and entail a number of
shared beliefs such as "We are just," "We are only victims," "Our
actions are based on a moral imperative," and the like (Bar-Tal,
2000). Such narratives "generate intense animosity that becomes
integrated into the socialization processes in each society and
through which conflict-related emotions and cognitions are
transmitted to new generations" (Rouhana and Bar-Tal, 1998, p.
762).
Collective historical memories: Not only does peace education face
conflicting narratives, but so does multicultural education.
However, unlike multicultural education, peace education also faces
the challenge of overcoming collective historical memories of
groups in conflict. Indeed, it is this historical dimension of a
group's narrative, the shared traumatic memories of pain,
humiliation, conquest, slavery, discrimination and the like, that
fuel the mistrust, animosity and conflict with another group. As so
succinctly pointed out by Ignatieff (1996): The problem with the
collective memory of the past is that "it is not past at all." The
case of black collective memories of slavery, the Jewish memories
of the Holocaust, or those of the Catholics in Northern Ireland are
pertinent examples. Textbooks, the media and school curricula play
an important role in cultivating a group's narrative and its
historical underpinnings (e.g., Liebes, 1992). By and large,
multicultural education, conflict resolution programs and
democratic education do not face the kind of challenge that peace
education faces in regions of intractable conflict or inter-ethnic
tension.
Grave inequalities: The third challenge facing peace education is
the inequality built into the conflict situation, typically
characterizing the relative statuses of, and relations between, the
groups in conflict. Such is the case of the status differences
between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, between
blacks and whites in South Africa, or between Palestinians and Jews
in Israel. The importance of this challenge for peace education is
that, in the face of grave inequalities, the collective agendas of
the groups involved are often at odds: whereas the weaker,
discriminated, poorer, or otherwise disenfranchised group expects
peace education to lead primarily to equality with the dominating
group - peace, quiet and the maintenance of the status quo are of
prime importance to the group of higher or stronger status (Maoz,
2000). Moreover, as research on encounter groups involving members
of parties in conflict shows, equality both within the encounter
(Who is leading the discussion? Whose narrative is taken
seriously?) and outside it (Who is the dominant force in society?)
is essential for anything positive to come of it (Pettigrew, 1998).
In the absence of a sense of equality, encounter groups are often
headed for failure (Tal-Or, Boninger and Gleicher, in press).
Not only peace education faces challenges of the kind mentioned
above. However, only peace education in contexts of conflict faces
all three challenges together, as a package, implying that the main
target of peace education ought to be these challenges. Collective
narratives, traumatic memories and inequalities thus turn out to
play a major role in justifying and sustaining the conflicts and
tensions between groups. Also, attitudinal changes, familiarity
with the "other's" culture, or reduced stereotypes are likely to be
temporary, even ineffective, as long as the "other's" collective
narrative, aspirations and pains are not perceived as legitimate
(Ahonen, 1999).
The Other Narrative
Hence, it appears that the major target for peace education ought
to be the way such narratives, histories and inequalities are
perceived and related to. New ways of perceiving the "other's"
narrative imply their acceptance as legitimate - that is, a
readiness to see the conditional "truth" in each narrative and the
way it is a social construal rather than a (one-sided) absolutism
and all that this implies. Peace education in contexts of
intractable conflicts and inter-ethnic tensions would thus aim
primarily to change individuals' dispositions and actions towards
the collective narrative of the "other" and consequently change the
perception of self in relation to that "other." It is important to
note that whether explicitly stated or only implied, many peace
education programs in regions of conflict aim at precisely such an
overall goal (Bjerstedt, 1992).
Three more specific and interrelated goals for peace education
emanate from the above conception of peace education as the
acceptance of the "other's" collective narrative and its specific
implications as legitimate. These are (a) to facilitate learners'
disposition to critically examine their own group's contribution to
the "other's" collective narrative, including the conduct toward
the other group; (b) to cultivate empathy and trust toward the
collective "other"; and (c) to cultivate a disposition to prefer
non-violent solutions of the conflict with the other group. The
three goals pertain respectively to cognitive, affective and
behavioral aspects of the desired change.
There are a number of issues to be noticed about the goals of peace
education as presented here. First, the idea of accepting the
"other's" collective narrative as legitimate does not imply
agreeing with it. It entails one's ability and willingness to see
the conflict and its implications from the other's point of view.
In a sense, it is a matter of (cognitive) perspective-taking
(Hakvoort and Oppenheimer, 1999): A Cincinnati police officer would
be expected to see the "police culture" from a black youngster's
vantage point; a Serb youngster would be able and willing to see
ethnic cleansing from the perspective of a Bosnian Muslim; and a
Jewish student in Israel would come to see the conflict with the
Palestinians from the latter's perspective. It might well be that
having each side come to actively construct the collective
narrative of the "other" ("forced compliance"; Aronson, 1988) would
serve the attainment of this goal. To an extent, the goal of
legitimizing the other's collective narrative entails more than a
modicum of relativism, for it might imply that both narratives can
be partly "right," thus that Rashomon is not just a Japanese movie
but a social reality.
Second, becoming able and willing to examine the contribution of
one's own collective memory to the conflict, particularly the pain
one's own group may have inflicted on the other, is probably the
most challenging goal for peace education. Changing one's belief in
the righteousness of one's group ("Aren't we the victims?"),
emotional as it is, would make the attainment of this goal most
difficult but necessary. The very process of acknowledging the
adverse role one's own group plays in the conflict may be quite
threatening to students' monolithic belief in the righteousness of
their group. Societal legitimization of such soul-searching in
support of peace education programs would appear to be crucial. The
television series Roots may have served this goal well in the U.S.,
scaffolding the public's growing acknowledgment of the injustices
of slavery. Similarly, the relative success of the Truth and
Reconciliation Committee in South Africa may well be attributed to
the societal status bestowed upon it (Soudien, in press). Both
cases can be taken as prime examples of out-of-school peace
education.
Third, the cultivation of trust and empathy, or "vicarious
introspection" as Cohler and Galatzer-Levy (1992) have called it,
is another affective complement of the more cognitive
legitimization of the other group's collective narrative: One comes
to feel the agony, the suffering or the dreams of the other side.
In a sense, attaining this goal may be more difficult than
attaining the more rational goal of legitimizing the other's
narrative; it may require overcoming collectively held feelings of
dislike, avoidance, superiority, and fear. Whether face-to-face
meetings are the vehicle of choice for the attainment of this goal
is still an open question.
Peace Education for the Strong and the Weak
The attainment of peace education goals of the kind
presented above is no minor matter. As Gordon Allport has pointedly
stated in The Nature of Prejudice (1954), "It is easier to smash
atoms than prejudices." There is no paucity of research on some of
the more basic principles underlying intergroup relations, such as
the well-known contact hypothesis (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998), or the
relationships between individual and collective identities.
However, much of this research was carried out in well-controlled
laboratory settings, far removed from the composite, multivariate
nature of real-life peace education programs. Indeed, the composite
processes that jointly constitute peace education are rarely
studied as composites; more often than not, research is addressed
at discrete components, such as attitude change, the reduction of
prejudice, ways of interpersonal conflict resolution, negotiation,
or intergroup encounters. Most importantly, much of the relevant
research does not address peace education in contexts of
intractable conflict but in much tamer and more moderate
contexts.
This situation, then, leaves a number of crucial questions
unanswered, awaiting the study of peace education in contexts of
intractable conflict and inter-ethnic tension. The following is a
sample of what may be considered the most pertinent
questions.
The main argument so far has been that peace education should aim
at cultivating the acceptance of the "other's" collective narrative
as legitimate, empathy toward that collective's sufferings,
self-examination of one's own wrongdoing toward the other, and the
preference of peaceful solutions to the conflict. But in the face
of grave inequalities between the sides, where there is a racial
majority and minority, conqueror and conquered, rich and poor, what
should peace education be for the weaker side? Are the desired
changes of perspective, empathy, trust and action equally
applicable to the majority and to the minority, to the conqueror
and to the conquered, the victim and the perpetrator? The weak
partner, the victim of humiliation or discrimination, can neither
be expected to come to feel much empathy toward the stronger,
discriminating side, nor accept as legitimate the latter's
narrative, which justifies the humiliation or discrimination.
It may well be that the goals of peace education for the strong and
the weak partners should not be the same. We would want the
participants of the strong side to empathize with the pain and
suffering of the weak, and reflect back on the ways in which its
own contribution added to that suffering. But what would be the
goals for peace education designed for the weak side? The
conception of peace education in regions of conflict, as suggested
here, highlights this question. Once peace education goals are
conceptualized in the way suggested here, this question becomes
unavoidable. The same applies to situations where only mild
attitude changes are expected. Does one expect the weaker side to
treat its oppressor more positively? To the best of our knowledge,
this question has neither been addressed conceptually, nor studied
empirically.
From General to Specific Beliefs
Does acquiring general beliefs, attitudes, and
dispositions about peace become applied to a particular adversary,
disliked minority or fear-arousing "others"? Intuition would
suggest a positive answer. When individuals learn to believe in
peace in general, would they not apply that general belief to
specific cases even when strong emotions and questions of identity
are involved? But according to research, the relationship is
anything but simple: General beliefs and attitudes do not always
translate into specific actions and behaviors (e.g., Schraw, 2000).
One can entertain a general disposition toward peace and
non-violent conflict resolution, yet hold rather belligerent views
about a particular adversary.
The question for research on this aspect of peace education
concerns not just the principled, universal relations between
general and specific beliefs, but the educational conditions under
which the cultivation of general beliefs could become translated
into particular ways of treating a real, concrete adversary. For
example, under what conditions would teaching about war and its
horrors have students in peaceful regions cease to be passive and
unconcerned bystanders in the face of some bloody conflict
elsewhere (Staub, 1999)? Similarly, would learning about another,
distal conflict and the roles that collective narratives play in it
soften the ethnocentric way learners tend to view the more proximal
conflict they themselves are involved in? For example, would
studying the narratives involved in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict make Northern Irish students come to view differently the
narratives involved in their local conflict?
Based on the contact hypothesis originally formulated by Allport
(1954), peace education programs are often based on face-to-face
contacts between the two sides of the conflict: students from one
side meet students from the other side during specially arranged
weekend workshops, church-initiated seminars, summer camps, or
school-based joint research or artistic projects. Often, personal
relations between students of the two sides start generating
genuine friendships. Is there reason to believe that these personal
friendships develop into a new, generalized perception of other
members of the other group?
Past research addressing this issue suggests that under favorable
conditions such generalization from the individual to the
collective is possible (see review by Pettigrew, 1998). However,
most of the research addressing this issue was carried out with
members of non-adversarial groups. What if members of two groups
involved in an intractable conflict befriend each other? Would this
generalize to other members of their respective groups or would a
process of differentiation take place ("Some of my best friends
are…")?
Also, our conception of peace education implies a differentiation
between generalizing from personal friendship to viewing the other
group's members, and transferring from that friendship to a
different perception of the other group's collective narrative. Are
the two connected? Research so far has not addressed these issues
in the context of a truly intractable conflict.
From Changes during Peace Education to More Lasting Effects
Following It
Salomon, Perkins and Globerson (1991) have suggested a
distinction between learning effects with a technology and effects
of it. The former are effects obtained while working with computers
(better essays with word processors), whereas the latter are more
lasting effects that develop as a consequence of that experience
(better writing ability). This distinction between these two kinds
of effects pertains to all kinds of educational intervention, but
it is often overlooked; it is of importance also in the present
context. Changed perceptions or attitudes toward another group
during intergroup encounters, do not ensure any changes that remain
as the contact's lasting residue. For example, as Tal-Or, Boninger,
and Gleicher (in press) point out, relating to an adversary as an
individual (Bob, Jack, Rachel) rather than as a member of another
group (black, Mexican) may be effective during planned contacts
between adversary groups, but leads to no changed perceptions later
on as a consequence of that contact.
This issue has been dealt with experimentally within the context of
intergroup contact (e.g., Wilder, 1984). But, again, when it comes
to studying peace education in contexts of intractable conflict or
intergroup tension, the situation may be either more complex or
entirely different. Let us assume that a peace education program is
indeed sufficiently effective to lead to the acceptance of the
"other's" collective narrative as legitimate and to the
participants' willingness to reflect on the ways each side to the
conflict contributes to it. These are changes attained while
students participate in the program. But what remains of these
changes at the end of the day, once the participants return to
their homes or neighborhoods, or once the program reaches its end?
Having come to acquire a new way of perceiving the adversary, a way
that most likely runs counter to the prevailing collective
narrative, the program's graduates must experience a mismatch
between their newly acquired lenses and the old ones. The issue is
not just cognitive or emotional, but social: changes obtained
during a program take place in a socially supportive context. But
once out of the program, the question of maintaining the changed
perspectives in the face of the old, well-established narrative,
collectively held by one's social milieu, becomes paramount. What
would a peace education program need to entail, to ensure that
positive changes obtained during its implementation be maintained
also later in the face of a less-than-welcoming social
environment?
Conclusions
The field of peace education, rich in activities as it is all over
the world, seems to mean many and different things, thus making it
difficult to accumulate experiences and lessons learned that can be
applied in new places and with new students. Like all scholarly
fields, this one, too, can lead to the formulation of specific
research questions. These need to emanate from an overall
conception of peace education as a composite, multivariate field,
as contrasted with lab-based research on discrete elements.
The conception offered here is that the prototypical peace
education program is the one that needs to be carried out in
contexts of intractable conflict, and that it faces a trio of
challenges: conflicting collective narratives, embedded in
collective historical memories and entailing grave inequalities. It
follows that the overall goal of peace education is to change
people's way of relating to the "other's" collective narrative -
that is, coming to perceive it as legitimate. Self-examination,
empathy and a disposition for peaceful resolution of the conflict
would follow.
The research questions mentioned above do not necessarily emanate
from the conception of peace education in contexts of intractable
conflict and inter-group tension as presented here. Such questions
pertain to peace education regardless of its underlying rationale
or actual execution. However, they are of particular interest and
importance when peace education is aimed at the legitimization of
an adversary's collective narrative and all that this implies. For,
in light of this conception, the traditional issues of
interpersonal friendships, general beliefs in peace, attitude
change or changed stereotypes come to assume a secondary role. Such
changes, important as they are, can take place even without the
legitimization of the other's narrative, but are likely to be quite
superficial and temporary as long as the other's collective
narrative is seen as less than legitimate.
References
Adams, D. (2000). "Toward a Global Movement for a Culture of
Peace." Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 6. 3:
259-66.
Ahonen, S. (1999). Remembrance: Cultural memory. Zeitschrift fur
KulturAustauch. http://www.ifa.de/z/remember/ezahonef.htm
Allport, Gordon (1954).
Aronson, E. (1988). The Social Animal. New York: Freeman.
Banks, J. A. (1993). "The Canon Debate, Knowledge Construction, and
Multicultural Education." Educational Researcher 22: 4-14.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared Beliefs in a Society. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bar-Tal, D. (in press). "The Elusive Nature of Peace Education," in
Salomon, G., and Nevo, B., The Nature and Study of Peace
Education.
Bjerstedt, A., ed. (1992). Peace Education around the World: Some
Expert Interviews. Malmö School of Education, Lund University,
Sweden.
Burns, R. J. and Aspeslagh, R. (1996). Three Decades of Peace
Education around the World: An Anthology. New York: Garland.
Cohler, B. J., and Galatzer-Levy, R. M. (1992). Psychoanalysis and
the Classroom: Intent and Meaning in Learning and Teaching. In
Szajnberg, N. M., ed. Educating the Emotions 41-74. New York:
Plenum.
Deutsch, M. (1993). "Educating for a Peaceful World." American
Psychologist 48: 510-17.
Fisher, R. J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse UP.
Hakvoort, I. and Oppenheimer, L. (1999). "I Know What You Are
Thinking: The Role-Taking Ability and Understanding of Peace and
War." How Children Understand War and Peace. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Harris, I. (1992). "The Challenge of Peace Education: Do Our
Efforts Make a Difference? Educational Foundations 6. 4:
75-98.
Harris, I., and Callender, A. (1995). "Comparative Study of Peace
Education Approaches and Their Effectiveness." The NAMTA Journal
20. 2: 133-45.
Ignatieff, M. (1996). "Articles of Faith," in U. Owen, ed., Wounded
Nations, Broken Lives: Truth Commissions and War Tribunals. Index
on Censorship 96/5.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict Resolution and
Peer Mediation Programs in Elementary and Secondary Schools: A
Review of the Research.
Liebes, T. (1992). "Television, Parents, and the Political
Socialization of Children." Teachers College Record 94:
73-86.
Maoz, I. (2000). "Multiple Conflicts and Competing Agendas: A
Framework for Conceptualizing Structural Encounters between Groups
in Conflict: The Case of a Coexistence Project of Jews and
Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology 6: 135-56.
Nevo, B. and Brem, I. (in press). "Peace Education Programs and the
Evaluation of their Effectiveness," in Salomon, G., and Nevo, B.,
The Nature and Study of Peace Education.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory," in J. T.
Spence, J. M. Darley and D. J. Foss, eds. Annual Review of
Psychology 49: 65-85.
Rouhana, N., and Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological Dynamics of
Intractable Ethnonational Conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian Case."
American Psychologist 53: 761-70.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., and Globerson, T. (1991). "Partners in
Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence with Intelligent
Technologies." Educational Researcher 20: 2-9.
Schirmer, D. (1998). Introduction. In Finzch, N. and Schirmer, D.
eds., Identity and Intolerance: Nationalism, Racism, and Xenophobia
in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Schraw, G. (2000). "Reader Beliefs and Meaning Construction in
Narrative Text." Journal of Educational Psychology 92:
96-106.
Staub, E. (1999). "The Origins and Prevention of Genocide, Mass
Killings, and Other Collective Violence." Peace and Conflict:
Journal of Peace Psychology 6: 27-47.
Soudien, C. (in press). "Memory Work and the Remarking of the
Future: A Critical Look at the Pedagogical Value of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission for Peace," in Salomon, G., and Nevo, B.,
The Nature and Study of Peace Education.
Tajfel, H. (1978). "Social Categorization, Social Identity, and
Social Comparison," in Tajfel, H., ed., Differentiation between
Social Groups 61-76. London: Academic Press.
Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D., and Gleicher, F. (in press).
"Understanding the Conditions and Processes Necessary for
Intergroup Contact to Reduce Prejudice," in Salomon, G., and Nevo,
B., The Nature and Study of Peace Education.
Wilder, D. A. (1984). "Prediction of Belief Homogeneity and
Similarity Following Social Categorization." British Journal of
Social Psychology 23: 323-33.