From the outset, issues of Peace and Human Rights have played a major role in establishing the direction of my education. In light of what I observe as the process of globalization, humanity appears to be on the brink of a new educational paradigm. With this in mind, I sense an urgency to reflect upon our history as essential to the makings of the foundation of a future global culture. In the process, may we learn to base our present ideals of peace and human rights upon that which can be appreciated in a global age context.
The Global Age: A Conceptual Framework
"Culture of Peace and Human Rights: Education in a Global Age Context" has been a significant issue for quite some time. Before proceeding any further, I would like to explain what the Global Age means for me. For the past several years I have been using the term Global Age to describe, in most explicit terms, a means of grasping the current state of the history of humanity. When I speak of the Global Age I also refer to a sense of understanding in which the earth exists as "one" entity. In other words, I observe that everyone and everything upon this earth is connected by this "oneness"; all of us inevitably share a mutual destiny. As this sense of oneness in our existence begins to filter through us, I define things as being "on a global scale." In this context I speak of this particular time as the Global Age. Our Earth is One. In this single and unique existence, earth exists as a living entity in this vast universe, with all of us being as but a part of this embodiment. I am of course aware that such conclusive opinions do not change our present reality, one immersed in conflict and war. Indeed it is precisely because of this situation that we must learn to transcend the pessimism. Needless to say, the ability to understand this reality takes on great importance. It is of the utmost importance that we learn to resolve these problems, with as much knowledge of the situation as possible, and in this way be able to hope for a better and brighter future. It is in this spirit that I use the term, the Global Age.
Since when do we begin speaking of the Global Age? l suggest that this age began in 1945. Why 1945? For me, the answer is because this is the year that World War II ended. This war resulted in the use of the atomic bomb, and here I remind you of the facts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time, the concept of the earth as one was in fact a feeling shared by many people, albeit in a negative sense. And with the creation of the atomic bomb, need I mention that we all realize another war on a similar scale will most surely devastate our earth. Despite these negative realities, such an outcome has given us the chance to insist that our earth really is "one." And in spite of our many differences, from 1945 onwards many of us have begun to share sincere hopes for a mutual state of peace on our earth.
As this understanding began to grow, it took shape on a global scale. The United Nations was formed, and the Charter for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created. The Global Age came into existence under such influence, as new hope for Peace and Human Rights began receiving attention worldwide. When speaking of Human Rights, one of the earlier concepts which comes to mind is the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. As World War II ended, this and other eighteenth century ideologies such as the American Declaration of Independence evolved not as one nation's ideology, but as concepts of a more universal content. These concepts, developed after the end of World War II, transformed themselves in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This point, more than any other, indicates that a particular time in our history became a significant crux for an era appropriately understood to be the Global Age. Furthermore, it is after this point in time, that a host of resolutions and bills were implemented by a number of governments that literally stepped forward to commit themselves to Human Rights. Measures towards equality for women became the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1979, and in 1989 the Convention on the Rights of the Child was officially adopted. These commitments, not to mention many more which are being taken into account today, are providing us with a perspective which sees things in a context very different from that of pre-World War II.
Also requiring our attention are issues pertaining to the environment and development. Our awareness of these issues has heightened, especially since the 1970s. Of course the 1992 Earth summit in Rio played a leading role in bringing to light all of the problems which existed up to that time. However, in view of the actual problems concerning our environment, l must again emphasize the year 1945, especially from the context of nuclear arms and the various experiments which are still taking place today. It is fact that repeated nuclear testing has and still is polluting our environment. Environmental pollution festered in cities which thrived on the basis of limitless industrial advancement. Heedlessly crossing international boundaries, one nation's pollution found its way into another, bringing to light still other problems of a different manner altogether. We began to realize the inevitable consequences of our actions not only to the nature which provides for and surrounds us, but to each other as well, all defined and justified within the framework of Global Development.
1945 is also symbolic as world trends began at this time to portray Human Rights issues as embracing deeper universal implications than ever before in the history of humankind. Tensions which created World War II grew as a result of great differences in ideologies; between capitalism and socialism, fascism and democracy. Due to such distinctly diverse political thoughts, the world was thrown into the midst of grave conflict.
At the same time, World War II was also the war ultimately responsible for extinguishing imperialism from our midst. Obviously we cannot claim that such types of tyrannical rule no longer exist. Nonetheless, historically speaking it would not be wrong to say that following the year 1945, numerous states, countries and peoples under colonial rule began to declare their independence. In Asia, we witnessed this in Korea as well as in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and so forth. However, we also cannot deny the fact that colonization continued to exist, as seen in the case of Vietnam, where one foreign regime took the place of another and multiple governing powers ultimately created war. In like manner, 1960 is also claimed as the year in which movements for independence in Asia and Africa began to take shape. Many countries, finally freed from military rule were able to pursue their own paths of democracy for the sake of their own peoples. The concept of Global Democratization, as explained by Sakamoto Yoshikazu, describes the character of this movement which, l would like to add, had its beginnings in the year 1945.
Global Democratization poses a dialectical problem. On the whole, we can maintain the idea of honoring the various inherent traditions of indigenous peoples in the world today by acknowledging their sovereign rights. At the same time we find ourselves using National Sovereign Rights as a "shield." In a world of invasions, we recoil against aggressive acts, and in regretting such atrocities, we consequently begin placing limits on these same so called "rights." What actually is needed in order to create a system which most readily adheres to qualities which we can define as those of a "Global Citizen in the Global Age?" Keeping such a question in mind I view ourselves as a people whose "1945 time factor" still places us at the doorsteps of this new age.
The influence of democracy in Eastern Europe brings us hope as we witness unbelievable events occurring throughout the world. Despite desperate differences, we hope for peace in the Middle East as Israel and the PLO begin settling their territorial disputes. Unification of the European countries is calling for a rethinking of the principle of National Sovereignty. In South Africa, the dismantling of apartheid has finally called for a formal end to race antagonism. By definition, all of these coinciding events are an important part of our history. Now, the real challenge lies in deciphering which events are major milestones in history, and in having the foresight to choose that which is most appropriate for the entrusting of our future dreams.
Peace and Human Rights Education
When speaking of Peace Education, more often than not we are faced with the disappointing predicament that many people prejudge the subject according to a particular bias. Human Rights Education tends to be treated in the same way. Unfortunately, this is true especially in Japan where public opinion often disregards the necessity for such kinds of education. Doubtful phrases such as "what use is there in simply teaching the people their rights?" are still commonly heard today. For these reasons, despite curricula which deal with these topics (such as Constitutional Studies, etc.), the actual degree to which an individual in Japan can maintain relationships based upon mutual respect for other people is rather questionable. This indifference becomes the basis for other social ills, such as ijime (bullying) in our schools, and teachers administering corporal punishment without serious consideration of their actions. What this means is that Human Rights Education is not being taken seriously in our society. This also applies to issues of Peace, in which a state of nonwar does not mean that another more insidious form of violence known as "structural violence" does not exist. From this context, Human Rights and Peace go hand in hand as necessary components of a common issue. Understanding how individuals can learn to create relationships based upon mutual respect for each other as human beings, includes the sense of an inner peace that can extend itself towards possibilities for actualizing a reality of Peace. This reality is not only meant for our schools, but for our companies, corporations . . . the general work force of Japan, which under present conditions, undeniably leaves many of us with much to reconsider.
It is often said that the secret behind Japan's economic success is its education. And to prove this, correlative models linking economics and education have often received the spotlight. Rather than providing an unprecedented example of success however, education has become a caricature of contemporary society as we witness the many ailments in the Japanese system. Focusing on the meritocratic system of our society, we can note the mode of human relationships which meritocracy must maintain, relationships which are complex and often distorted in terms of human values. And recently, with Japanese education finally beginning to redefine the meaning of a core curriculum, and in fact denouncing the need for a national curriculum, we have gained a greater understanding of how we comprehend the concept of the word "nationality." Especially in Japan where education is known already to be very centrally organized, any suggestion of a more nationalized curriculum only makes for an extremely rigid system. Although many of us worry about this, we cannot at the same time insist that we need not have anything that is structured or standardized.
It is in this context again, that 1945 is significant. It is since this time that world issues of Peace and Human Rights have been actively promoted by bodies such as the United Nations and UNESCO. Historically, UNESCO originated out of the Institute for Intellectual Cooperation and the International Bureau of Education. After World War I, it functioned under the aegis of the League of Nations. Since its creation, it has met approximately once every two years. In October 1994, The UNESCO 1974 Recommendations (which included further education for international understanding) was reviewed in order to determine how this charter could relate to more current world conditions. Having attended both the 44th UNESCO IBE General Assembly in 1994 and its follow up in 1995, I can relay to you what was actually emphasized, as well as the problems which were key issues in the 1970s.
Key concepts in the 1974 Recommendation dealt with the ideals of Peace, Human Rights and Democracy, with emphasis placed on the media and methods for actualizing these ideals. The next twenty years saw many changes. Topics pertaining to the environment were of course discussed, but most interesting to note were the many issues dealing with the subject of tolerance. This seems to reflect one of the greatest changes. As we are all aware, concepts of tolerance most notably focus on existing problems created by differences in ethnicity and religion, which prove that despite the end of the cold war, conflicts in our world continue to prevail. Given wars due to difference in ethnicity, wars due to difference in religion, and the fact that religion and politics now compete with each other under new paradigms, it seems inevitable that concepts of tolerance have begun to receive worldwide attention. There is no doubt that by declaring 1995 to be the Year for Tolerance, the United Nations established ethnic and religious conflict as its core concept. However, what is the meaning of tolerance if it is not placed alongside concepts of modern democracy, human rights and freedom? In other words, after the bloodshed, does not tolerance mean being able to express our own beliefs as well as being able to acknowledge beliefs other than our own? Doesn't it mean being able to say what we really want to say and to acknowledge each other for it, no reservation implied? Such issues became the main theme at the conference.
Various modifications updating the 1974 Recommendation were made at the 1994 Conference in Geneva. Unfortunately, however, much of the agenda dealing with differences in human rights and religion, due in part to opposition from Islamic states, kept The Framework of Action, and in particular The Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy at a stand still for one year. In reference to this, issues of Kyosei or Coliving were also brought up, but were not prepared sufficiently to be placed within the context of the general framework. In November 1995, a follow up conference organized to discuss and determine the previous year﨎 agenda resulted in the inclusion of issues dealing with women's rights, and the production of the Declaration of the Forty-Fourth Session of the International Conference on Education.
Cultural Diversity and Universal Human Rights
The crux of the issue is in our learning, understanding and coming to terms with Human Rights issues and the problems created by the subject's diversity and universality. Overlapping concerns for religious tolerance fall under close scrutiny in similar ways. Observe for example the American approach to human rights diplomacy, the overwhelming resistance from China, and the inevitable conflict this creates in the arena of international politics. Another case for consideration, along with tolerance in religion, is what one makes of the Islamic nation-states' resistance to European inclinations towards individual human rights. As expressed by some Europeans at the UNESCO IBE Conference in Geneva, any reference to Islamic Fundamentalists within the context of terrorism created strong opposition, even during the course of the meeting itself. Of course there is also the problem of acknowledging Palestine before even beginning any kind of discussion on individual human rights. From the Islamic point of view, does it not appear unnatural to debate Human Rights without considering the bigger picture first? I acknowledge the basis of this argument, but at the same time, while reading the attached literature, I could not help but feel a certain lack of urgency towards Human Rights, taken from the context of universal humanity in general.
What I mean by this is that during the initial production of the Draft for the 1994 UNESCO IBE Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy, it was stated that, "action strategies must take account of the universal nature of the principles to be promoted and the objectives to be attained and at the same time be able to adapt to cultural and social diversity." Whereas, in the updated draft version as well as the final Endorsement of the Declaration and Approval of the Draft in Paris in 1995, this section is completely rewritten, or to be more precise, erased from the document. In its place is a short statement incorporated as part of the introduction, suggesting the document to be, "a basic guideline which could be translated into strategies, policies and plans of action at the institutional and national levels according to the conditions of different communities." In other words, rather than international standards taking precedence, problems of this nature would have to be resolved within the context of the national or domestic framework, and could only be considered therein. In addition, however, it must be noted that the endorsement did include The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in its finalized version.
The 1993 UNESCO meeting in Montreal produced the World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and Democracy. The plan states that it takes:
. . . a global view of education . . . (where) learning is not an end in itself but rather the means of eliminating violations of human rights and building a culture of peace based on democracy, development, tolerance and mutual respect. The Plan is based on the body of international human rights and humanitarian law . . . (and its) key challenge for the future is to enhance the universality of human rights by rooting these rights in different cultural traditions.
I believe this to be a crucial statement, especially in the context of more recent plans by UNESCO. In other words, the Montreal plan treats human rights as a universal principle, not as a specific set of standards for the whole of humanity to maintain, and it observes regional (communal) individuality within this context. This theme was advanced in the 1974 UNESCO Charter. Moreover, I personally have had similar thoughts in mind for quite some time, and in this way have grown fond of this particular report from Montreal. While in Geneva, I had the opportunity to express opinions during a roundtable discussion on Human Rights. Understanding the often oppressive nature of the European stance on Human Rights, I pointed out the unsavoriness of a position which held that certain opinions represented the single standard for all of humanity.
Observing the historical and social standards which influenced the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we see the meaning of universality being defined within the contents of a set context which seems to be drawn from a specific perspective. Here I will take the opportunity to explain the need to, "provide an historical and social definition to the concept of universality which also clears passage towards the concept of a more open universality for the future". In my own words, I define this concept as an "Historically Defined and Open-ended Universality." It is often stated that universality describes something which is final and complete in itself. However we should not assume that this position must be accepted by all. That which is universal is a constant issue which projects itself from what is actually present to that which can be envisioned from the contents by which it is viewed. In this definition l use the phrase "Historically Defined and Open-ended Universality" as in the consideration of a universality which is truly able to open itself towards the future.
In the context of educational reform in postwar Japan we can see in The Fundamental Law of Education that educational ideals have aimed at "the creation of a culture general and rich in its individuality and universality." To maintain universality while observing individuality, or diversity in one﨎 culture is a most important and difficult task. It is, I believe, not only in the overcoming of our differences but through those actual differences that such problems of universality may eventually be recognized and understood. I believe these two factors to be very important in the redefining of the concept of universal themes. Transcending our differences may actually be achieved by carrying through with our differences. By penetrating the problem with our uniqueness we can comprehend a more open-ended universality; a universality which traverses as well as transcends differences, both of which are vital to the inception of a redefinition of the concept of universality.
Individual Character, Universal Attributes
Upon receiving the Nobel Literature Prize in 1994, a seat in the world literature scene was immediately secured for the works of Oe Kenzaburo. Of course, Oe himself being very well read, had already secured for himself a vast knowledge of world literature. And now, his own work has joined the ranks of the world renowned. Yet, when we read his work, this particular feeling of "worldliness" seems to fade away as a certain sense of "returning" flows throughout his writing; as if he was returning home -- an act of bonding with the Matsuyama forests in Shikoku where he grew up and spent his earlier years. His style of writing stems, in this way, from the uniquely personal, as in his experience with his first son Hikari, who was born mentally impaired. Indeed, this is a very personal matter. Another matter, as Oe noted during his commemorative lecture at the Swedish Academy, is his concern for "the deceased victims of the nuclear weapons that were used for the first time in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for the survivors and their off-spring affected by radioactivity, including tens of thousands of those whose mother tongue was Korean." Thus while remaining true to his own uniqueness, we are also able to sense the universality of his literature. By understanding the individual character in his work, the simpleness in speaking of ways to blend the diverse and the universal become more readily comprehensible to us.
Oe Kenzaburo, himself a post war democrat of Japan, is able to remain true to higher aspirations by living through his very own experience. In this area and also perhaps because we are of the same generation, I share a deep sympathy with him. For that matter, Oe is not the only person with whom sympathies of like nature are shared. Inoue Hisashi, another writer of my generation also seems to write in this manner. Through his private affinities for Yamagata Prefecture where he was raised, we view Japan through the eyes of the Kirikiri people whom he inventively creates in his novel, and through them we are able to acquire a sense of universality in Inoue's literature. Universality through individuality. Inoue's insistence upon particular issues, such as the resistance to free rice trade in Japan, does not merely stem from a particular political bent, but from something which is deeper and much more personal for him.
Speaking of personal experiences, my father went to war when I was four years old. He died when I turned six, around the beginning of the Sino-Japan War. As a war bereaved person, it disheartens me to think that the remaining members of all surviving families are understated as supporters of the National Diet Resolution, especially in the context of recent events surrounding the "Songfest for Living Together in Asia" (Asia Kyosei no Tame no Saiten). Not all surviving family members of the war bereaved adhere to the ideals of the National War Survivors Association. In fact, on a personal level, I myself am a member of a smaller outfit called War Survivors for Peace which, in reflecting on past war crimes, upholds a different set of priorities. l often think of my father who went to war, and died of illness there. I wonder what his thoughts were as he lay in his hospital bed. Not having been killed in a quick and violent death on the war front, he must have had time to reflect upon his family -- his wife and the children from whom he had been separated. I have no idea whether he viewed himself as participating in a "Holy War," but I do know that in one of his letters to my mother, there is a brief sentence where he writes of "China becoming a very important country in the future . . . ." In any event, I can feel the regret of a man who had to end his life and leave his family under such circumstances. Although I can understand how many of those who are left behind may need something to justify the death of their loved ones, for the majority of us, thoughts of war originate from feelings that such things should never have to happen to anyone. Contemplating the kind of thoughts which may have gone through the minds of those who actually had to die in war, I think of how bereaved they must have felt knowing that they would never be able to return to their loved ones again. It is actually in this spirit that the meaning of our Peace Constitution lives on today.
Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan also exemplifies ideologies for universal humanity, seen in the context of all universal concepts which humanity has set throughout history. For example, the Paris Anti-war Pact of 1928 is inherent in Article 9. Furthermore, Article 9 and its understated realities denotes Japan as a Hibaku nation (nuclear holocaust), and this cannot be denied as an experience unparalleled in itself. At the same time, we understand that the nation of Japan was the aggressor in Asia prior to the end of the war. Liu Pei Jing, a Singaporean journalist stated that the present Constitution of Japan was made over the sacrifices of 20,000,000 Asian lives. For these reasons, revisions to the constitution must not be made without the consent of those countries which suffered historically. The Constitution of Japan retains a character which is both universal and individual in its ideology. And it is precisely due to these reasons that more than fifty years later, it still has the ability to enact itself progressively within historical as well as actual realities. It appears to me that here is an example of a definite link in the breach between the universal and the individual.
Speaking of closing the gap, there is another topic which has impressed me considerably in the past. I have the opportunity to attend international meetings every year. In these meetings I have the chance to meet with representatives from a number of countries. I am often impressed by the African representatives and their mannerisms, by the way they are able to hold their own. Of course there is the obvious acknowledgment of all representatives as human beings despite differences, but what I am trying to explain here is something more personal. I often notice that there is a uniqueness in the way many of the African representatives carry themselves; in the way they participate in the meetings, by proudly clothing themselves in their ethnic attire and voicing their opinions with strength and dignity. There is a certain command for cultural respect which links itself to a more universal deference for all of humanity in general. This deference, actually, cannot be realized without the acknowledging of other﨎 unique differences, whether it be in the color of skin or whatever. This I often reflect, is an interesting perspective to note.
Another issue of importance to me concerns the concept of the Rights of the Child. Among the arguments in support of this concept is that as human beings, children are also equal, therefore they undoubtedly have their rights. Another argument talks of the "outdatedness" of this view. In this respect, I believe some people are too hasty in reaching a conclusion. Acknowledging children as human beings is a fundamental priority when we speak of their rights. And it is from this context that I say children exist as children, separate from the existence of adults, and that every child has the right to be a child. And all children have the right to be protected as children. This is actually a basic principle underlying all Human Rights. This argument offers a new perspective when redefining Human Rights from the context of the Rights of the Child. In other words, the concept of Human Rights is not something one imagines for all of humanity in general; but it incorporates the rights of the child, the youth, the aged -- it is the acknowledgment of rights as related to distinctive differences which we maintain in our existence. From birth to death, Human Rights vary according to each distinctive stage in our lives. It is this reality which makes for a life of quality. Through this understanding, our ideas on human rights may move towards a more supple and dynamic definition.
Discrepancies surrounding The Rights of the Child are not solved by adapting Human Rights ideology onto children's rights, and in this sense, there are incongruities in our present understanding of human rights ideology. In this respect, the same can be said for Women's Rights. It is an undeniable fact that women have inalienable rights in regards to their humanity. But it is also important I believe, that a woman has the right to be a woman, and it is from this point of view that inherent rights must be acknowledged. It is the deepening of our understanding of these differences which makes for better relations and creates quality and equality in Human Rights. Such are my thoughts as I contemplate what provokes individual character while creating universal attributes in our world.
Kyosei : the Concept of Coliving
Kyosei or the guiding principles for how we can "Live Together" takes us back to a more basic and profound concept -- that of the relationship between human beings and nature. The modern age has shown us what happens when priorities are placed on the needs of human beings before nature. Not only has this relationship gone awry, but in its complexity, so too have many of our human relationships. I have spoken of Kyosei on a number of occasions, believing it to be especially important. "The Ideology of Kyosei" became the main theme of the 1994 Nagano Conference of the Research Institute of Democracy and Education. I believe the Kyosei element to be a necessary component in the understanding of Peace. Although this concept was not fully examined during the 1994 UNESCO Geneva Conference, it was agreed during the Manila Conference (prior to Geneva) that Kyosei would be included in the preparatory report as the phrase "Live Together." As we focus upon environmental issues, the Kyosei point of view begins to clarify itself -- we begin to understand how all of us existing upon this earth must learn to Live Together as human beings, as indigenous groups, as ethnic cultures, as nations, as men, women, adults, and children, as all the possible relationships which we can imagine and how we may reach a deeper understanding of them through our efforts to "Colive."
The concept of Coliving Relationships in the Global Age is a product of the fact that colife bonds are sought from all people and things existing in this new age. A related term is symbiosis, a term that originated in Developmental Theory to describe the nurturing relationship between the mother and child evolving from one of physical symbiosis to that of psychological symbiosis. Eventually, as environmental problems began demanding more attention, the word became a preferred term used by ecologists identifying themselves with similar issues. It was also used in reference to North/South issues of peaceful coexistence after the end of the Cold War. Moreover, the term was even used in relation to man and woman, giving way to negative allusions at times when used in describing the equality of the sexes. Outdated concepts of coexistence, closely tied in with the Theory of Symbiosis are liable to put at variance such views as respect for independence and individualism. Architect Kurokawa Kisho describes the concept of coliving in his 1987 book Kyosei e no Shiso (The Philosophy of Symbiosis). Oda Makoto, emphasizing the "people" aspect of this concept also stresses the importance of coliving in his 1978 book Kyosei e no Genri (Towards the Principle of Coliving). With all the multifaceted images and ideas from which we are consistently expected to learn and absorb, we must repeatedly ask ourselves why we persist in keeping our attention directed towards learning how to Live Together, and what is needed in order for this concept to serve as a core factor among us.
Well within but not only in the defining of what it means for us to Live Together, such as in our understanding of conflict and war, there is a more omnipotent issue which has become vital as well as urgent -- the comprehending of our relationship with nature. As human beings, we seek to rediscover the meaning of nature itself. Human nature as it is, does not mean for us to overcome nature, but for us to accomplish the nature of ourselves as humans. I call this a state of existing within the concept of a Coliving Relationship. As we begin noticing similar concepts in the way we perceive things, there is a gradual coming together of ideas in various parts of the world today. The relationship of all existence on earth, including our link with nature from the context of Naturalismus = Humanismus teaches us what ought to be sought rather than what has been sought -- humankind taking a self-centered, antagonistic stance against nature.
When humankind, being an inherent part of nature, seeks to stand against and disturb nature, the relationship between nature and human nature is distorted. Eventually, we may find ourselves forfeiting Human Nature all together. Educators must seek to comprehend the dialectics destined between Humankind and Nature. Although animistic attitudes and ideologies based on sermon like qualities inherent in many religions may be parry to such views, counter evidence also shows moral values based upon spiritual ideologies. Perhaps these thoughts can find common elements with the Asian or Buddhist ways of thinking. In this context, they run contrary to past western (industrial/technological) attitudes which have tried to "control" nature. As an example, let us recall Buddhist ideologies in the Tomoiki Undo (The Living Together Movement). This movement was actually carried out by the jodo Buddhist sect and had its roots in the local community before World War II in Japan. Of course there are other examples, such as the ending of Apartheid in South Africa. Despite the possibility of taking a different course of action, President Nelson Mandella promoted the vision of Coliving by wishing for all of his people, regardless of color, to learn to Live Together rather than for one group to work to overpower another.
The Concept of Coliving is the basis for the making of a Culture of Peace. As we learn of these aspects in our history, we are also able to understand our relationship with nature; our relationship with each other. We are able to understand that Humans and Humans, Men and Women, Adults and Children, whatever . . . all relationships existing in our world today must Live Together. It is in the respect for and the acknowledgment of these relationships that the concept of coliving is being spoken of today. This again brings me back to repeat: It is in the context of what has happened since 1945 that we have truly begun to appreciate and understand all of what I have been saying up to now.
I realize of course, that nothing is less convincing than simply to state that the Global Age began in 1945. In no way is this meant to be definitive. I would merely like to suggest that 1945 initiated the start of the Global Age. In a sense, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we are still fumbling around at the gates of a new era. We must strive to create an age which is worthy of its name, actualizing that which we now call the Global Age by committing ourselves to what we see as urgent in the now, and what we hold as our visions for the 21st century. Within this context I speak of Kyosei. To this point, everything I have spoken of is related to the issue of how we must all learn to live together. I believe that issues of peace, human rights, environmental and developmental problems can be acknowledged as central to the creation of the world we live in.
From the standpoint of education, I strongly urge everyone, especially in Japan, to reconsider competition in our schools by rethinking the importance of cooperation, and by learning to incorporate the importance of coliving into our daily lives. By learning to live together we may even transcend coliving, hopefully arriving at a place called conviviality in our human relationships. Conviviality as found in the joy of understanding each other, sharing the same space together, dining together, enjoying each other﨎 presence . . . it is not an exaggeration when l say that these are the very foundations of what we ought to pursue when contemplating a coliving image in our community.
The ideal school would be one where teachers and students, along with others in the school and parents of course, learn to live together. The contents of education should be based on the importance of everyone and everything learning to live together as the core of the school. There is a need to create a curriculum with such concepts at its base, generating opportunity for exchange with everyone from senior citizens, to the mentally and physically impaired, to ethnic minorities. If everyone in the community can participate and learn from each other's experiences, then we can become more sensitive to one another while learning to become aware of what it is that tries to threaten this conviviality. In this way, we may be able to overcome threatening dangers by showing strength through the knowledge and experience gained from each other, and by learning to resolve the many problems which recur in our schools as well as in our society today.
A Culture of Peace and Human Rights
1945 was a point in time when the fears of nuclear war acted as a catalyst for the birth of a new universal human rights ideology. We can reiterate that the growth of global consciousness created the United Nations, a new international world order. At this time, we also begin to observe Globalism emerge as a symbol of the new age as nations commenced forming new constitutions renouncing war.
In this manner, the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as provided by the United Nations states: "WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Likewise, are the following ideals taken from the Constitution of Japan:
Excerpts from the Peace Constitution:
We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationships and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.
We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth.
We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.
Chapter H: Renunciation of War
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.
Land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.
The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Reading this, I hope it can be understood that we are not merely a single nation state trying to generate an international concept for the sake only of preserving ourselves. Our Constitution and Article 9 are thought of these days as "out dated" and in need of a "change." I must stress that there is no ideology more befitting the Global Age than Article 9. We must understand that Article 9 which renounces war forever, is an integral part of our Peace Constitution. It must be understood that it is not simply an apologetic statement presented in our country's National Peace Doctrine for the wrongdoing of World War II. It is also a statement which looks towards the future. It acts as a precursor in the creation of a New International Order, and must be acknowledged as a step towards a New Universal Peace Doctrine which is actually beginning to take shape.
Article 9 is viewed positively by others. I note, for example, the work of Professor Charles Overby who founded the Article 9 Society in the USA. In addition, Assistant Professor R. Udall of Harvard firmly impresses upon the strengths of our constitution as most applicable to the current social situation. There is also Mrs. Beatte Sirota Gordon, who originally came from Austria with her family and lived in Japan as a young child prior to World War ll. She returned to Tokyo after the war to work as a young translator during the days of the US Occupational Forces. Our constitution faced many problems during that particular time in our history, and she played a major role in securing post war rights for the women of Japan. She stresses the importance of not revising our constitution today and has revisited our country from her present home in New York to speak on these matters. What our friends in Asia are saying is also very important. As noted earlier, Liu Pei Jing, a journalist from Singapore stated that the Japanese Constitution and Article 9 was made over the sacrifice of 20,000,000 precious lives of Asian people. It is an International Commitment, and no one from Asia is insisting upon having it changed. By looking at the problem from this context, things do not appear so "outdated" to me. In fact, I am convinced that Article 9 is not something to be contemplated in such a light handed manner. We must emphasize the importance of maintaining its dignity.
Last of all, concerning education -- speaking either from the context of Peace or Human Rights -- it is often noted at various International Symposia such as UNESCO that the issues do not lie strictly within the perimeters of a single subject area. The focus is on the creation of a Culture of Peace and Human Rights and what we can do to help this culture take root. This is something that is being discussed by Japan Peace Studies Associations as well. It is an issue that is being focused upon in many places, quite often in fact.
As for me, I believe that a Culture of Peace and Human Rights must be found in the correct recognition of each culture's history. It is not just something which exists in the world of international politics. For instance, as educators in Japan, we must be aware of the current conditions of bullying and student suicides in Japanese schools. These are reoccurring and very serious problems in Japan. We really must take a good hard look at the culture which exists in our schools today. Indeed, what is it? We lack a culture of Peace and Human Rights in our schools. Schools which will not establish priorities in Peace and Human Rights give cause to many tragedies. In this respect, nothing is more real, descriptive and "everyday" as the way we perceive our own lifestyle and our own human relationships. It is actually in these areas which I believe actual issues of Peace and Human Rights Education must be addressed for us all.
Horio Teruhisa, Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo; Professor, Chuo University; President, Japanese Society for Study of Education; elected delegate to the Japan Science Council.