A chieving peace is not just the responsibility of diplomats and politicians. It is the task of all educators. This paper presents a brief overview of the field of peace education, discusses issues related to peace in the classroom and explores general ideas of how language teachers can promote international understanding.
Background
Peace education promotes an understanding of peace and social justice issues. They range from the interpersonal to the international, and include efforts to prevent bullying in schools, stop civil wars, unmask prejudice, and prevent genocide. At its core, peace education represents the philosophy, language, and practice of non-violence.
Many philosophers and social theorists have written about peace and peace education. From Rousseau to Kant and from Edward Said to John Saul, great reliance is placed on the idea that human beings are capable of progress through rational discussion, sharing ideas, and living cooperatively according to peaceful principles. Underlying such deliberations is a faith in a values-based education which seeks to benefit each individual and the wider community.
Various individuals and groups have expounded their views on peace education. In a statement entitled World Citizenship (1993), for example, the Baha'i International Community spoke of the interdependence of environmental and human well-being, and the need to reorient education for peace towards goals of sustainable development. They emphasised mutual responsibility for the fate of the planet and the well-being of the human family, and encourage people to see themselves as citizens of one world.
In "Thoughts on Education for Global Citizenship," Ikeda (1996) reiterates the views of Dewey (1946) and Makiguchi (Bethel, 1989): one goal of education should be the lifelong happiness of learners. This is to be derived from education focussed on a perpetual striving to attain greater understanding of humanity, and an appreciation of the folly of war and the self-defeating nature of violence. The graduates of this education system would be global citizens who can author a new history for humankind.
Reardon's (1988) analysis of teaching for positive peace suggests three essential themes for a global curriculum: the environment, development, and human rights. She stresses the need for peace education in all schools. This is echoed in the preamble to the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) which states:
a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world . . . the peace must therefore be founded . . . upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. (United Nations, 1946, p. 1)
Integrating Peace into the Classroom
How does a language practitioner become a peace educator? How can peace education complement the goals and objectives of language learning? Language teachers already face the complex task of developing educational theories and processes sensitive to cultural diversity and individual needs. They are primarily concerned with the processes of language acquisition. They apply, adapt, and develop topics and activities as they attempt to facilitate language learning, a dynamic process which involves interpretation and reflection. For precisely these reasons, the language teacher is well situated to promote thinking about peace.
Peace education may also be viewed as a process (McInnes & Wells, 1994), the interdisciplinary nature of which provides language teachers with a broad range of potential topics addressing cultural, social, environmental and economic issues. Underlying this process is the language of non- violence, which implies knowledge and understanding of comparative and conflicting values as well as of political and organisational concepts, systems and structures. The teaching of controversial issues has been a significant component of the kind of citizenship education espoused by peace educators. Such citizenship education includes instruction in how to uncover bias, bigotry, and prejudice, as well as direct and indirect violence in public policy. Learning the language of non-violence requires us to acknowledge links between what we value, what we think and how this affects our understanding of the world in which we live and learn. The process becomes socially and politically relevant when we share our ideas and our understanding.
The integration of peace issues into the language syllabus can stimulate both learning and teaching, creating space in the classroom which is interactive, instructive, and fun. Two important ingredients for peace education are a fascination with cultural differences and a respect for linguistic pluralism. If we are to create conditions for equitable and peaceful coexistence in sharing responsibility for our global environment, we must speak with each other about our similarities and differences. Yet, the dominance of one language as the tool of international dialogue may produce linguistic and communicative inequality (Tsuda, 1997). Recognition of linguistic pluralism is a first step towards creating a more democratic forum in which to discuss peace.
Peace Education and Language Teaching
Peace education and language teaching share a number of common techniques. Dialogue, debate, and conversation, for example, are important ways to practice language and are also a means of connecting the personal or individual to the cultural or multicultural. Written and verbal exchanges of ideas give meaning to language and, at the same time, promote the understanding of differences. Active listening is part of the language of non-violence and is also a vital skill in the acquisition of language. Conversation, an integral way to develop language proficiency, connotes a community of enquirers who are mutually responsible for creating knowledge. Peace education is also concerned with cooperative, interactive learning, a necessary prerequisite for good language learning.
Perhaps more than any factor, individuality plays a vital role in language acquisition. However it is used, language defines and redefines who we are. The task of creating an environment conducive to uninhibited expression for all students is one faced both by the language teacher and the peace educator. Real difficulties, such as personality differences, diverse interests, varying abilities, and large student numbers, all add to the challenge of this task.
For both peace education and language teaching, the process of learning should be as much concerned with context as with content. The challenge for language teachers, as peace educators, is to overcome the hurdles to learning so that students can develop confidence in seeing themselves as international citizens.
Challenges
Effective peace education according to Reardon (1988, p. 32) is sensitive to cultural differences, considers multiple views of problems, and offers alternative solutions. For language teachers, integrating these concepts into our classwork can be a major challenge.
Many of us rely on teacher-centred approaches to instruct and disseminate information rather than approaches which encourage mutual exchange. Too often, we think it's easier to use standard textbooks and tapes even though the materials may not be relevant to students' lives and hold no interest for them. In addition, the learning goals from which we develop our curricula and mark our success may be too narrow. Developing skills of analysis as a primary focus for our teaching tends sto reduce knowledge into isolated components, which fragments our learning and thinking. Learning goals and objectives, without a larger value framework, do the same. If we are to be effective teachers, we must be creative, holistic thinkers.
There are other problems to consider. The acquisition of analytical and communication skills may be presented in a one-dimensional paradigm, conditioned by a dualistic, reductionist, and competitive core which limits discussion to opposing sides: right and wrong, good and bad. A singular focus on specific substantive knowledge, particular skills, and technical proficiency may also inhibit learning. In other words, the ways in which we teach are as important as what we teach.
Peace education can help us, as language teachers, to recognise these problems, transcend inhibiting models and create alternatives. Peace education is multi-dimensional: it moves from skills development to capacity development to the enhancement of quality, rather than quantity, as a measure of educational achievement. It can help us create opportunities for our students to exchange concepts, information and, more importantly, values and visions, provided we overcome the contextual confines which impede us.
Conclusion
Language teachers are well placed as peace educators not only to develop communicative skills, but also to promote an understanding of peace and the language of non-violence. Language learning is interpersonal and multicultural. It helps us to think in terms of both unity and multiplicity, mutuality and negotiated consensus, means and processes. Language acquisition is not just about pulling things apart to understand them but about synthesis, putting things together to be understood. Language learning, therefore, is not just about reducing linguistic elements to constituent parts, but about a holistic approach to creating and sharing meaning with others.
The capacity for reflective conversation and debate is central to language acquisition, to cross-cultural understanding and to peace education. To achieve this involves taking risks with our teaching concerning the content we teach, the teaching methods we apply, the classroom atmosphere we create, and the means of assessment we use. By integrating ideas and approaches of peace education into our language classrooms, we have the opportunity to contribute to students' understanding of peace with justice.
References
- Baha'i International. (1993). World citizenship: A global ethic for sustainable development. New York: Baha'i International Community.
- Dewey, J. (1946). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books.
- Ikeda, D. (1996). Thoughts on education for global citizenship. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
- Bethel, D. (Ed.). (1989). Makiguchi the value creato, revolutionary Japanese educator and founder of Soka Gakkai. Ames: lowa State University Press.
- Mclnnes, D. & Wells, B. (1994). Peace education and its role in the EFL classroom. Peace Research, 16, 57-74.
- Reardon, B. (i988). Comprehensive peace education: Educating for global responsibility. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Tsuda Y. (1997). Hegemony of English and ecological paradigm for linguistic pluralism. Unpublished manuscript, Nagoya University. United Nations. (1946). UNESCO constitution. New York: United Nations Office of Public Information.