Critical appraisal of peace education theory

Peng Chen

University of Prince Edward Island

 Introduction

Nowadays, peace education has become a hot topic due to a growing social

concern about violent problems such as war, racism, genocide, and sexual abuse.

According to Harris (2002), peace education is that “educators from early child care

to adult use their professional skills to warn fellow citizens about imminent dangers

and advise them about paths to peace”. In my following paper, I will show my

in-depth exploration and of critical review of peace education theory.

Core elements of peace education theory

The core elements of peace education theory include five postulates and four

prerequisites. Harris (2002) described that peace education theory is based on five

main postulates:

1. Peace education explains the origin of violence.

2. Peace education offers alternatives to violence.

3. Peace education adjusts itself to cover different forms of violence.

4. Peace is a diverse process according to different context.

5. Conflict is omnipresent.

Harris (2002) also manifested that postulate one explained the hazard of violence

as well as pointed out problems of violence, and the second postulate showed

different peace strategies which can be used to solve these problems. Postulate three

presented the dynamic nature of peace education which allows peace education to

change its emphasis according to the type of violence. Postulate four puts peace

education theory and practice into specific cultural norms. Postulate five showed the
fact that conflict cannot be eliminated but peace educators can teach students

necessary skills to deal with conflict. On the top of that, “[postulates] one and two

create a unifying mission for peace education, while postulates three and four

diversify the core concepts of peace education; … [postulate] five reminds us of the

complex role conflicts have in our lives” ( Harris, 2002, p. 4–6).

The four prerequisites of peace education theory were putted forward by Dr. H. B.

Danes who was the founder and president of International Education for Peace

Institute in Canada through 2000 to 2017. The prerequisites were based on the

emerging peace education researches and lessons learned from a five-year peace

education program which contained thousands of students in 122 schools in Bosnia

and Herzegovina. Danes (2006) defined the four prerequisites as follow:

1. Truly effective peace education can only take place in the context of a

unity-based worldview.

2. Peace education can best take place in the context of a culture of peace.

3. Peace education best takes place within the context of a culture of healing.

4. Peace education is most effective when it constitutes the framework for all

educational activities. (p. 57–61)

The unity-based worldview mentioned in prerequisites one refers to the age of

maturity of humanity and is based on the fundamental issue of the consciousness of

the oneness of humanity, moreover, within the unity-based worldview, Danes (2006, p.

68) manifested that “society operates according to the principle of unity in diversity

and holds as its ultimate objective the creation of a civilization of peace— equal, just,
progressive, moral, diverse and united”.

The five postulates and the four prerequisites are the main elements of peace

education theory and the process and development of peace education activities

follows these principles. Besides, these main elements also introduced the basic

knowledge of peace education theory.

Peace education theory on a wider theoretical landscape

Peace education theory is connected to phenomenology which focuses on

personal experience and structures of conscious experience with its intentionality. The

intentionality of peace education is teaching people how to reach peace through

studies of the phenomena which include racism, sexual abuse, and other types of

violence. In addition, the peace education theory is also related to other theories.

According to Harris (2002), the forms of peace education can be various due to the

different form of violence in different social contexts. There are five types of peace

education: human rights education, environmental education, international education,

conflict resolution education, and development education. Human rights education

aims to achieve economic, social, and political. Peace educators can make students to

pay attention on the rights of minority groups so I think peace education theory can be

used in critical pedagogy. The environmental education focuses on environmental

crisis such as global warming, rapid species extinction, and the adverse effect of

pollution. Harris (2002) showed that one goal of environment education is to promote

sustainable development and educators teach students appropriate technologies to

support sustainable development. International education helped students to

understand the international interstate system as well as how nation states construct

security for their citizens. Conflict resolution education explained conflict dynamics

and empowered individuals to use communication skills to build and manage peaceful

relationships. Conflict resolution education can be related to social capital theory

which brings people social connections. Development education provided students

“with insights into the various aspects of structural violence, focusing on social

institutions with their hierarchies and propensities for dominance and oppression”

(Harris, 2002, p. 25). Thus, development education can combine with critical

pedagogy and constructivism.

On the top of that, Standish (2015) introduced three examples of critical

pedagogy in peace education: Montessori education, The Prem Rawat peace education

program (PEP), and The National Peace Academy. Standish (2015) explained that

Montessori education regarded education systems as perpetrators of “war culture” and

a reason of continued cycles of violence and poverty so Montessori education teaches

students the violent values of society in school to make students understand peaceful

values. The Prem Rawat peace education program is based on Gandhi’s critique of

education. Gandhi “perceived of structural and cultural violence as something that

needed to be socially challenged and considered cooperation with existing education

systems a form of exploitation” (Allen, 2007, as cited in Standish, 2015, p. 33). The

PEP includes a variety of institutions such as correctional facilities, schools,

community groups, and wellness centers. The PEP seeks to “transform the individual

based on qualities such as self-awareness, hope and contentedness”, and “[the] goal of
Prem Rawat peace education is the nonviolent transformation of the self transform”

(Standish, 2015, p. 33). The National Peace Academy (NPA) is an educational facility

where educators teach students global and local peace-building skills through holistic

peace learning which addresses five components of human relationships: personal,

social, political, institutional, and ecological. Beside, Standish (2015) also described

how these three approaches are informed by critical pedagogy: “Montessori education

acts to transform society, Prem Rawat peace education works to transform the self and

peace learning at NPA seeks to transform the world” (p. 34).

Research design and methodology

In my view, peace education theory can be used in both quantitative research and

qualitative research. For example, researchers can design a quantitative study to

explore the popularity of peace education or the level of peace education in a certain

area. The research methods in this research could be instrument based questions,

statistical analysis, and census data. Researchers can also design a qualitative research

to investigate how peace education theory influence education system or how peace

education changes students’ study behavior. In this kind of studies, the research

methods could be case study, interview, patterns interpretation and observation.

However, peace education researches have their own limits. Cremin (2016, p. 12)

explained that “The field of peace education research requires particular attention to

be paid to methodology. There is a need for methodology to avoid reproducing the

kinds of structural and cultural violence that peace work seeks to address”. In addition,

Cremin (2016) presented Galtung’s foundational theories in peace studies. In

Galtung’s foundational theories, there is a distinction between positive and negative

peace which came from direct and indirect violence. Direct violence is physical

aggression that can lead to physical harm or even death, and indirect violence is

constituted by structural and cultural factors. “[Negative] peace is achieved by

removing the threat of direct violence, whilst positive peace requires resolving issues

of structural and cultural violence” (Cremin, 2016, p. 2). Based on Galtung’s

foundational theories, Cremin (2016) made two needs for future of peace education

and peace education research: one is “the need to operationalize Galtung’s

foundational theories in peace studies through stronger ties to practice”, and the other

one is the need to include aesthetic traditions within a more integrative approach to

peace education” (p. 13).

Critical appraisal

Generally, the peace education is about teaching about peace—what it is, why it

does not exist, and how to achieve it—academic content which is ignored in most

education system (Harris, 2002). In my view, the peace education theory is the guide

of peace education and it also benefits other field such as critical pedagogy,

phenomenology, and positivism. Peace education is easy in manipulating the

theoretical framework; however, due to the various form of violence, the process of

peace education needs plenty of time and different teaching resource to complete. On

the top of that, peace education theory also faces some challenges. According to

Salomon (2011), there were four major challenges facing peace education: “(a) The

creation of a ‘ripple effect’ whereby the impact of peace education programs spreads
to wider social circles of society; (b) increasing the endurance of desired program

effects in the face of their easy erosion; (c) the need for differential programs, given

the differences in culture and in the role that each adversary plays in the conflict; and

(d) the need to find ways to bridge between general dispositions, principles and values

and their application in specific situations where competing motivations are dominant”

(p. 2). In addition, the peace education theory cannot solve basic social problems such

as unevenly distributed material resources and low-level economic development.

Besides, peace education theory cannot balance out the neglect of youth education or

meet the demands of special people education. Nevertheless, peace education theory

still takes an important position in education. Bar-Tal and Rosen (2009, p. 569)

manifest that "[the] goals and the programs depend not only on the conceptions and

creativity of the pedagogues but also on the specific needs and the context of each

society”, and “[the] general themes are more or less constant, but the particular

contents, techniques, and methods must be adapted to the particular cases by the

educators”. Peace education theory based on people’s raising attention about violence

related issues and the desire of peace in public society since last century so it satisfies

the specific needs and the context of nowadays society.

Conclusion

Even though most people in the world live in a peace environment, there are still

many individuals suffer from war and violence in some countries and districts. The

violence related problems such as racism, sexual abuse, and societal justice are the

other form of power which pushes people out of peace. Now, we can find peace
education in both peaceful and unpeaceful countries. We may do not understand how

valuable the peace is when we living far away from war and violence, but peace

education theory provides an access to us to know more about peace. I believe peace

education theory will have a better development in contemporary and future society.
 Reference
Bar-Tal, D., & Rosen, Y. (2009). Peace education in societies involved in intractable
conflicts: direct and indirect models. Review of Educational Research, 79(2),
557–575.
Cremin, H. (2016). Peace education research in the twenty-first century: Three
concepts facing crisis or opportunity? Journal of Peace Education. 13(1).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2015.1069736
Danesh, H. B.(2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of
Peace Education, 3(1). 55–78
Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace education theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1). 5–20.
Salimon, G. (2011). Four major challenges facing peace education in regions of
intractable conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,17(1),
46–59.