46
a convenient façade that implies that a nation is, in line with global expectations, doing something about peace yet in reality it may be a process of indoctrination that ensures that the real issues on peace are kept off the societal agenda. This brings my discussion to yet two major complexities in the pursuit of peace, firstly, the difficulties that already accompany education as a medium of peace and secondly the imperative of justice.
47
Two key issues emerge from Durkheim‟s observations, firstly; that education is the avenue through which social integration can be fostered, through the advancement of shared social values, solidarity and tolerance, a very crucial role especially in the context of diversity.
Zimbabwe for example is characterized by ethnic, racial, political and religious, among other varied forms of diversity, along whose lines the nation has increasingly become polarized.
Secondly; Durkheim realizes the long term transformational role that education enables through the „socialization‟ of a nation‟s younger generation, not only transmitting already existent norms and values but to the extent necessary, altering norms and values in a changing age through a purposeful “re-socialization” process. This resocialisation process realizes that the possibilities of initiating a new world order lie with those who are by birth and nature new.
However, contrary to the functionalist perspective that predominantly views education as a positive and crucial tool for the preservation of value consensus and social solidarity, the conflict perspective raises valid and legitimate concerns about the negative role education can be manipulated to fulfill. Bowles and Gintis in Haralambos and Holborn (2000:787-789) note that the very fact of diversity in society implies equally diverse interests, with different groups benefitting differently from a given education system due to fundamentally different opportunities. They believe education can serve to make its recipients docile, unquestioning, subservient and accepting of hierarchy, legitimating inequality as “Education creates the myth that those at the top deserve their power and privilege, that they have achieved their status on merit…the educational system reduces the discontent that a hierarchy of wealth, power and prestige tends to produce.” This sentiment is also shared by Davies (2005:43) who believes that education is discriminatory and reproduces the different pathways into further education and
48
jobs. She also questions notions of ethnically and religiously isolated schools, drawing examples from Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia:
…where segregated schools have sometimes overtly taught mistrust or vilification of other groups. In such divided nations, it is not difficult to examine their textbooks and see how enemies are portrayed, heroes identified and histories written, and to imagine the consequent effect on learners. Yet in „stable‟ societies, rich or poor, textbooks may also glorify war through greater attention and analytic detail compared to that given to peace.
Davies‟ sentiments are very revealing when used as a lens of analysis for the Zimbabwean context, particularly in view of how the education system has been used to glorify and legitimize violence in the context of the liberation struggle, shape the concept of the country‟s heroes and
„re-configure‟ the country‟s history. This has already been elucidated in chapter 1 through Ranger‟s analysis of patriotic history. Peace scholars Cawagas and Swee Hin (1985) and Harber (1996) all acknowledge the possibilities of education‟s negative contributions to degenerative progressions of certain conflicts realizing that education is not always a liberating experience calling for a deeper interrogation of the values and assumptions that accompany all knowledge impartation. The Catholic Education Office 1986:143) further observes a related argument that:
…teachers involved in peace education…all people hold their versions of the truth, and teachers as products of particular societies and cultures, bring their own perceptions, understandings and values to the topics and issues they teach…it is impossible to be completely value free, some measure of bias is inevitable.
Clearly, while peace education is indeed a noble academic endeavor and undoubtedly a mechanism for societal transformation, it is however not immune to the ambiguities that education as its medium is susceptible to.
The hidden curriculum is also another intricate aspect of education and a challenge for peace education in particular. Haavelsrud (1983), Fien and Hutton (1987), Dovey (1996), Harris
49
(1999) and Bowles and Gintis in Haralambos and Holborn (2000) all note that, beyond the overtly specified educational objectives, the teaching and learning methods, the classroom and the school structure are imperative considerations. Bowles and Gintis in Haralambos and Holborn (2000:787) caution that schools are systems structured on a hierarchical principle of power and control where teachers command and pupils submit. They raise concern about the „jug and mug principle‟ approach in which teachers have the monopoly of giving knowledge and pupils are passive, empty recipients. Harris (1999:311) and Haavelsrud (1983:124) echo similar sentiments on the need for a cooperative learning approach where pupils are actively engaged in seeking solutions to problems within a classroom that is an exemplary democratic learning community. Similar sentiments are raised by Bar Tarl (2002:6-9) who notes that while peace education is teacher dependent it must still be open minded and relevant with pupils given room for innovative propositions on matters concerning their society. Harris argues that the peaceful classroom‟s hidden curriculum should promote peace by adopting unique approaches to discipline for example where positive affirmations are adopted in place of retribution or punitive measures. In addition to this, the success of peace education also requires transformation of the school‟s administration culture from the traditional dictatorial to a representative one where pupils and students are also recognized as equal players whose rights are respected. Dovey (1996:134) relevantly concurs that:
The school ethos is an important consideration. Peace must be manifest in school procedures, and principals and teachers should work to promote this by assessing whether peace education is compatible with a school environment that shows signs of injustice and allows little opportunity for student participation and exercise of responsibility.
This foregoing discussion brings me to the realization that it is not enough for educational institutions to offer peace education. There is need for pre, on-going and post implementation reflection on the school structure and culture in order to ensure that a given peace education
50
programme is aligned with the goals of peace education. There should also be linkages in political will, students‟ and the broader community‟s structure and as Davies (2005:43) warns that “The concern should be less the internal „good practice‟ in peace education programmes and more the surrounding „bad practice‟ of whole education systems.” In relation to this I go on to explore justice as another complex aspect in the implementation of peace education. While I realize there is more to the attainment of justice beyond the peace classroom, I believe the peace education classroom can play a foundational role by enabling learners to begin interrogating their justice concerns within their educational setting and in the wider community.