3.2 Previous Studies Theories
3.2.7 Relevance of Educating for Peace
“If we are to reach real peace in this world…we shall have to begin with children” – Mahatma Gandhi
Studying children’s experiences and their alternative preferences to corporal
punishment has to be based on theory that will replace the long term negative impact with a positive one. Dawes et al (2004) point out that corporal punishment is an aggressive means of disciplining children. Akers and Jensen (2007) argue that Bandura, the developer of social learning theory, stated that children learn from observing adults.
If children learn early on that to resolve conflict one needs to resort to violent means, then it is all the more important to have peace education for children to know that there are alternatives. Hence the relevance of peace education and building a society of young people who apply their minds on issues of resolving conflicts using tools that are alternative to violence. Gandhi, the most famous pacifist in the world emphasized that the centre of peace-building is on teaching children ways of peace. They should be taught peace at the onset. Sadly, it is the very centre that has been left un-attended and consequences can be seen by the increase of violent acts committed by children.
There is an undeniable link cited by (Dawes et al, 2004; Vally 2006; Waterhouse 2007, Blaine 2008) between violent acts committed by children and their upbringing which involved exposure to a lot of violence whether at school or in their homes. These are two major socialising agents that are most influential in the identity formulation of adolescents. The frequent reports of violent deaths committed by teenagers are the symptoms of violent rearing which breeds violent citizens. The rampant violence is a big indication of a need for an alternative to violent rearing of the future generation. The children’s involvement in coming up with the resolution and alternatives to violence is therefore crucial.
There are six key issues mentioned by Burns and Aspeslagh (1983) relating to peace education which I think are relevant in the context of teaching South African children to live peacefully. They argue that peace education deals with issues of violence, aggression, conflict, prejudice and power, influence and change. Floresca-Cawagas and Toh (1989) argue that peace education has to
be hopeful, not in an idealistic sense that the world will somehow get better, but
“in the dialectical sense of simultaneously appreciating the grim realities while working as hard as possible to transform un-peaceful structures and passing on the spirit of hope to even more fellow human beings.” Floresca-Cawagas and Toh, (1989:20)
Dovey (1996) argues that the aim and challenge of educating for peace is to educate every new generation of young people to become peacemakers and to devote their talents, capacities and energies towards the creation of a civilisation of peace based on a culture of peace and healing. Peace education in schools should not be a leisurely option but an examinable subject as serious as Mathematics. De Wet, (2009: 50) argued that achieving sustainable peace in South Africa is going to involve transforming its people, its societal conditions, and its development models, and as peace educators, we might sometimes experience disillusionment as we wonder about the effectiveness of what we are doing.
According to Carl and Swartz (1996) never has the need been greater, nor the time riper for including education for peace in the curriculum. They point to two factors that favour this development: a multicultural education and the expertise available in curriculum design, teaching methodology and in the field of cognitive development. Maxwell, Enslin and Maxwell (2004) accurately claim that a unique and particularly violent South African context calls for a program that is specific to the context. The content involved should include, amongst other things, self esteem, celebration of diversity, communication and most important, conflict management.
Kent (1993), states that there are two concepts of peace, negative peace and positive peace. He claims that negative peace deals with immediate symptoms and the absence of physical violence. While positive peace entails the elimination of the root causes of violence. It is a conscious effort to build a
society which reflects a lifestyle of peace. It assumes an interconnectedness of all life. This latter kind of peace is the one that this study is most interested in because of its transformative ability and sustainability when integrated to everyday life.
Melko (1999), on his study of peaceful societies demonstrates that although conflict would always be with us, reaction to it does not necessarily have to be violent. He cites Bruce Bonta’s study of the Amish and Hutterties societies where “self restraint is expected as is the intervention of bystanders…. Humour is valued and loss of temper is a disgrace,” Melko (1999:302). Already there are tools that could be used to help adolescents to think creatively about ways of resolving their issues in non-violent manners. What is needed is someone to encourage them and engage with them in coming up with their own tools so that they can internalize values of peaceful living.
Harris (1999:60) points out that research have shown that teenagers exposed to non-violence benefit in many positive ways. “Peace education can give children exposed to violence positive images of alternative to violence. Research indicates that children are most reassured when adults attempt to do something about children’s fears.” He points out that parents of adolescents who participated in a non-violence course noted that their children were taking more responsibility for their actions: they were keeping out of fights more, having fewer emotional outbursts and applying fairness rules more often.
The benefits mentioned by Harris emphasise the permanence involved in transforming youth into balanced peaceful members of society. Peace education amongst youth is an integral part of this study. Castro (1999: 169) argues that a peaceful classroom is also one that encourages students of both sexes…to participate fully in the class … giving them a sense of equal value and dignity. Educating children about peace in their formative years may influence
their mentality and approach to issues as adults. Bar-Tal (2002:1) lists peace with freedom, equality and justice as the most desirable values in most societies.
Dovey (1996) aptly quote a student who declared that: “Peace doesn’t form a picture in my mind because I haven’t experienced complete peace.” She accurately argues that South Africa is one of the most violent places in the world and those most affected are children. For Dovey, it is not easy to work for peace in a country that has always been geared for physical and emotional confrontations. Catholic Peace Education (1986:134) touches on issues of peaceful relationships from the personal level right up to global. It starts from the personal level because this is the core of peace building, if it doesn’t exist on a personal level than peace can not be expected on any other level. What is needed in this country is what was respectively introduced by Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King Jr. in the African American communities of the United States, a culture of non-violence.