Jakub Lewandowski, April 2024
The Visualising Peace Project has previously included a significant focus on peace education, examining the roles of students and teachers in fostering expanded and critical pedagogies of peace in the classroom. Building on this work, this paper aims to examine how narratives and understandings of childhood and youth agency undermine the goals of peace education. As Marshall Beier (among others) has outlined, young people tend to be marginalised as political actors, which restricts the ability of peace education to promote genuine change. For that reason, a successful model of peace education should challenge narratives around youth and facilitate young people to be active actors in peace. Therefore, this paper might be particularly useful for those seeking to expand upon the Project’s peace education resources or further understand the agency of youth peace education endeavours.
After introducing peace education, this paper will examine tensions between the goals of peace education and the schooling environment. Next, the basis of these tensions will be established as stemming from narratives of youth. Resultingly, the understanding of youth agency in terms of threat will be analysed vis-a-vis a peace education in Jordan to illustrate that peace education must be carefully applied lest it merely reinforces existing power structures. Last, I will examine how peace education based on emphasising youth agency and youth participation can generate societal change and overcome the stereotype of youth as passive receivers of knowledge.
First, it is worthwhile to provide a short overview of peace education to contextualise this paper’s argument. According to Bermeo (2022), peace education has been heavily inspired by the work Johan Galtung (461). The concept of comprehensive peace underlines the theory of peace education, in line with the absence of structural systems of violence known as negative peace, and the existence of positive peace which ensures a socially just society (Bermeo, 2022, 461; Galtung, 1969). Harris (2004) offers five pillars in peace education that contributes to this goal (6):
- It explains the root cause of violence;
- It teaches alternatives to violence;
- It adjusts to cover different forms of violence;
- Peace itself is a process which varies according to context;
- Conflict is omnipresent.
Furthermore, and incredibly pertinent to the Visualising Peace Project, Harris (2004) complexifies the nature of peace education with the multifaceted understandings of peace beyond interstate conflict. For example, peace education can be utilised for developing knowledge of interpersonal conflict resolution techniques, environmental peace, inner peace and more (Harris, 2004, 7). Critical approaches to peace education, core to this paper, have emphasised drawing from other avenues of critical inquiry to create a pedagogy inherently transformative of the status quo (Bajaj and Brantmeier, 2011, 221). In the context of educational settings, the role of educators such as teachers has been highlighted as incredibly important to peace education, in conveying the principles of peace education. Previous contributions to the project have highlighted the importance of the educator’s understanding of peace and the ideal relationship between students and pupils as co-producers of knowledge (particularly the contributions by Joe Walker, Otilia Meden and Lia da Giau). It is this relationship that this paper aims to examine, to fulfil a research gap within the Visualising Project, connect up to our wider interest in the intersection of discourses of childhood and war/peace, and to create a point of reflection for those interested in furthering approaches in peace education.
Consequently, highlighting the tensions within the schooling environment and adultism as a barrier to effective peace education is a necessary first point of analysis. Bertrand et al (2023) define adultism as ‘the ideology that adults are superior to youths’ which intersects with other structural forms of discrimination such as racism or sexism (2751). Notions of adultism are prevalent within formal educational environments and define the creation of educational practices and curriculum by restricting the genuine input of youths (Bertrand et al, 2023, 2584). Similarly, Harber and Skade (2009) tie systems of structural violence to the modern schooling environment. They argue that schools can frequently reproduce systems of structural violence contrary to the aims of peace education, such as bullying or gender-based violence (Harber and Skade, 2009, 171-174). Within England, Harber and Skade (2009) describe schooling as ‘benevolent authoritarianism’ with the removal of corporal punishment (177). In contrast, schools in Jordan could be described as fully authoritarian with Shirazi (2011) noting the ironic physical punishment of students for misbehaviour during a peace education class on human rights (295-287). Such behaviour negates the participatory goals of peace education and creates a top-down and imposed model of peace education (Shirazi, 2011, 287). Clearly, there exists a gap between peace education practice and aims advocated by critical peace education, especially around the participation within democratic and pluralistic approaches noted by Baja (2015). Going back to the early 20th Century, Harris (2004) notes the work of Maria Montessori in establishing a school and curriculum divorced from the authoritarian adultism still present today in many educational settings (14).
Arguably underpinning this tension between modern schooling and peace education is our common understanding of ‘youth’ and ‘youth agency’. As Jana Tabak underlines (among others), children are frequently narrated as in need of protection from external forces while at the same representing a threat if diverging from normalised expectations of innocent childhood. Effectively, our understanding of childhood emphasises not the being of a child, but the ‘becoming of adulthood’ with clear impacts upon the practice of peace education (Tabak and Carvalho, 2018, 128-136). Mirroring Bertrand et al’s analysis of adultism (2023), Tabak and Carvalho (2018) state that children are frequently deemed as ‘a dependent, immature, and irrational beings’ contingent on the processes and experiences by which they enter maturity and adulthood (130-131). Resultingly, young people are frequently seen as passive entities rather than genuine political actors further marginalising youth voices (Berents, 2018. 4-6). Likely, the lack of youth inclusion into their own education, whether peace education or not, also reflects the assumption of youth and children as both an opportunity and a threat (Bertrand et al, 2023; Tabak and Carvalho, 2018). Therefore, understandings of childhood can have a significant influence on the practice of peace education within formal and informal educational settings. Examining this conceptualisation of youth within current practice illustrates current issues within peace education, opportunities for improvement and strengths that are a necessary consideration for peace education practitioners. As this paper will argue, ignorance to these discourses can have a counterproductive effect on the transformative impacts of peace education and must be accounted for to truly situate young people at the centre of peace production.
As stated above, critical peace education emphasises transformation based on a pluralistic approach emphasising participation (Bajaj and Brantmeier, 2011, 221-224). By drawing on post-colonial approaches, Shiraz (2011) showcases how understandings of youth agency as a threat in Jordan contradict these goals of peace education, by reinforcing the existing status quo and limiting the ability of peace education students to be peacebuilders and producers of knowledge. In Jordan, the youth population has been described as a ‘timebomb’, potentially likely to contribute to extremism and regional instability (Shirazi, 2011, 281). Peace education has been identified as key in preventing this process and turning youth of Jordanian origin, and those displaced from Palestine, as being productive members of society (Shirazi, 2011, 281). To combat this perceived ‘timebomb’ of Jordanian youth, the term ‘Knights of Change’ has been utilised to acknowledge the local youth’s political potential (Shiraz, 2011, 280-281). At first glance one might take this to be a strong example of how peace education should operate, yet Shiraz (2011) notes that peace education in Jordan aims to channel political agency through official and neoliberal channels which limits the youth’s transformative agency by limiting the unique voice and aspiration of ‘at-risk youth’ such as young males (291-293). Particularly, because liberal peace is prone to reproducing political subjects in concert with the prevailing political ideologies and power interests at the expense of marginalised groups such as children (Berents, 2018, 27-30). Here, we can see that peace education is at risk of being subsumed within wider societal structures that risk undermining the goal of emphasising the capacity of young people to promote peace within their own lives and beyond. The Jordanian model of peace education evidently does little to empower youths through peace education but seeks to maintain the very societal structures which continue to marginalise youth agency, and ability to identify and oppose forms of structural violence.
Berents (2018) explicitly focuses on everyday peacebuilding but is incredibly pertinent to peace education, specifically regarding how focusing on everyday peace emphasises the lived experiences of marginalised groups, such as children. One could plausibly argue that the above example from Jordan is inapplicable to many Western contexts due to the prevalence of conflict within the Middle East. Yet such an argument would certainly miss the lived experiences of children within Western countries, which while possibly not as contrary to peace as those within post-colonial contexts, still hamper the effective production of peace in Western regions through peace education. Bertrand et al (2023) aptly note that the adultism within peace educational settings can intersect with many other forms of structural violence which limit the transformative potential of education. For example, the perception of youth of colour in urban settings matched the ‘threat perceived’ in Jordan but in a Western context (2575). It is important not to view these problems within peace education as symptomatic of places more directly associated with direct violence. Consequently, it is not enough to pursue the principles of peace education without understanding the underlying normative assumptions which guide neoliberal understandings of childhood. Bajaj and Brantmeier (2011) aptly identify that there is no singular template and model towards peace education (221-224). A truly transformative peace pedagogy should therefore be contextualised in student-lived experiences.
In practice, a model of peace education, driven by adultism, and inherently prescriptive can prevent adequate engagement further restricting youth voice. This is because adult accounts of peace become prioritised over the experiences of young people (Berents, 2018; Cardozo et al, 2015, 37-38). Leonard (2007) identifies that within Northern Ireland’s citizenship curriculum (linked to peace education) students are perceived as ‘passive’ rather than political actors in their own right (2007, 492-495; Cardozo et al, 2015, 38). In such cases, young people can be restricted from discussing important yet controversial issues and presenting a model of peace education with is divorced from everyday life and decontextualised (Cordez et al, 2015, 38). In contrast, youth-led approaches to peace-education can have the opposite effect. Within Pakistan, much peace education has similarly followed the pattern noted by Lenoard (2007); however, examples can be identified such as the NGO ‘Ravvish’ which buck the trend (Bokhari and Ahmed, 2020). Ravvish is of note due to being made up of young undergraduate students and through its use of an interactive pedagogy that prioritizes student engagement, transcending the traditional patterns of student-teacher relations in favour of a more nuanced friendly environment (Bokhari and Ahmed, 2020). This means that points of structural violence within society can be discussed alongside issues prioritised by the students themselves, such as religious violence in Pakistan, while previous traditional approaches failed to address these issues (Bokhari and Ahmed, 2020, 78-79). As a result, students attributed their improved ability to empathise with each other and debate important topics vis-a-vis peace, highlighting youth capacity for political agency, to the work of Ravvish. Clearly, how peace education is applied has significant implications for its impacts. I would argue that Ravvish’s success can be partly attributed directly to challenging the adultism common to educational settings and based upon understandings of childhood.
Consequently, if we want to advance a pluralistic model of peace, we should ensure that youth voices in peace education are not stifled but emphasised, by addressing currents of adultism within educational settings. Challenging the traditional teacher-student relationship and focusing on a pedagogy that facilitates student agency is a major but necessary part of successful peace education programmes aimed at creating genuine transformation of unequal power structures within society and lives the lives of young people. Obviously, this is not easily done within educational settings; as Lia da Giau has underlined elsewhere in our project, we need systemic change. Bertrand (2023) reflects on the difficulties of managing her role within educational settings and adultism, in one case moving student debate along from one student’s point as it did not fit her own research interests (2577-2580). Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this paper to point blame at teachers or educators. Issues within the practice of peace education are structural in nature, such as the systematic discourses of childhood, or even the structures of formal schooling. Promoting a transformative model of peace education requires changing these structures rather than placing blame on educators. Critical models of peace education could also be supported by schools moving away from standardised examination practices, and promoting a democratic and pluralistic environment that values inter-community interaction and critical thought (Hantzopoulos, 2011).
To conclude, this paper has argued that official discourses frequently conceptualise youth and youth agency in a manner often counterproductive to effective peace education. To be specific, adultism is often prevalent within many educational settings, and is underpinned by discourses of childhood which undermine the transformative capacity of peace education and illustrate a gap between the ideals of peace education and its practice. Within official discourses, children are often seen as irrational beings, contingent on becoming adults, which enforces political marginalisation and restricts what is possible by young people in addressing the very structural violence and inequalities often highlighted by peace education. As a result, peace education can be used to maintain the existing status quo, alongside failing to address issues key to young people. Preventing this requires a genuine commitment to youth agency through a pedagogy that supports students as political actors, yet achieving this requires significant effort in overcoming the adultism so prevalent in educational settings.
References
Bajaj, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogies of resistance’ and critical peace education praxis. Journal of Peace Education, 12(2), pp.154–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2014.991914.
Bajaj, M. and Brantmeier, E.J. (2011). The Politics, Praxis, and Possibilities of Critical Peace Education. Journal of Peace Education, 8(3), pp.221–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.621356.
Berents, H. (2018). Young People and Everyday Peace. Routledge.
Beier, M. & Berents, H. eds (2023), Children, Childhood and Global Politics, Bristol
Bertrand, M., Brooks, M.D. and Domínguez, A.D. (2023). Challenging Adultism: Centering Youth as Educational Decision Makers. Urban Education, 58(10), p.004208592095913. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920959135.
Bokhari, F. and Ahmed, Z.S. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for peace educators: Lessons from a youth‐led effort in Pakistan. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21284.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), pp.167–191.
Hantzopoulos, M. (2011). Institutionalizing critical peace education in public schools: A case for comprehensive implementation. Journal of Peace Education, 8(3), pp.225–242. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.621364.
Harber, C. and Sakade, N. (2009). Schooling for violence and peace: how does peace education differ from ‘normal’ schooling?. Journal of Peace Education, 6(2), pp.171–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17400200903086599.
Harris , I.M. (2004). Peace Education Theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), pp.5–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1740020032000178276.
Leonard, M. (2007) “Children’s citizenship education in politically sensitive societies. Childhood, 14(4) pp. 487‐503
Lopes Cardozo, M.T.A., Higgins, S., Maber, E., Brandt, C.O., Kusmallah, N., Le Mat, M.L.J (2015).Literature Review: Youth Agency, Peacebuilding and Education. Research Consortium Education and Peacebuilding, University of Amsterdam.
Shirazi, R. (2011). When projects of ‘empowerment’ don’t liberate: Locating agency in a ‘postcolonial’ peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 8(3), pp.277–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.621370.
Tabak, J. and Carvalho, L. (2018). Responsibility to Protect the Future: Children on the Move and the Politics of Becoming. Global Responsibility to Protect, 10(1-2), pp.121–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-01001007.