|
It was just the other day that my granddaughter aged 15, deeply disturbed by some news about confrontations in Northern Ireland and in Kosovo,
asked me a question difficult to answer: "Something must be done – what can I do?" So somehow the paper worked out by Manfred Uesseler and myself on the topic of training and education for peace has also
to be taken as an answer to this question many young people nowadays ask the older generation.
We live in a transformed world: old traditional values to a large extent have vanished or are under attack. Conflicts, skirmishes and wars are
everywhere, their number has increased during the last few years, and they have become much more dangerous. While we had hoped for an end of the arms race after the decay of the socialist camp – this hope has been
proved an illusion. Incredibly high and constantly increasing sums are spent every year for purchasing new weapons by rich and poor countries alike. But in contrast to this, discussions on peace have become rare
recently, and the same holds true for the publication of research results centred around peace and peace education. (1)
Before this auditorium there is no need to explain in detail the vital need to do something in order to strengthen personal responsibility with regard
to global affairs and to change the minds of men, as well as to make the conditions we live in more favourable for the promotion of peace and non-violent behaviour in general.
The importance peace educationhas to be given in this context can hardly be overestimated. Peace education in a transformed world at the end of
our century, at the threshold of a new millennium, must take into consideration the challenges and dangers we are facing now and, even more, tomorrow. If we fail in our efforts to make people all over the world
aware of the danger we are confronted with, life will be more and more unbearable and Mankind's future itself will be at stake. What can be done in the crucial situation we are in? Peace education can be, should be
a way to cope with the manifold problems of making people aware that we all live in one world and are responsible for it.
Peace education and training for peace – this is not at all a task only teachers are confronted with. Each and everybody who has got some awareness of
the dangerous situation we live in is obliged to do something. This holds true especially for all the people who, due to their profession or occupations in science, in the arts, in the media industry, but also in
politics, administration, civil service etc. have to influence public opinion. Teachers and parents, who are directly engaged in the process of educating the next generation, bear, of course, special responsibility.
But it has to be stressed here that education for peace is not a task confined to a special profession; everybody is subject and object of this process. We who have come here are all learning from the experiences
and considerations others have made. We try to enrich this exchange of opinions by participating in the discussion: we are teaching and being taught simultaneously.
Peace – that means external peace in the sense of peace around me within my social environment, and internal peace
is tranquillity or equipoise or internal harmony within myself. Looked at from a slightly different angle, external peace can be understood as peace between political entities, whereas in this relationship internal peace has to be seen as peace within those entities in the sense of social harmony or social justice. These two pairs of understanding peace belong together: if peace of mind is the internal peace whereas peace within the social community I live in is the external peace, this external peace in relation to peace between states is the internal aspect. Also the two parts of each pair form an inseparable unity. But which of these pairs is given preference depends on the philosophical point of view and the situation under discussion as well.
Within the dichotomy of the internal and the external, the internal aspect is usually decisive, but both belong together: you cannot have real peace
within yourself if around you everything is crashing to pieces, and no society can live in peace and harmony which, from the internal point of view is characterised by social justice, but is encircled by states
entangled in a destructive war. So, in discussing peace we can confine ourselves neither to external peace nor to internal peace alone. In this paper stress is laid mainly but not exclusively on peace within a
society which can be seen either from the point of internal or external peace – depending on the starting point one chooses. In order to secure peace we have to ask by which processes peace is endangered or even
made impossible. That means the problem of conflict
should be given prominence. What has to be understood by conflict? How can conflicts be solved? Is it possible to overcome conflicts as such – that is, can there be human life without any conflict and how can we learn to deal with conflicts and to solve them?
Conflict – from the Latin confligere(to knock or strike together, to combat) – has to be understood as a struggle or clash between opposing
forces or the state of opposition between ideas or interests in the sense of disagreement. Conflict – that is the clash of different interests evoked by multiplicity and individuality. Conflicts are manifestations
of a very intense and contradictory kind of living together in society, in learning, working and other communicative processes.
Conflicts are unavoidable. According to the Hindu understanding, absolute equilibrium exists only in the state of pralaya, at the time between the mahayugas,
when there exists the balance of the three gunas, and the manifest world with its multiplicity of phenomenal forms is dissolved into the non-manifested prakrti. But when they are imbalanced, the state of avyaktais
changed into the manifestation of the universe, and conflict arises, resulting from the difference within the plurality of the phenomenal forms. But also outside the fold of Indian philosophy, it is generally
accepted that equality in the sense of uniformity means standstill and the end of all development.
Conflicts are part of our life; we should never forget this, and we have to learn to live with them. But the question is how to deal with conflicts,
how to solve them, how to live with different clashing interests . What has to be learnt is the endeavour for peaceful solutions of conflicts, to recognise conflicts in time, before they can escalate. It means also
to recognise the roots of conflicts and to inform others about the real roots of a certain conflict.
So we can say that a very important content of peace education is conflict education which has to be understood as education through conflicts, not
learning how to put them aside. It means first of all education in conflict behaviour, that is the acceptance of conflicts, to find out their nature and to develop a productive and active attitude towards
settlement. Conflict behaviour is about the creation and strenghtening of attitudes contributing to a successful handling of conflicts by the individual.. This includes the ability to deal with conflict enabling the
individual to bear conflicts, to make them more bearable and to be involved productively in their resolution, their contribution o a lowering of tension in conflict situations, building bridges of confidence,
developing a willingness to compromise and practising co-operation. Above all, this means learning and living a conflict coexistence in social relationships, dealing with contradictions and problems with humane,
tolerant and democratic forms and rules. This could contribute to a non-violent, peaceful living together and to solidarity.
There is something important we should not forget – although a truism: if conflicts cannot be solved, they can become a danger: for me personally with
regard to the problems I am faced with; for you with your problems; for us – for everybody – in social life; for groups of people (communities) in a society; for whole societies and peoples and even for states and
the whole world.
We must find ways and means of non-violent, peaceful and also co-operative conflict resolutions. But before we can do this we must be aware of the
nature of conflicts, we must try to come to productive and active attitudes towards settlement. This can be perhaps called 'conflict behaviour', and courage is always part of it.
Education for peace means, among other demands, pointing at the necessity for civic courage. One's ability to judge and act upon civic courage
comes when one clearly senses injustice, it comes from sympathetic understanding of our fellows, and the ability to put ourselves in their shoes. Civic courage may be demonstrated by just a few, but many more will
follow their lead.
Civic courage is a precondition for conflict resolution. Lack of courage means being unable to deal successfully with conflicts or even bear conflicts
and makes it difficult to understand their very nature.
Good education work, designed to help children and young persons develop an independent approach, including the ability to deal with conflicts, will
only be possible if the harmony of education and teaching is supported by administrative and structural provisions.
Peace education should comprise the formation and development of self-competence, social competence and civic courage, because it is impossible
to do without these in forming an identity, in the self-determination of the personality. Self-competence means being able to act independently and with self-responsibility, it includes the knowledge and acceptance
of one's own strong points and weaknesses in order to develop decisiveness, for it is otherwise impossible to assess one's own chances in conflicts.
Social competence
above all is important for interpersonal social conflicts – between individuals or groups, and therefore must be developed. Since mental conflicts are taking place against a social background, or are socially influenced, social competence is also important for resolving intrapersonal conflicts.
Within the process of conflict resolution the ability for dialogue
is of great importance. Peaceful solution of conflicts needs dialogue and the endeavour for understanding each other. Dialogue, being a process of thinking and of recognition and understanding, presupposes mutual acceptance of the other one in his being different. This means also taking into account the common context as well as the historical situation in its totality, in contrast to an attitude where you can see only one ego assimilating the other.
Moreover, as long as the world was characterised by the existence of the two superpowers, dialogue was a topic often to be found at the centre of
discussions. Today it is different. In world politics, dialogue as a means for the peaceful solution of conflicts seems to us to have been discredited. War as a means of politics per se has quite obviously not yet
become obsolete.
In the field of international politics the dialogue between the 'North' and the 'South' has not yet fulfilled expectations. The gap between the wealthy
North and the poor South has become wider in the course of time instead of narrower. At present a real North-South dialogue as one between partners with equal rights is nearly out of question.
Furthermore, within nations dialogue as a means for social self understanding has not yet been asserted successfully. All over the world a crisis of
democracy has taken place, so that at many places the dialogue between government and people is heavily disturbed. In many parts of the world ethnic and other intra-national or intra-state conflicts can be observed.
The world is burning at many places with small fires, each of them associated with immense losses of human life, of irretrievable cultural values, with physical as well as psychic suffering of innocent men, women
and children. More than this, it seems to be only a question of time that these local fires, dreadful as they are, develop into a bigger fire.
The fact that dialogue apparently has failed does not mean the endeavour for dialogue has become superfluous. On the contrary, only by dialogue and
co-operation, can the political, economic and ecological problems the world is confronted with be solved. The political culture has to be changed so that dialogue comes into its own again.. Within our context of
peace education, speaking together, that means the ability to dialogue has to be trained.
Dialogue is only possible among subjects, but if one of the partner in a dialogue loses his identity he will be degraded into an object of instruction
or, even worse, of discrimination. If there is the urgent desire for dialogue from the side of the weaker partner, he has to make himself conspicuous in order to evoke the other's attention necessary for the
dialogue.
The endeavour for dialogue and understanding of the other one includes his cultural traditions within the historical dimension and this will lead
indispensably to the question: "Am I really different from him?" By trying to understand the alien, one recognises common values, traditions, concepts etc. A certain region, continent, people belonging to
the same social strata or age or sex, or believing in the same religion, or having the same world view, or speaking the same or a related language etc., have many things in common irrespective of many differences.
In recognising that the other one is different from me, but by trying simultaneously to understand him, he is no longer alien to me.. If you really try to understand the other, you will very often find at least
something you have in common with him. Recognition of the difference of the other one by establishing the relationship of 'you' might be taken as precondition for recognising the community with him (in the sense of
unity as Wilhelm von Humboldt (2) has shown it).
Here we would like to interrupt our train of thought for a philosophical discourse. Man being a social animal is yet different from the flocks of sheep
and the herds of other animals. Whereas animals adapt themselves to nature man transform nature, adapts it to himself. But that would not be possible without the co-operation with one another.
Here language plays an indispensable role, being much more than a means for communication among each other. Language is necessary for working and
living together and for understanding the world in a way which really makes us human. Now all speech is reciprocal, it is speaking with somebody – with others or with oneself, loudly or only in thought. Thinking 'I'
implies the existence of something different from me as the non-I being distinct from the 'I' like 'you' or 'it'(he, she, they). In short, it means the acknowledgement of the existence of something or somebody other
than me. One cannot speak of 'I' alone.
'It' and 'you' both are opposite to me. But whereas 'I and it' only is based on stating the difference, being not the same with me, nothing else, 'I
and you' imply the existence of a relationship. In relation to the 'you', the 'I' gets his or her own determination, his or her own mind is reflected. 'You' like 'it' is also non-I, but it is a non-I with which
there is a relationship of community, so that the duality of 'I' and 'you' simultaneously is raised into a unity. "The origin and the end of all divided being is unity. That might be the reason that the first
and most simple division in which the whole is only separating in order to unite immediately again as arranged, is the predominant one in nature. It is also the most brilliant in the thought of men and the most
delightful one in the emotions." (3)
In order to become 'we', we must be able to establish the relationship of 'I' and 'you'. Thus the relation of 'I' with another one as 'you' is
essential for the enrichment and development of the 'I' into the 'we'.
The same is also stated by Martin Buber (4) in his 'Ich und Du' ('I and You'). He illustrates that in order to become aware of oneself, one has to have
relations with other people. Only by contact with others does one acquire the ability of pondering on one's own self. Therefore all real life is an encounter with an other, and only in contact with others can my own
being develop. This contact has to be shaped into the relationship of 'I' and 'you' in order to give space for one's own liberty and creativity. But the precondition for this relationship is the subjectivity of the
'I' and the 'you'. That means, in a real relation of 'I', the 'you' never can be looked at as a mere object. But of course, the 'I' cannot be lost in a mystical unification with 'you'.
The other always has to be understood as having value in his own right, not just as a vague someone, but having his own special reality and
concreteness. Only then the 'it' can become a 'you'.
One root for conflicts not only in Germany but also elsewhere is the confrontation with another culture. Xenophobia is to be seen everywhere.
Therefore the relationship between the native and the alien or, to put it in another way, between indigenous people and foreigners is an important point within our topic of conflict education.
The world today has become very small and characterised by global interdependences. The endeavour for understanding the other one, for understanding
other cultures has become of vital importance. Within the process of peace education, the younger generation has to be taught, as well as adults, to take pain to see the other as far as possible with their own eyes.
Looking at the other from my point of view, demanding to see the same features as I am used to see when looking at myself in the glass, will only lead to mistakes rather than to real understanding.
One presupposition for being able to look with the eyes of the other is knowledge about the historical development of the other culture. Scholars,
teachers, journalists, etc., are responsible to hold a historical approach when reporting about other cultures, including considerations of climatic and geographical factors. Intercultural understanding demands the
growth of the feeling for the historical dimension out of which the being different of the other came into being.
Any information about other cultures should be based on the proposition that each nation, as well as each individual, has its own importance. Each has
an own voice in the chorus of humanity as also each nation blossoms in the flower garden of mankind and plays its particular role in its historical development. Every nation has a value of its own, and there is no
justification for despising any nation.
The most dangerous attitude in relation to the other is inadmissible generalisation which is mostly connected with stigmatisation of the alien. Instead
of this one has to be ready for the dialogue with the other looking at him as 'you' in the real sense of 'we'. Man as such is neither good nor bad, he is good or bad according to the circumstances he lives in, the
traditions in which he has been brought um, the value system he was taught etc., and last but not least his own endeavours.
Here the question arises whether a new value system oriented toward mutual help, harmony and peace can be disseminated and … world-wide. This World
Philosophers Meet can be a step in that direction. This is of special importance in our time when the quest for new solutions of the urgent problems we are confronted with is felt everywhere; in view of the decay of
traditional values we have to look for new concepts. Exchange of values is to our mind the demand of the day. We have to learn from others and be ready to take over values and ideas which have been proven
practically useful and ethically sound. But this should be done neither giving up our own identity nor our own views forcing upon others. The international exchange of values and ideas has to go together with the
demand for preservation of national values and traditions. These are topics which should also be included within the training for peace.
In view of the xenophobia which ca be seen all around the world as one important reason for conflicts, it has to be stressed that the endeavour for
understanding the alien has to be closely linked with reflection on oneself. Only by trying to understand my own cultural tradition can I work out a position for myself to understand the other, and vice versa. Only
by aiming at understanding the other culture do I obtain deeper insight into my own cultural tradition. By trying to understand the other one, the process of self-understanding is enhanced. Through
self-understanding and understanding other cultures, a universal view so badly needed in our time can be attained.
Of course, we are not really able to be in the other's shoes but we can study other traditions and values in a process of acquisition, enlarging
thereby our own horizon and simultaneously understanding the other in his difference. But the precondition is that one has to be open-minded to other values and traditions and be ready for learning.
Self-overestimation or arrogance shuts all doors and windows needed to be open for mutual understanding.
When asking why understanding the alien is of vital importance in our time we shall mention several aspects. First of all we have to point at the fact
that the world has become very small today. During the centuries social communities have become broader and broader, the medieval seclusion of the nations has been left behind, large distances between one place on
the globe and another can easily be covered. When, a hundred years ago, it was a thrilling sensation to meet a 'real' Indian in any European country it has today become a matter of course. Everywhere you meet
foreigners, and everybody can become very easily a foreigner be going to another country.
But what matters most it that our time is characterised by international interdependence, and this makes the endeavour for understanding the alien
indispensable. The limitation of global resources, the need for exchanging technical know-how, the international mobility of manpower, etc. demand intercultural relations and active endeavour for mutual
understanding. The time of national or even continental seclusion has gone irretrievably. On the contrary, the global situation is such that the homo-sapiens have become by their own fault a threatened species, and in order to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs have to work together. However, the demand for co-operation implies an endeavour to understand others, … international co-operation. The global problems of today need the whole global reservoir of world culture and world knowledge, for their solution as well as its intellectual capability. Simultaneously with the world becoming smaller and smaller there is a real chance for the world citizen to emerge. The cultural heritage of man has become more and more comprehensive, for it comprises in the course of time more and more elements of the heritage of the nations in the sense of world culture. In the past, it might have been sufficient for a civilised person to know the history of his own country only in order to be able to participate in shaping the future. Now, and even more so in the future, however, we must have knowledge as well as understanding of the history of other countries. Taking all this together we can say that any educational process should start from the proposition that from the objective point of view national seclusion is out of date, national egotism is a dangerous anachronism.. Nevertheless it still plays a decisive role in world politics.
In order to solve conflicts, dialogue is absolutely necessary, and the precondition for the openness for dialogue is mutual confidence, as
Federico Mayor once rightly has stated. (5) Therefore in the context of conflict education the question of confidence plays a very important role. Confidence must be developed. We have therefore to ask, what creates
confidence and how can we develop it?
Tolerance
means endurance and patience with the other's point of view. It means accepting the other even if one does not accept his positions. It is an active attitude of mind not to be confused up with passive indifference or tamasicquietism.
Tolerance, therefore, is inseparably linked with the endeavour for understanding the other, and this cannot be equated to being indifferent to others in the sense of "let him, he is different from us".
On the other hand the term tolerance loses its meaning if everybody has been brought into line. Tolerance can only be practised in case there are
differences and contrasts which one tolerates. Thus the demand for tolerance includes the acknowledgement of differences.
Tolerance has to be trained – at school, in the family, at work – in short- everywhere where people live and act. Tolerance as a behaviour
characteristic must be considered an indispensable aspect of democracy and freedom, of humanness and human dignity. Based on a positive image of including oneself one's own needs, it accepts others with all their
strength and weakness. Tolerance means the ability to continue an open relationship with others who differ in their leanings, evaluations and behaviour from one's own. Tolerance is a very demanding quality which is
marked by a willingness to take notice of others, to want to understand them, to look for possible common interests and to grant the others the same freedom of opinion and behaviour as to oneself.
So tolerance is clearly more than merely countenancing the views and behaviours of others. One of its most important prerequisites is modesty and the
acceptance of other persons, those who choose to differ on their thoughts and lives, and have different view. It is irreconcilable with dogmatism, obstinacy, conceit; and with a belief of having found the absolute
truth and knowledge on the path of human life. Tolerance is rooted in respect for the inviolability and the personal integrity of the other, for his or her conviction and orientation of behaviour so long as they do
not impair the freedom of others. Tolerance on the other hand has its limit: it will not countenance any kind of inhumanity such as glorification of violence, of war, of fascism, of racial or religious hatred,
hostility toward foreigners, or the violation of human rights and dignity by persons or groups.
Tolerance for our fellow citizens does not means a loss of consistency. We should be both tolerant and consistent with all our abilities. The main
problem in developing and encouraging tolerance as an attitude and ideal of behaviour is that our meritocracy and competitive society nearly represents everything but a bulwark of tolerance. Competition, as a
principle through which the vulnerable are defeated and put at a disadvantage, has very negative aspects.
Besides tolerance the ability to affirm
is imperative for peaceful conflict solution. This ability enables one to give time and attention to others who are very different, to listen actively, to comprehend and to adapt oneself. It is to be seen in such social behaviour as helpfulness, consideration and altruism. These attitudes in turn are prerequisites for dealing with conflicts in a non-egoistic way, for being able to create a humane atmosphere in interpersonal relationships and for arriving at a convergence when there are contradictory or contrary views. However, one must not rule out critical behaviour and voicing one's own opinion.
The development of empathyas a decisive attitude and as the basis for trust is also necessary. It includes consideration for others, even for
those one "does not like". This does not just address the importance of the conflict and its necessary resolution but one's own consternation, and above all, understanding the consternation of affected
conflict partners, showing an understanding for the role of the other. This creates an emotional bridge of trust.
The ability to bring point of view as closely together as possible, to reach compromise, is a major condition for a peaceful conflict
resolution. In this case a kind of self-determining conflict settlement is necessary. It means that partial agreement can be reached in a certain field. Yet partial agreement also means that no agreement is reached
in some areas. This process, too, i.e. giving up part of one's own position in the interest of preventing a conflict from escalation, must be learned in situations one can relate to.
The ability to co-operate, to work together in groups, makes it possible to achieve something together with others, be part of it and be
creative. As a start co-operation can be based on very diverse motives, ideas and interests. It requires respect and tolerance for others, given them their chance to present their own wishes despite a lack of
agreement. In practice this can be achieved through social learning. Basically, co-operation tends to resolve or remove conflict. It supports the individual in seeking to remove discord and reach a higher degree of
agreement.
Open-mindedness and the ability to think critically, the ability to criticise, to contradict and stand it to be criticised are further important
components of conflict resolution. This requires the ability to rid overall of the position of only accepting one's own opinions and points of view and to voice and accept criticism. If there are diverging or
contrary interests or points of view, one should not pass over them but raise them, search for their reasons, analyse opposite standpoints and, on the basis of substantiated arguments, put them at the service of
conflict resolution. An analysis and evaluation of conflicts in everyday life encourage a critical handling in settling conflict.
Thomas Gordon (6), has developed a co-operative conflict resolution model, called by him 'conflict settlement model', and which contains the following
steps:
- Identification and definition of the conflict
- Development of a possible solution
- Critical assessment of the alternatives
- Decision on the best solution
- Realisation of the decision
- Critical evaluation of the settlement
It is important for all conflict resolution models to develop willingness and ability to empathise with the attitudes of others. The term 'empathy'
implies understanding. In order to take on social tasks there is need to develop and build up confidence. Confidence is one of the relatively stable ways of behaving and involves openness, opening oneself and
confiding in someone. Confidence that is apparent in opening oneself up, even on difficult and touchy issues and in personal conflict statements, has something to do with positive expectations but also with risk –
as in abuse of confidence.
However, what should be the most decisive aspect within the complex of peace education and training for peace that is the feeling of responsibility
. Whether we discuss peace from the point of internal peace within the mind of men or whether we discuss global problems – we all as human beings are responsible for the world we live in. This responsibility was
vaguely felt by my granddaughter when she had asked me: "What can I do?" Many young people have this feeling but they lose it very soon when deeply disappointed by the behaviour of the adults in their
environment. In sheer despair they come to the conclusion: "We are not able to change anything". So we are of the opinion that the foremost task within the complex of peace education is to make everybody
aware that the whole world is our own in the sense that we are responsible for it and that we are able to change circumstances. We must not fall into despair. We must feel our strength. We have to look out for those
who have not lost courage, for like-minded people. We must look for people with awareness, being ready for co-operation with others with the same good intention and to repeat it: peace education is to make the
people aware that the whole world is ours.
The saying of Sarada Devi, the widow of Ramakrishna Paramahansa, the great saint, can be called a mahavakyaof the 21st century: "Learn to Make the Whole World Your Own. No One is a Stranger…"
References
(1) As an example we can take the list of publications on peace education, published by the "Verein für Friedenspädagogik", Tübingen, Germany
contains 2 publications before 1975, 7 titles for the years between 1975 and 1980, for 1981 3, 1982: 4, 1983: 3, 1984: 5, 1985: 3, 1986: 4, 1987: 6, 1988: 5, 1989: 3, 1990:4, 1991: 7, 1992: 1, 1993:0, 1994: 4 and
1995: 1. No further publication is mentioned.
(2) Wilhelm von Humboldt. Ueber den Dualis. In: Werke in fünf Bänden. Bd. III, Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. Darmstadt 1988 p. 113-143
(3) Der Ursprung und das Ende allen geheilten Seyns ist Einheit. Daher mag es stammen, dass die erste und einfachste Theilung, wo sich das Ganze nur
trennt, um sich gleich wieder, als gegliedert, zusammenzuschliessen, in der Natur die vorherrschende, und dem Menschen für den Gedanken die lichtvollste, für die Empfindung die erfreulichste ist." Loc. lit. p.
137
(4) Martin Buber. Ich und Du. Leipzig 1923
(5) In: Hans Küng, Karl-Josef Kusche (ed.) Weltfrieden duch Religionsfrieden. Antworten aus den Weltreligionen. München 1993, p. 13
(6) Thomas Gordon. The No-lose Program. For raising responsible children. Peter H. Wyden, ed. New York
top
|
