Peace education has been provided by various countries, educational systems, programmes, and objectives. These cause the core contents of each peace education programme to be created differently depending on their purposes (Salomon, 2002:1-13; Bar-Tal, 2002:27-39). Therefore, the content of peace education is still ambiguous, even among experts, about what should be included in peace education (Hakvoort, 2010). Research into peace education has identified varying constituent aspects of the contents
67
of peace education. Reardon (1988) reviewed hundreds of peace curricula guides ranging from kindergarten to high school. It was concluded that there were “as yet
neither clear and precise limits to, nor standards for, what is to be included in peace education” (Ibid: xix). However, some scholars identified the common themes for
educators to develop the contents of their peace education programmes. For example, Aspeslagh (1996) identified five key domains of educating for a culture of peace: the international system, peace, development, human rights, and environment. The content of peace education depends on the nature of each case and its objectives for the programme. For example, peace education in divided societies, such as Northern Ireland and Cyprus, has the aims to promote social cohesion and educate people to move toward reconciliation. The contents of peace education need to be considered around promoting knowledge about “the other,” fostering attitude of appreciating the values of mutual respect, equity and tolerance, and building the skills and behaviours needed to live and work interdependently in an increasingly diverse world (Johnson, 2007). The contents of peace education in regions of tranquillity are respect for life, equality, and democracy (Hakvoort, 2010:299).
The largest organisation concerning peace education, UNESCO (UNESCO, 1998a), identified six components of peace education: respect for human rights and freedoms, commitment to non-violence, adherence to principles of justice, democracy and tolerance, commitment to development and environment, and equal rights for women and men. Many peace education agencies have adopted and modified these components to fit their contexts, for example UNICEF.
The contents of peace education promoted by UNICEF are found in three main categories; namely knowledge, skills and attitudes, as follows:
“Knowledge - Awareness of own needs, self-awareness, Understanding nature of conflict and peace, Ability to identify causes of conflict, and non-violent means of resolution, Conflict analysis, Enhancing knowledge of community mechanisms for building peace and resolving conflicts, Mediation process, Understanding of rights and responsibilities, Understanding interdependence
68
between individuals and societies, Awareness of cultural heritage, Recognition of prejudice.
Skills - Communication: active listening, self-expression, paraphrasing, reframing, Assertiveness, Ability to cooperate, Affirmation, Critical thinking, Ability to think critically about prejudice, Ability to deal with stereotypes, Dealing with emotions, Problem-solving, Ability to generate alternative solutions, Constructive conflict resolution, Conflict prevention, Participation in society on behalf of peace, Ability to live with change.
Attitudes - Self-respect, positive self-image, strong self-concept, Tolerance, acceptance of others, respect for differences, Respect for rights and responsibilities of children and parents, Bias awareness, Gender equity, Empathy, Reconciliation, Solidarity, Social responsibility, Sense of justice and equality, Joy in living.” (Fountain, 1999:14-16)
Some contents of these three categories within UNICEF might be seen to be overlapping. However, they relate to UNESCO’s components. Another organisation working toward the UNESCO framework is the Hague Agenda for Peace (HAP). The contents of peace education addressed in HAP have an emphasis on abolishing war and all forms of terrorism as follows: “democracy and human rights, nonviolence, social and economic justice, gender equality, environmental sustainability, disarmament, traditional peace practices, and human security” (HAP, 2005).
The contents of peace education models vary depending on the purposes of the different models. For example, Reardon and Cabezudo (2002) reviewed peace education curricula across the world to develop a teaching resource for the Global Campaign for Peace Education for the Hague Appeal for Peace. The model was called the Learning to Abolish War Model (LAWM) which emphasises four strands of learning as the contents, namely; root causes of conflict, international law, conflict management and global disarmament. The detail of LAWM is presented in section 3.6.1. In Central America, Brenes-Castro (2004: 83) developed the Integral Model of Peace Education (IMPE) to educate people to realise universal values in order to live peacefully in a sustainable relationship with our biosphere. The contents of peace education in this
69
model could be drawn from these three components as follows. The first concerns peace with one’s self, including peace of mind, peace of heart and peace with the body. The learners should learn about self-appreciation, self-realisation, autonomy, harmony, love and compassion, tolerance, psychosomatic harmony, consciousness of needs, and the right use of satisfiers. For the second, peace with others concerns culture of democracy, political and social participation, and healing for all. Participants should learn about critical participation, responsibility, solidarity, democratic participation, promotion of common good, peaceful conflict resolution, generosity, being the guide for having and doing, and economic security. In the third component participants explore peace with nature concerning ecological consciousness, biodiversity, and natural balance, and should learn about identity with the cosmos, evolutionary potential, respect for life, biocratic participation, protection, conservation, integrity of natural systems, sustainable resource use, and ecological security.
The detail of IMPE is presented in section 3.6.2. In the Asia-Pacific region, Swee-Hin (2004a) developed the Flower-petal Model of Peace Education (FMPE) to educate people for international understanding toward a culture of peace. The model has six categories relating to their contents, namely dismantling the culture of war, environmental peace, education for justice and compassion, human rights education, cultivating intercultural solidarity, and harnessing inner peace (see details in section 3.6.3). In the regions experienced with war, or post-war countries such as Bosnia, Danesh (2006) developed the Integrative Theory of Peace focusing on the creation of unity in the context of diversity. In order to do this, participants need a set of knowledge and skills to create a healing and peaceful culture out of the ruins of conflict, violence and war. He stated that:
“The skills taught are primarily about how to create peace within ourselves, between us and other individuals, in our families, in our places of work, in our communities and finally in the context of whole nations.” (Ibid: 75)
70
set of knowledge and skills for creating peace such as a study of the unity-based worldview, a study of elements of a culture of peace, a study of elements of a culture of healing, and a study of all subjects within the framework of peace (details are presented in section 3.6.4). In America, Kester (2008) developed the Peace Education Programme model (PEPM) for educators to educate students for peace by considering their educational contexts. A PEP model was developed based on IMPE, LAWM, FMPE, and also UPMAPEP (the University for Peace Master of Art in Peace Education programme). The contents of PEPM were organised through two integral themes that were the analysis of social problems and the exploration of root causes of conflicts. The details are presented in section 3.6.5.
The contents of peace education promoted in the large organisations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and HAP are concerned mainly with factors of improved understanding among people and cultures, and human security. The individual scholars expressed the contents based on their own interests and experiences.
Whilst the contents addressed in peace education models are variously expressed depending on the purposes and regions of the programmes, the common contents can be seen to be non-violence, tolerance, human rights, democracy, and environment. These are relevant to the Thai contexts as follows. In Thailand, all forms of violence (e.g. direct, structural and cultural violence) can be seen in many aspects. The tolerance among people, ethnicities and religions is limited. The evidence can be seen in the conflicts of the “Yellow shirt” and the “Red shirt”, and violence in southern Thailand. With regard to human rights, Thailand has the Office of the National Human Rights Commission which works independently from the government to help and protect the rights of people. However, only NGOs and International organisations have acted on the matters of human rights, as stated by Suwansathit (2000) that “governments generally have never been known to be outstanding protectors of human rights or protectors of human rights education.” Environment in Thailand has been exploited and rapidly destroyed since the nation emphasised economic growth on industrial investment. This raised conflicts between local people and the state.
71