The resettled Greater Sudanese diaspora experiences complex conflicts in a myriad of ways. These range from gender to identity to intergenerational and religious. Some are dependent on interactions with the host country, others the homeland, and others occur solely within the diaspora itself.
Building on a Capacity Development approach, which seeks to enable and facilitate application of existing capacity, it is clear that any framework for assistance should be created collaboratively at all levels, promoting learning exchange and capacity development of diaspora communities in a ‘bottom-up-top-down’ approach’ wherein individuals are considered ‘responsible co- creators’ involved in joint problem solving and creative, collaborative development rather than recipients of an intervention (Ekblad et al, 2004).
Peace Education is an obvious inclusion in this discussion of differing educational models as opportunities for transforming conflict within the Greater Sudanese diaspora, with its direct focus on reframing mindsets and altering prejudice toward a peaceful coexistence. One significant consideration for this method in a resettlement context, however, is whether Peace Education is itself an inclusive or exclusive program within broader society. An exclusive approach would include only members of the diaspora, whilst an inclusive approach would involve broader society alongside the diaspora, seeking to include all children in the formal K-12 schooling system. Excluding society, and
including only the Sudanese diaspora in this education may decrease hostility within that group, simultaneously building a common external ‘other’ that is the broader society. This is also unhelpful. But if all of society’s children are included in the Peace Education program, it should be considered whether the program could maintain its relevance for those within the nuanced and complex social conflict dynamics of the Sudanese diaspora, or if this might be lost in the broadening process of inclusion.
Structural integration through vocational, bridging and language education is another way to address conflict, without focusing on, or delineating, identity or history. The focus instead is on allowing individuals the opportunity to develop greater autonomy through economic integration, in this instance assisting Greater Sudanese diaspora members to enter and progress in the workforce, along with associated positive psychological impacts and coping mechanisms. This reliance on economic integration, with its flow-on effects to broader social connection and self-esteem raises highly disputed questions in the field of migration studies, of integration versus multiculturalism – emphasizing either the host society, or the migrant community, as the most significant potential source of support. This model perhaps warrants similar criticism to Peace Education, in its individualized focus. Beyond attempting to ensure equal access to employment opportunity throughout the diaspora, it otherwise ignores this microcosm of community within which Sudanese migrants operate. Structural integration through employment has no aim to specifically build the capacity of this group, focusing instead only on the individual. This may be less appropriate for Greater Sudanese cultural groups that have been demonstrated to strongly uphold community and communal identity.
Community Development Programs take a communal approach to conflict resolution, relying on improved social interaction and mechanisms to improve issues of social dislocation. This appears highly congruent with the cultures present in the Sudanese diaspora. This model does, however, also face risks that activists and community workers focus only on the diaspora, potentially alienating the rest of the community. A sole focus on building the diaspora capacity whilst ignoring a surrounding societal environment that has been demonstrated to be hostile to such groups and individuals is surely limited in its potential positive impact, if not counter-productive.
In acknowledging the importance of externalities, it is prudent to note the exacerbating impact these externalities have on diaspora conflict, and yet also acknowledge that this is not the sole factor – that diaspora conflict also occurs in separation from broader society. Historical animosities and asymmetrical acculturation conflict may be generated by migration conditions, though they do not result solely from interaction with host society itself. Thus, whilst it is an important factor, if we eliminated the external racism, there is no evidence that this would solve the problem of conflict in the diaspora. It must thus be decided which is more important for Community Development Programs - diaspora community building, or integration with the local community. Given this evidence, an obvious answer would be ‘both’. Issues exclusive to the diaspora that promote or provoke conflict must be adequately addressed, and broader societal issues of racism and stigmatization should also be acknowledged and addressed if the diaspora is to be afforded equal access to structural and social inclusion.
Each of these three models has been demonstrated to provide an opportunity for peace- building within the Sudanese diaspora context: One through deliberate and structured broadening of perspectives; one through increased economic participation in society; and one through increased social engagement. Each of these is also impacted by perceptions and prejudices held by wider society, and all would benefit from awareness raising and counter-racism campaigns at a broader societal level. In assessing the validity and potential of the three educational foci: Individualized Peace Education; Systemic Integration; and Social Integration, the question should be asked: if this were the only educational opportunity, would it in itself transform hostilities?
The individualized nature of vocational education means that whilst mindsets might well be changed, the outcome is highly dependent on circumstances to be successful, as ongoing economic participation is required for such positive attitudinal responses to be upheld. Likewise, the nature of classroom Peace Education makes it dependent on willingness and capacity to deliver such education, based on the teacher-student model, without which it lacks use as it is not well-adapted to self-learning, and has not demonstrated its sustainability beyond target communities and formal
programs. It is structurally reliant. For both of these models this is a significant disadvantage, as the threat to fracture is increased through this external reliance as diaspora members find themselves subject to broader actors of the economy and schooling systems.
Comparatively, Community Development Programs through dialogue offer potentially robust alternatives, reinforced by communal investment to withstand the ebbs and flows of existence, empowering the diaspora community itself to navigate conflict, both current and future, should it emerge. The other two forms of education are in themselves very useful, and should not be discounted for their importance and potential impact on the diaspora, however it is through grassroots dialogue and community building that people will be able to communicate their needs, discuss issues of concern such as gender norms, offer healing to each other for past and present trauma, and collectively build resilient capacity to address the challenges of the future.
Education is a powerful force in conflict. This happens formally, through systematic, organized and deliberate presentation of content; non-formally, through those educational processes occurring outside formal structures, though still demonstrating deliberate educational content; and informally, as education occurs throughout daily existence with no obligation on the student, or predetermined direct educational outcome. None of the educational approaches presented here offers certainty in conflict resolution, nor do they have the capacity to independently achieve holistic conflict transformation. Yet each of these three educational areas: Peace Education, Vocational Education, and Community Development Programming have been demonstrated to hold significant value in decreasing the potential for diaspora conflict. The potential impact of education in all these forms on the process of reconciliation is immense, as its immense capacity to modify mindsets, promote inclusion and enable social justice are clearly evident. In the case of the Greater Sudanese diaspora, such educational initiatives offer significant peace-building opportunities to traumatized individuals and fractured and disempowered communities.
Mother Teresa famously said, ‘If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.’ Education offers us the re-discovery of this interconnectedness, structurally, socially and in our humanity. It provides the conditions to allow members of the Greater Sudanese
diaspora to recognize anew their common belonging as people, and as migrants, and it allows resettlement societies to take steps toward meaningfully including, and celebrating, this group within their midst.