Morrison (2013), peace and war are not correlatives. Thus, peace education is not simply
taking an anti-war stance, as many might claim it to be. Peace education and those who
engage in it must consider how violence operates, and extend that analysis to look at what
structures and practices support violence. Additionally, the task of the peace educator is
to adopt a personal peace practice that extends to family, community, nation, and the
global society, and to engage students in a similar process.
In the Handbook of Peace Education, Johnson and Johnson (2009) assert that
there are three interrelated theories that are at the foundation of peace education efforts.
They include: “social interdependence theory (dealing with the nature of cooperation and
competition), constructive controversy theory (dealing with political discourse and
creative problem solving), and integrative negotiations theory (dealing with mutually
beneficial agreements)” (p. 223). Aspects of problem solving, communication,
cooperation, introspection, and agreement are evident and important. What is critical is
that educators begin to consider peace pedagogy and strategies aimed at peace education
by investigating the tenets of peace education and making personal commitments to
applying them, working first on inner peace, then extending it to peace in the classroom,
to the community, and to the world at large.
Harris and Morrison (2013) point out that peace education must encompass many
dimensions of human life, including economics, health, socialization, psychology, and
spirituality on local, national, and international levels. Philosophically, peace education
should be at the core of educational approaches and practices, not in the periphery. An
occasional unit or even a course about peace is not sufficient to counter the levels of
violence in society today. Indeed, peace education is not only about content; it is much
Previous Page Next Page