Education for peace: Latin American context

Likewise, following Ospina (2010), education for peace must be an ethical- political proposal of democratic emancipation carried out from the popular pedagogy. It must be the result of a progressive reform movement determined by the pluralism of institutions and pedagogical projects. Equally, in the words of Freire (2007), their duty is to develop in society the ability to govern and propose a true alternative to capitalism and despotic socialism. In this space, the teacher must assimilate that the insubordination of the student is a sign of vitality and intelligence, which must be channeled to direct it towards social creativity and not towards violence (Freire, 2007).

Following Freire (2012), the ultimate goal of education will be to free oneself from oppressive reality and injustice, its objective will be the radical metamorphosis of reality to modernize it, to make it more human. Education must allow a critical look at the world, the unfinished world. To transform hostile situations of oppression, education must take root in the popular culture. But it is not about encouraging the population to rebel, it is about challenging popular groups so that while working specifically on each one they discover, in critical terms, the violence and deep iniquity that characterizes their specific environment (Freire, 2012). For his part, Dietz (2012) points out that education for intercultural peace through complex learning aims to educate society as a whole and not only minorities. Similarly, the author makes a rescue of the notion of empowerment. At the same time, he recovers the school space as a focus of action. Regarding the specifically pedagogical task, he points out that this “[...] will consist not only in thematization of the existing heterogeneity in the classroom, but even in taking advantage of it to generate intragroup mechanisms of formulation, negotiation and conflict resolution among the students” (Dietz, 2012).

Concerning intercultural competences, these are mutually acquired through group interaction and will be used to develop cooperative learning. However, this model, focused on generating experiences of interculturality lived jointly by schoolchildren, calls for profound reforms, because “preparing for an intercultural society also requires carrying out profound transformations in the process of construction of knowledge and the norms that define school culture: giving the student a more active role in this construction, teaching to recognize the positive nature of the doubts and conflicts as engines of growth, helping to face high levels of uncertainty and providing experiences that allow living heterogeneity as a source of development and progress. And for education to achieve these reasons, it is necessary to change the traditional method, excessively focused on the activity of the teacher, and give students more power and more responsibility in their own learning” (Dietz, 2012).

Conclusions and prospects of further research

Thus, the study carried out allows us to maintain that in the Latin American pedagogical space, the peace education phenomenon is analyzed from different epistemological and theoretical positions: rationalism, empiricism, positivism and neopositivism, pragmatism, idealism, and radicalism. However, the specific contribution of this article is that basing on this research we can distinguish two main trends in the approach to peace education: realist-pragmatic-positivist (or “officialist”) and idealist- critical (or “alternative”, “progressive”). The representatives of the first trend visualize peace education from the rational-practical point of view, implementing pragmatic solutions (sometimes superficial) in conditions of the given current socioeconomic situation. They choose to promote the peace culture through different academic and cultural events (courses, workshops, forums, conferences, colloquia, seminars, festivals, exhibitions, cultural weeks, talks, etc.), the purpose of which is basically to explain to the population the negative effects of conflict, violence and the benefits of “living in peace and harmony”. They conceptualize peace education from the positivist position, pragmatic pedagogy, educational technology, resilience pedagogy, mindfulness pedagogy, among others.

Educational researchers, who are supporters of the second trend, operate the categories of dialectical philosophy and neo-Marxism, the historical-cultural approach, the critical theory, the institutional analysis, the critical curricular approach, the radical or critical pedagogy and theories of cultural reproduction, the resistance pedagogy, the pedagogy of the oppressed, the border pedagogy, the complex thinking and pedagogy in complexities, the intercultural pedagogy and cultural relativism.

The representatives of the idealist-critical position intended to build the new educational ideal: a free, innovative, reflective and self-reflective human being (the one that understands the Other through self-understanding), critical, plural, capable of self-training, self-organization, living in a multicultural environment, knowing how to listen, understand, be sensitive to the experience and condition of the Other, be perceptive with the environment. They seek to build education based on complex thinking that tries to understand the world and form the ability to establish different dimensions with reality; grounded on the ideas of interculturality, which are embodied in a non-discriminatory integrative system; supported by cultural relativism that admits as valid any practice for the sole fact of being the production of a social group; the one that considers the conflict as an indispensable part of the human being and knows how to channel it to create good, initiate dialogue and negotiation; the one that involves the family and society in the educational process.

It is about the new school model where peaceful subjects will be educated, away from the homogeneous idea of culture and ideological hegemony; where humans aware that thought is complex, non-linear, horizontal, will be trained; with individuals who value the dialectical units of the simple and the complex, chance, uncertainty, chaos, disorder, indeterminacy and emergence, who build their own systems of ideas, knowledge, theories, who are subjects from their real perspective, concrete and contextualized related to the totality through intercultural communication and logical pluralism acting when necessary in a non-traditional way and finding alternative steps to fulfill daily or professional tasks, who are citizens capable of critically exercising their citizenship and building a life project.

This new education aims to lead human to “overcome the limits”, transgress the borders to know the Other in their own sense, create “an area on the fringes of the border”, generate the intercultural mechanisms for the formation of their socio-cultural experience; it leads them to the equitable articulation of a different without a hegemonic center.

Our future research should focus on finding out the specific features of education for peace, in particular, through a detailed comparative analysis of the characteristics of the peace education and education for peace in the Latin American educational space.

References

1. Abrego F.M. (2010). La situation de la education para la paz en Mexico en la actualidad [The situation of education for peace in Mexico today]. Espacio publico, Vol, 13, № 27, Mexico, UAEM. (in Spanish)

2. Arboleda Z., Herrera M., Prada M. (2017). Que es educar y formar para la paz y como hacerlo? [What is educating and training for peace and how to do it?]. Educacion y Pedagogia para la Paz. Material para la practica, Bogota (Colombia), PNUD, OIM. (in Spanish)

3. Bauman Z. (2013). Sobre la educacion en un mundo Uquido [On education in a liquid world]. Barcelona, Paidos. (in Spanish)

4. Blanco Bosco E. (2011). Los lmites de la escuela. Educacion, desigualdad y aprendizaje en Mexico [School boundaries. Education, inequality and learning in Mexico]. Mexico, COLMEX. (in Spanish)

5. Blanco R. (2007). Educacion de calidad para todos. Un asunto de derechos humanos [Quality education for all. A matter of human rights]. Documento de discusion para pohticas educativas en el marco de la II Reunion Intergubernamental del Proyecto Regional de Educacion para America Latina y el Caribe [Discussion document for educational policies in the framework of the II Intergovernmental Meeting of the Regional Education Project for Latin America and the Caribbean]. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 29 y 30 de marzo de 2007, Buenos Aires, EPT/PRELAC. (in Spanish)

6. Boote D., Beile P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, № 6, 3-15.

7. Cajigal Molina, Erick, Maldonado Gonzalez, Ana Luda, Gonzalez Gaudiano, Edgar (2017). Resiliencia en docentes: una via para mejorar capacidades de las poblaciones ante inundaciones agravadas por el cambio climatico [Resilience in teachers: a way to improve the capacities of populations in the face of floods aggravated by climate change]. Revista Dialogo Educacional, Vol.17 (55), 1445-1464. (in Spanish)

8. Caldera J., Aceves B., Reynoso O. (2016). Resiliencia en estudiantes universitarios. Un estudio comparado entre carreras [Resilience in university students. A comparative study between races]. Psicogente, Vol. 19(36), 227-239. (in Spanish)

9. Centro virtual de la pedagog^a ignaciana, Selecciones de Diciembre 2018-Enero 2019 [Virtual Center for Ignatian Pedagogy, December 2018-January 2019 Selections] (2019). Pedro Arrupe y su apuesta por la educacion [Pedro Arrupe and his bet on education]. Conferencia de Provinciales en America Latina - CPAL. (in Spanish)

10. Dietz G. (2012). Multiculturalismo, interculturalidad y diversidad en educacion: una aproximacion antropologica [Multiculturalism, interculturality and diversity in education: an anthropological approach]. Mexico, FCE. (in Spanish)

11. Freire P. (2007). La educacion como practica de la libertad [Education as a practice of freedom], Santiago de Chile, Siglo XXI. (in Spanish)

12. Freire P. (2012). Pedagogia de la indignacion. Cartas pedagogicas en un mundo revuelto [Pedagogy of outrage. Pedagogical letters in a troubled world]. Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI. (in Spanish)

13. Garnica J. (2015). La educacion para la paz en situaciones de conflicto armado. Construyendo un nuevo enfoque desde el caso de los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados [Education for peace in situations of armed conflict. Building a new approach from the case of the Occupied Palestinian Territories]. Tesis doctoral, Instituto de derechos humanos “Bartolome de las Casas”, Getafe. (in Spanish)

14. Grasa R. (2000). Evolution de la Education para la Paz. La centralidad del conflicto para la agenda del siglo XXI [Evolution of Education for Peace. The centrality of conflict for the 21st century agenda]. Cuadernosdepedagogia, № 287, 52-56. (in Spanish)

15. Hernandez Arteaga I., Luna Hernandez J., Cadena Chala M. (2017). Cultura de Paz: Una Construction educativa. Aporte teorico [Culture of Peace: An Educational Construction. Theoretical contribution]. Revista Historia de la Education Latinoamericana, Vol. 19, № 28, enero-junio, 149-172. (in Spanish)

16. Herrero Rico S. (2012). La education para la paz desde la filosofia para hacer las paces: el enfoque REM (reconstructivo-empoderador) [Education for peace from the philosophy of making peace: the REM (reconstructive-empowering) approach]. Tesis Doctoral, Instituto Interuniversitario de Desarrollo Social y Paz, Doctorado International de Estudios de Paz, Conflicto y Desarrollo, Universitat Jaume-I, Castellon. (in Spanish)

17. Jares X. (2001). Education y conflicto como retos en la education infantil, en Congreso europeo: Aprende a ser, aprende a vivir juntos [Education and conflict as challenges in early childhood education, in European Congress: Learn to be, learn to live together]. Santiago de Compostela, World Association of Early Childhood Educators. (in Spanish)

18. Jimenez Bautista F. (2016). Paz intercultural. Europa, buscando su identidad Intercultural [Intercultural peace. Europe, looking for its Intercultural identity]. Revista de Paz y Conflictos, Vol. 9, № 1. (in Spanish)

19. Ladron de Guevara L. (1978). Metodologia de investigation cientifica [Scientific research methodology]. Bogota, Universidad de Santo Tomas. (in Spanish)

20. Londono Palacio, Olga Lutia, Maldonado Granados, Luis Facundo, Calderon Villafanez, Liccy Catalina (2016). Gmapara construir el estado del arte [Guide to building the state of the art]. Bogota, ICONK (in Spanish)

21. Martinez Guzman, V. (2015). Intersubjetividad, interculturalidad y pohtica desde la filosofia para la paz [Intersubjectivity, interculturality and politics from the philosophy for peace]. Themata: Revista de filosofia, № 52, 147-158. (in Spanish)

22. Ocejo A., Hernandez V. (2016). Derechos humanos y education para la paz [Human rights and education for peace]. Mexico, Universidad Iberoamericana. (in Spanish)

23. Ospina J. (2010). La education para la paz como propuesta etico-potitica de emancipation democratica. Origen, fundamentos y contenidos [Education for peace as an ethical-political proposal for democratic emancipation. Origin, foundations and contents]. Universitas. Revista de Filosofia, Derecho y Poltiica, # 11(1), 93-125. (in Spanish)

24. Perez-Viramontes G. (2018). Construir paz y trasformar conflictos. Algunas claves desde la educacion, la investigacion y la cultura de paz [Build peace and transform conflicts. Some keys from education, research and the culture of peace]. Tlaquepaque, Jalisco (Mexico), ITESO. (in Spanish)

25. Poder Ejecutivo Federal (2019). Plan de Desarrollo National 2019-2024 [National Development Plan 2019-2024]. (in Spanish)

26. Quiroga Trigo M. (2012). Conceptos sobre comunicacion intercultural. Comunicacion y ciudadania intercultural, en Antonio Aramayo Tejada (coord.) [Concepts on intercultural communication. Communication and intercultural citizenship, in Antonio Aramayo Tejada (coord.)] Memories de los Seminarios Comunicacion para una ciudadama integral e intercultural [Proceedings of the Seminars Communication for an integral and intercultural citizenship]. La Fundacion UNIR Bolivia. (in Spanish)

27. Red Nacional de Organizaciones Civiles de Derechos Humanos (2017). Todos los derechos para todas y todos. La esperanza no se agota: Situation de las personas defensoras de los Derechos Humanos durante la presidencia de Enrique Pena Nieto [All rights for all. Hope is not exhausted: Situation of human rights defenders during the presidency of Enrique Pena Nieto]. Primera Edicion, Mexico. (in Spanish)

28. Salazar Mastache I. (2009). Paz y ciudadama en el proceso de formation basica de los jovenes de secundaria [Peace and citizenship in the basic training process of high school youth]. Revista del Colegio de Estudios de Posgrado de la Ciudad de Mexico [Journal of the College of Postgraduate Studies of Mexico City]. Mexico, EUMED. (in Spanish)

29. Savater F. (1997). El valor de educar [The value of educating]. Barcelona, Ariel. (in Spanish)

30. SEP (2020). Programa Sectorial de Education 2020-2024 [Education Sector Program 2020-2024]. Mexico, SEP (in Spanish)

31. Tapia L. (2002). La condition multisocietal. Multiculturalidad, pluralismo, modernidad [The multisocietal condition. Multiculturality, pluralism, modernity]. La Paz, Bolivia, CIDES-UMSA/Muela del Diablo. (in Spanish)

32. Tuvilla Rayo J. (2004). Cultura de paz y education. Manual de Paz y Conflictos [Culture of peace and education. Peace and Conflict Manual]. Granada, Universidad de Granada. (in Spanish)

33. UNESCO (1995). Declaration y el Plan de Action Integrado sobre la Education para la Paz, los Derechos Humanos y la Democracia [Declaration and Integrated Action Plan on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy]. Conferencia General de la UNESCO, Paris, UNESCO (in Spanish)

34. Vera Poseck, Beatriz, Carbelo Baquero, Begona, Vecina Jimenez, Maria Luisa (2006). The traumatic experience from positive psychology: resiliency and post-traumatic growth, Papeles del Psicologo, Vol. 27(1), 40-49.

35. Vidanes Diez J. (2007). La education para la paz y la no violencia [Education for peace and non-violence]. La Revista Iberoamericana de Education, № 42/2, 10-30. (in Spanish)

36. Volkov G. (1980). Los metodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en el estudio de la ciencia. El futuro de la ciencia: Perspectivas. Hipotesis. Problemas no solucionados [Qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of science. The future of science: Perspectives. Hypothesis. Unresolved issues]. Anuario international, Ed. 3, Mosch, pp. 53-60. (in Spanish)

37. Walsh C. (2015). Interculturalidad? Fantasmas, fantasias y funcionalismos [Interculturality? Ghosts, fantasies and functionalisms] in C. Montufar, F. Balseca, Ecuador: desafios para el presente y el futuro [Ecuador: challenges for the present and the future]. Quito, Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar/Ediciones La Tierra, pp. 269-288. (in Spanish)

38. Zhizhko E. (2019). Aproximaciones a la education para la paz: dimensiones temporal y teorica [Approaches to education for peace: temporal and theoretical dimensions]. Kyiv, Publisher LAT&K. (in Spanish)

Размещено на Allbest.ru