{"id":34808,"date":"2017-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-03-23T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ready-for-feedback3.com\/shape-history\/fmr\/davies-2\/"},"modified":"2024-08-27T14:37:32","modified_gmt":"2024-08-27T19:37:32","slug":"davies-2","status":"publish","type":"fmr_content","link":"https:\/\/www.fmreview.org\/fr\/davies-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding the education-war interface"},"content":{"rendered":"

Schooling potentially contributes to conflict by reproducing or hardening inequality, exclusion, social polarisation, ethnic\/religious identities, aggressive masculinity, fear and militarism. Schools may legitimate inequality and act to suppress action to challenge it. Schools engage in ‘war education’ through supporting or condoning physical and symbolic violence and fostering cycles of revenge and punishment.<\/p>\n

Schools need to challenge fundamentalist beliefs by teaching alternative realities and encouraging students to develop secure identities. Schools must be enabled to improve skills in political analysis and to gain confidence to teach about conflict. In order to help them do so, we have been preparing a typology of how war and peace are taught. It is a continuum of ten modes, some of which contribute to negative conflict, some appear neutral and some contribute to positive conflict.  <\/p>\n

The extreme poles both represent an ‘active’ approach and the middle a more passive one.<\/p>\n

Moving down the negative pole:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n\t\tThe ‘hate’ curriculum denigrates the enemy and extols the virtues of one’s own side.<\/li>\n
  2. \n\t\tThe ‘defence’ curriculum presents conflict as a constant threat and teaches students to use weapons.<\/li>\n
  3. \n\t\tStereotypes about ‘peoples’ or religions promote cross-border solidarity with those ‘like us’. <\/li>\n
  4. \n\t\tWar is presented as routine, normal and continuous: history lessons are mostly devoted to conflict, not peace. <\/li>\n
  5. \n\t\tSchools, particularly in conflict zones, omit mention of conflict lest it raise tensions. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Moving up the more positive side comes:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n\t\tteaching of ‘tolerance’ and respect for diversity – this can be dangerous if everything is to be tolerated without tools for analysis<\/li>\n
    2. \n\t\tteaching of conflict resolution techniques<\/li>\n
    3. \n\t\tprojects specifically focused on humanitarian law and rights during hostilities<\/li>\n
    4. \n\t\tprojects in divided communities encouraging dialogue, encounter and bringing people together<\/li>\n
    5. \n\t\tactive teaching about local, national and global conflict, providing skills to challenge aggression and to hold governments to account. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

      We are working to assess the contribution of education to human security in four interlinked areas:<\/p>\n