- Colman McCarthy,
Former columnist for The Washington Post and peace education pioneer
Glorious multiculturalism and mindless violence are inescapable and intertwined realities in this, our troubled present. Yet they are by no means exclusive to the 21st century. In the Mediterranean world, the Middle East and here in south Asia, society has always been a cultural mosaic. The fact is that multiculturalism does not necessarily translate into violence. But history is replete with examples of cultural differences exploding into prolonged war and conflict.
How then do we break the cycle of violence and talk peace in a multicultural world? How do we move from managing and resolving intercultural conflict to transforming it into positive peace, that state of well-being characterized by trust, compassion, and justice, in which we can be encouraged to explore as well as celebrate our diversity, and search for the good in each other and that which provides us a chance to look at ourselves and others as part of the human family, part of one world?
The answer lies in producing generational changes in the attitudes of children and young adults through programs that emphasize reason, critical thinking, openness, non-violence and love of truth and by introducing them to the languages, cultures, histories and religions of other societies in addition to their own. Teach about peace and, more importantly, for peace to create the first generation of peace to literate this century.
Such peace education begins with dispelling ignorance about the others. To achieve this end former Icelandic President Vigdis Finnbogadottir raised the interesting idea of cultural literacy to match literacy and computer literacy. Cultural literacy - based on the foundation that all cultures have an equal right to exist - is doubtlessly a key skill required by multicultural communities in this century, but one that is rarely taught. If introduced into the school curriculum, it can provide young people the necessary basis to understand other cultures and thus counter the lack of knowledge that breeds fear, suspicion and rejection of the other. Cultural teaching can also be integrated into regular subjects in the curricula such as history (where the connection to culture is obvious) and mathematics (where connections are more remote). The study of foreign languages can serve as an important means of bridging cultural gaps. (Acknowledging this, the EU declared 2001 as the Year of Languages urging citizens to learn at least one foreign language). This new form of literacy would help in understanding what Aotullah Mohajerani of the Teheran-based International Centre for Dialogue among Civilizations calls the global spirit of culture. “Cultural distinctions shall remain valuable and rightful,” says Mohajerani, “as they increase the options facing mankind, as the expansion of human choices.”
In tune with cultural literacy is ethical literacy, the study of the ethical systems of different cultures to highlight convergence around concepts such as dignity, justice, freedom and equality.
Thus cultural and ethical literacy programs will enable young people to explore similarities and approach differences with respect and a sense of equality. They may also be employed to develop a sense of global citizenship among the youth of the world in addition to their existing cultural and national identities. In her 2001 paper The Question of Universality Versus Particularity, Ioanna Kucuradi of Ankara’s Hashtep University suggested the introduction of courses in the pre university education curriculum whose aim would be to help pupils become aware of their “human identity - our only common identity.” This acceptance and knowledge of global multiculturalism will set the stage for concrete intercultural dialogue.
Most countries are hardly isolationists when it comes to international relations and foreign policy. Civil and beneficial commercial dialogue of different sorts has existed between cultures and civilizations for a long time. Such dialogue needs to make a paradigm shift from being merely technical to what Peter Kemp calls ‘existential’ in Towards a Dialogue of Learning and Criticism (2001). “Only this type of dialogue,” he writes “makes it possible to learn wisdom from the other.” Inspired by the dialogues recommended in Michael Amaldoss’ Studies in Inter-religious Dialogue (1988), Kemp advocates four levels of existential dialogue between cultures. To begin with there is the dialogue of life among ordinary people discussing everyday life. This dialogue becomes the basis of all other dialogues as it provides the opportunity to experience the other as a fellow human being. At the next level of communication is the dialogue of intellectual exchange among specialists attempting to understand ways of thinking and expression in foreign cultures. At the third level is the dialogue of spiritual exchange, a kind of universal ethos shared by human beings from different cultural backgrounds. The final dialogue is that of common action, arising out of participation in common projects. At this stage dialogue is converted into communication, one that includes learning and criticism. It is crucial that all demographic sections - from policy makers and business leaders to youth and women - join such dialogue initiated through joint projects, student, professionals and/or citizen exchange programs, electronic networking etc.
To transform conflict, it is necessary not merely to re-humanize the other but to actively commit to peace while acknowledging the inevitability of conflict. Consequently, pacifism, non-violence and alternative means of conflict resolution need to be taught to young people constantly surrounded by a discourse of violence. Non-military community service on the lines of the Peace Corps may be considered at various levels.
However, we live in a system that systematically teaches violence. The baggage of exclusionary national identities weighs us down. The family, community and media perpetuate barrages of negative images.
Adults, including educators and parents, carry their own prejudices. And the very act of dialogue with the other is sometimes construed as betrayal. We have to find innovative means of addressing these problem areas if we are serious about teaching peace to the next generation.
These very real problems are indicators of the enormity of the task ahead. But to transform conflict into sustainable peace, we must necessarily evolve from solely managing/resolving conflict after it has exploded in our faces to a transformed state of awareness that all humans have equal rights to full and satisfying lives. Promoting cultural, ethical and peace literacy and initiating ‘multi-loges’ could be significant steps in this direction. Of course, attitudinal change through formal and informal peace building strategies cannot be brought about in a few years or even a decade. Even with a long-term vision, many in the post 9/11 and Gulf War II world consider it naive to think that we can in fact transform conflict into positive peace by merely teaching about and for peace.
« return.