In a couple of weeks I’m giving a talk on educating for global citizenship, at a Buddhist-linked institute devoted to promoting peace. The center urges that everyone take on a personal responsibility for world peace — that the goal can’t be left to policymakers alone, which seems obvious enough — and I’m looking forward to the occasion.
In one sense, I’m quite comfortable with the topic. I believe that education has a role in helping students assess developments like globalization or the rise of China in ways that might, at least, promote more peaceful understandings. The habits of mind I try to work on, for example in teaching about world history, including openness to diverse cultures and a better understanding of interactions between the local and the global, which again are compatible with greater attention to the goals of peace.
And it’s pretty obvious that it’s historically valid to point up the violence of the past century of the human experience, and even the increasing militarization of American society from World War II onward, as components in any discussion of global citizenship.
Where I get a bit nervous, however, is the point at which these topics begin to spill over into current political partisanship. I can’t say that I’m heroically successful at concealing political inclinations in my teaching, but I certainly try to promote an open atmosphere in which diverse views can be presented without anxiety, where no single set of ethics is given absolute pride of place. This may be particularly important for someone in my dual capacity as both a teacher and a university official. The problem with the peace topic, or subsets like American militarism, is that partisan wrangles are virtually inescapable. I certainly appreciate advocates who would argue that the transcendent importance of peace, and its obvious elusiveness, trump any need to be nonpartisan. I’m close to that view, but actively feel the tension with my eagerness to remain inclusive. I’ll obviously highlight the tension as part of my presentation, and look forward to some constructive response.
Reading this new post from Provost Stearns this early morning surely makes my day because “Educating for Peace” and educating for conflict prevention and social responsibility are learning disciplines close to my heart. I am truly excited to be on the Provost’s Blog this new day, on this trying journey called life!
From my humble academic expertise as an earlier UNESCO-IBE: International Bureau of Education Communications Research Consultant involved in educational policy, curriculum development and creation at a global level, I have always made it clear that at all levels of the world’s education system [primary/elementary, secondary/high school, university/college], educating for conflict prevention, peace, tolerance, human rights, cultural understanding and social responsibility must wisely be part of the curriculum; even more so intensively, crucially, at the university or college level because it is from this final stage that many people get their opportunity to play appropriate roles of service in the society.
Also, I have always been a realistic and humane educational systems professional; and an inclusive global strategies advocate of the indispensability, even for my cherished distinguished George Mason University, of the four pillars of education: Learning to Know, Learning to Do, Learning to Live Together and Learning to Be; for it is in Learning to Live Together that we educate for peace in the minds of people as UNESCO’s mandate and watchword upholds in true action. However, in an encompassing intellectual and academic perspective, the four pillars of education must always go together. One cannot be taught or learned without others.
Indeed, I am very happy that Professor Stearns will soon be talking on “Educating for Peace.” And surely, I’ll be glad to make any personal and direct research input he deems necessary, if needed.
Again, let me say that it’s been worthwhile and inspiring being on the Provost’s Blog this new day.
Interestingly, exploring and talking about the worthy and humane reality of educating for peace and global citizenship “at a Buddhist-linked institute devoted to promoting peace” will surely involve approaching the topic from a learning-to-live-together concept deeply rooted in religious, inter-faith, philosophical, secular education and psychological dimensions; including Buddhist doctrine of metta and mindfulness plus meditational perspectives – since practical peace originating from a person’s mind is a basic and crucial teaching of Buddhism.
Being an outstanding world-class historian of excellent multi-cultural proportions in character and being, I trust that Professor Stearns will do soulfully beneficial justice to the topic in the interest of humankind and distinguished George Mason University.
Let not the abiding sense of your “dual capacity as both a teacher and a university official” come in here – in any conflicting manner. But contemplatively handle the talk as a seasoned historian and, more importantly, as a homosapien (Latin: “wise man” or “knowing man”) with high stakes in getting academic and intellectual views plus learning strategies of educating for peace and global citizenship so right for humanity.