1.1 On the definition of peace

With the term of "Peace" the same thing happens as with many other concepts commonly used in the social, psychological and pedagogic practice: Everybody knows what it is, but nobody comes to an agreement on how to define it.

Many different factors come into play, from those referred to the geographical, economic and social context, to those concerning the social conscience, the development of the personality, and thought, to mention just a few.

This unit tries to assess all those criteria, without wanting to establish a universal definition of what peace is that will be accepted by everybody, but at least consider what has been set down about it and try to unify ideas and conceptions, in a way that distinguishes the relationship between what peace is, a peace culture, and peace education, and that one can know what is necessary to be done to accomplish that our children love peace, have favorable behavior to a peace attitude, and that we can educate them for it to be possible in the conditions of the present world.

Therefore, before beginning to outline how it will be possible to consider a peace education since early childhood, what can be a curriculum for it, and which components or contents have to be present, it has become crucial to try to reach a defined idea of the term "Peace."

A first definition, maybe the most commonly extended and popular would be the one links peace with the absence of war, ignoring in this case a more global and deeper idea of peace. From this point of view, the peace is simply that there is no war.

However, this simple definition does not take into account that there are inherent violations in the structures of the social systems that, without being a state of war, deny human rights, and therefore also deny a wider concept of peace in which the actions are normally framed in the matter of peace education or about human rights.

This concept of peace as the absence of war has been a prevailing concept for many years, for which it is usually called "traditional" and was inherited from the concept of Roman Pax which is that which identifies it as a simple nonexistence of military conflicts, and that in our current society, tends to be assessed by some specialists of the subject as the general absence of every kind of conflict.

This definition is clearly deficient, clearly restrictive, and, even, very closely related to a political approach. This has gradually made the concept of peace become increasingly assessed not as a word referred only to the antithesis of war, but to that of violence, from which war itself is nothing but a kind of organized violence.

In this sense some authors like J. Galtung have indicated that violence exists when human beings are influenced in a such way that their emotional, somatic and mental achievements are below their potential achievements, which assumes implicitly that there is a wider conception of violence that leads to a more extended notion of what peace is.

Extending in this sense, there is a direct violence that is expressed as direct physical aggression which is the violence that could be called traditional and that is easier to distinguish (like war is in itself), and an indirect and more hidden violence which is present in certain social structures named as structural violence, and that is a synonym concept of social injustice.

This kind of violence is defined, to begin with, as a kind of violence that is overlapped within the particularities of the social structure, and it expresses an uneven power and, therefore, as different opportunities of life, just as it happens when people that live in a society that has its resources unequally distributed, with different schooling possibilities according to the social stratum, or with uneven access to medical services, among other examples.

Thus, we find that under the term of violence we can group war as such, homicide, poverty and the lack of means of survival, repression, persecution and violation of human rights, alienation and negation of the man's higher needs, among others.

This notion of violence has had its expression in the educational level, where direct physical violence was well known for many years as a characteristic of traditional schooling which made extended and approved use of corporal punishment in the teaching and learning process, from the plain "ruler slapping" in the back of the hands, up to much more explicit aggressions performed by the teachers. Fortunately slogans such as "the letter with blood enters" that contains in it a whole treaty of violent pedagogy, have luckily been overcome, or very much prevailed over, in modern pedagogy, in which there have been imposed more humanist and personalized conceptions in the educational process.

Nevertheless, it still happens like this with the verbal and psychological violence even though much less evident that in the times of traditional schooling, still, educational investigations still reveal that there is something dragged from the old schooling approach and that has not been completely overcome.

It is significant that to define the concept of peace it is necessary to begin with that of violence, and from there to come up with a possible conceptualization of peace. This demonstrates that the old concept of direct aggression is not yet eliminated of our conscience.

It lead us to sense that the concept of peace is closely related with the social and external factors of the individual's development, and in certain measure it is the main approach although, however, there are still definitions that link it with internal factors, exist and will see peace as a psychological state of mind, characteristic of the dynamics and internal structure of the person.

It is so that peace is defined as a "state of mind of the person" which leads his way of being and acting.

From this point of view, peace is an inner state that, later, (in some cases) will be transmitted to the rest of the society. This peace, for this kind of idea, is the ultimate product of the human mind which is passed on to the social environment.

We should then ask ourselves if every internal state would be alike, so that there may be a general concept of peace in society, or multiple states of peace that will coexist within the most diverse social conditions.

Nevertheless, and in spite of its evident inconsistency this concept of peace as an internal product is very widespread, and in a survey that was carried out with educators of a good number of countries, who were asked what they understood for peace, a considerable percentage defined it as "harmony and the person's inner well-being", which demonstrates that this definition is very extended, at least among educators. This investigation will be analyzed with more depth in the following unit.

More elaborated concepts of this state of inner peace are found in the work of various authors. They point out that "in its purest form, peace is the inner silence filled with the power of truth, peace is the main characteristic of a "civilized society" and the lacking of this society may be seen through the collective conscience of its members" (sic).

Looking deeper into this approach we can see that a time arrives in which it refuses any relationship of peace with the external world. Therefore, for example, adding "Peace is energy, a qualitative energy that constantly emerges from the unique eternal Source. It is a pure force that penetrates in the shell of chaos and by its own nature, automatically puts people and things in a balanced order. The human being contains a deposit of vital resources, one of which is peace. Admitting that the original quality of the human soul is peace, means stopping to look for it in the exterior. Through the connection with the only eternal and unique Source of peace, our own resources overflow with silent strength. Peace, in its purest form, is internal silence full with the power of the truth." (The underlining is ours).

As it can be seen, for this conception of peace the external, social, and geopolitical factors that have been the main cause of war and warlike conflicts since the world is a world, and therefore, of the absence of peace, might not seem to be important and akin to a definition of peace, and therefore, it may be achieved without taking into consideration such factors. This is why it is obvious that some detractors of this position argue that it has a political background, by bringing out the passivity and not the search of the external factors.

The preceding is noted clearly in the following approaches when it is said: "Peace is a mixture of pure thoughts, pure feelings and good wishes. When the energies of thought, word and action are in balance, stable and free of violence, the person is in peace with himself, with his relationships and with the world. To exercise the power of peace embraces the fundamental principle of spirituality: to look toward inside and then we will be able to look outside with courage, determination and purpose. The first step in this process requires a careful exam of one’s own thoughts, feelings and motivations. By opening the internal window of the inner self, people can clarify and determine behavior attitudes and patterns that are destructive and that cause chaos and uneasiness."

This definition, with all the value that it contains, and that assumes the fact that "good wishes" are circumstantial to the concept of peace, recalls, in some way, the proverb that says: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and where the no consideration of the external factors can turn into paving stones the best intentions in the inner plane of the person.

If describing as "peace" this state of inner peace, tranquility and internal well being, is something humanly desirable and positive from a personal point of view, we don't believe that it will be helpful in defining a much more essential and broad concept of what is peace, where the external factors play an essential role.

But there are definitions that seek to relate both kinds of factors, so we found a definition that establishes that peace is the active state of the society in search of justice, where the unavoidable conflicts among the human groups are solved by means of the exercise of the distinctive abilities of people, the capacity of communication, dialogue and, finally, cooperation. As we can see, there is a link between the social and the individual, although ultimately, there is an imbalance towards the person.

Or, without omitting the search for peace in the external plane as the first cause, it indirectly establishes again that peace arises from the person, as it happens with the proposal of F. Perez de Cuellar. "Peace should begin in each one of us. Through a thoughtful and serious reflection about its meaning, new and creative forms may be found to promote understanding, friendship and cooperation among all the countries."

All this has affected the existence of multiple definitions of what is peace, most of the authors are not stating a unique concept of peace, but rather, they assume that there are diverse closely interrelated conceptions, and that all of them agree with the external social factors and the presence or not of violence. This way, we arte talking then of a negative peace and a positive peace, concepts both that will be related closely with something that is defined as structural violence.

By negative peace, the most general definition in the western world, understands it as the absence of war, of openly expressed violence that goes from physical aggression to the development of warlike conflicts. From this point of view, peace is the antithesis of the presence of the war, and we can say it exists when armed conflicts are avoided.

By positive peace we understand not the opposite of the war, but the absence of structural violence. It even infers a reduced level of direct violence and a high level of justice, and pursues social harmony, equality, justice and, therefore, the radical change of the society.

This concept doesn't eliminate the previously explained about peace as a result of the inner part of the person, and it assumes, as well, the harmony in the human being with itself, with others and with nature.

But it does not assume a total absence of conflict or its rejection but, rather, in this concept it values learning to deal with conflicts that might come up, and to solve them in a fair and peaceful way.

As expressed earlier, this definition has to do with that of the conception of the structural violence, mentioned briefly a few pages back, and that deserves a detailed analysis, because of the implications that it might have for a further consideration of what should be the content of a peace education program.

By structural violence we consider those forms of violence and inequality that are generated by different social structures, and that imply disparity of life opportunities among people, social groups, and even societies and that impede and block the human beings from satisfying their fundamental basic needs, both material and spiritual.

That is, it is assumed that the structure of a society can be, and in fact is a generator of violence in itself, for the particularities of their base, mode of production, and the characteristics of its superstructure (group of ideas, institutions and social conscience).

So, a society in which the women’s full right to basic citizenship freedom is denied, or that makes a given religion mandatory, or that discriminates men for the color of their skin, implies structural violence that denies the real concept of peace.

Therefore, in the concept of positive peace we would include the decrease of structural violence, and the search for social harmony, equality, general justice, which obviously, will imply a drastic change of the current society that does not distinguish itself for such conditions.

Jares outlines that this structural violence includes even the general educational system, and therefore, that the organizational structure in each school center constitutes a serious barrier for a true peace education.

Curle also points out that peace affects all the dimensions of life, and makes reference to a social structure in which there is a wide social justice and reduced violence.

Nowadays in a world that lives the biggest wave of direct and structural violence ever known, peace studied can not be limited to the legal study of international relations or the establishment of general regulations to preserve peace, but also to study the mechanisms that release aggressiveness in individuals and to teach them abilities that allow the reduction in the use of violence in its different manifestations, to find a peaceful solution to the conflicts between men, societies and nations.

This criteria of peace combined with the concept of social justice is very extended at the present time, as Paulo Freire points out, for whom peace is created and built removing the social realities that attempt against such social justice and it is built in the extent that it is built, what links his concept of peace with the theory of development and human rights. This is very clear when Freire states "….However, peace doesn't come before justice. This is why; the best way to speak out for peace is by doing justice."

For that reason, calling peace a situation in which social injustice, repression, poverty and illiteracy, lack of medical assistance, hunger, religious, ethnic or political persecution, among many other social evils prevail, and just because there is no war, is counterproductive and a parody.

In our consideration, peace is not an utopist goal, it is a process in which numerous factors, internal and external, intervene and that starts from early childhood education with the introduction of norms, values, behaviors, attitudes and feelings and their interdependency that start structuring the formation of a personality favorable to peace, up to the fulfillment in a micro and macro social level of different actions in favor of securing and consolidating peace, and that will reflect both, the internal plane and society as a group.

But if we speak about the emergence of personality in children we are then talking about psyche and education development, one focused on the development of the most important psychological formation and that constitutes his highest regulation level, and the other one focused on how to make possible that such formation will take place according to the best and most noble principles of the human being and the society in general. Then we can speak of a peace education.

1.2 The concept of peace education

Setting out what peace education is, implies the same difficulties than when trying to define that peace was, because of the range it covers will keep a close link with what each author or educational system considers included in the term peace.

For some, as Jares, peace education is "an educational, continuous and permanent process, based on the defining elements of positive peace, the creative perspective of conflict, the wide formation of the development of human democracy and rights, and that, through the application of problematic methods, seeks to develop a new kind of culture, peace culture that will help people to reveal the unequal, violent, complex and conflicting reality, to be able to stand before it and to act in consequence."

As one observes in this wide definition that categorizes peace education as an educational process terms such as positive peace, conflict, peace culture, human rights, democracy are included. From this point of view the inclusion of diverse contents into a curriculum of peace education is very significant.

Actually, it is not easy to define the term that implies the existence of two really complex terms: education and peace.

The widest concept of the term education has already been outlined, as that directed to the formation of a complete personality, harmonious, and multilaterally developed, and not to the simple transmission of knowledge, which will balance it with the concept of teaching. Education and teaching form a dialectic unit, they are inseparable but not identical terms, and each one has its own specificities. But the main purpose is the individual's formation as a whole, as a personality.

As a socialization process, education is not neutral, and responds to the interests of the dominant class of the society in question, and plays a momentous role in the formation of values, norms and behaviors that are significant in that social group, therefore, it assumes a process of socialization that is not neutral but that tries to accommodate and perpetuate in people the predominant values in their society.

In some societies, therefore, the social values and norms might be antagonistic, while some of these values stimulate respect, cooperation or solidarity; others contribute to internalize individualism, competition, authoritarianism. Even within the same society education may bring together contradictory values, as it happened with the anti-Semitic violence of the Nazi Germany in last century.

The other term like we saw is that of "peace" which might be understood in different ways in different societies, although in the past unit we could form some general ideas.

Therefore, peace education is not understood in a similar way in all the social contexts, since it is influenced by social, political and cultural diversity.

In this sense, O. Chaloupka points out that peace education must be understood as a part of basic education, and must be aimed at, at first, to introduce in infants and young children, principles and values against war, and the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means. Nevertheless, it is linked to the conception of the education of each country, to its reality and social system, to its politics and other factors.

Chaloupka’s appreciation is interpreted theoretically within the most comprehensive approach in peace education, in opposition to those that give it a limited projection of the individual's subjectivity.

Taking these approaches as a base, it is established that peace education can be considered as a search for harmony and a stimulus to study the crises, conflicts and violence as a mental process that is linked to personal and social transformation.

Therefore, it is conceived as a social process that prepares the individual for life in the historical moment in which he has to live, in harmony with himself and others, and which may allow him to reach an ethical and humanitarian commitment to contribute with his activity in the social practice to build peace in his social group, in society in general, between countries and the world.

It is understandable, according to the last definition that peace education must begin from the earliest age, in which a group of values, norms and behaviors leaning toward the acceptance of others is formed, regardless of their sex, race, culture and origin, among other elements, and that in the extent in which his personality develops, is will allow his social participation in the search for justice for all, obtained through gotten peaceful solution, within a context of human solidarity.

To make this possible in the current world so saturated and characterized by violence (at the time of writing this unit, there are more than 60 armed confrontations in diverse parts of the world) might be seen as a dream world, as J. Palos refers, which some consider as well, but it is a resource that man cannot give up.

However, some supporters of violence (as there have been many in the world) have stated that the human being has inherited from past generations the predisposition to make war, because it is a major human fact, as a result of his conduct but has been inherited genetically. This, besides being a great political loop, is an enormous scientific aberration: To say that brain neurology and physiology force man to act violently, and that the war is an instinctive phenomenon, is clearly aberrant and not very believable, since they forget that the personality is determined by the social and ecological environment, in which the biological side has an important influence but it is not the decisive thing.

Violence, according to the Manifesto of Seville as a product of the human culture is inevitable, and must be fought in its economic, social and cultural causes, because the man's behavior is modeled by the conditioning and ways of socialization in which he is immersed, (besides it’s also giving the Freudian concept about the child as a "perverse polymorph" a role that is very distant from what science has been able to confirm).

This peace education is related with a peace culture, which we will develop in later paragraphs in this unit.

1.3 Historical development of peace education

As it has happened with most of the social sciences or their branches, the conception of a peace education has gone through a long process of conformation. In fact, peace education identified as a new trend of modern socio pedagogic thinking is relatively new, as it only took shape in the 20th century.

The concept of peace arises subordinated in its early stages to that of war, which makes them recognizable in time. An example of them is, just to name some, the Chinese proposals of disarmament that date, according to documents, to the year 546 B. C. or the Greeks of the same period of time for using alliances to end the internal wars and contain the external ones. Even though the history of mankind is filled of facts and comments and landmarks of the universal way of thinking that have been building a group of ideas in favor of peace, on the other side, there were very few of the big intellectuals of the past, philosophers, theologians, jurists, so both eastern and Western that dedicated much attention to such problems from a point of view of open and positive peace.

According to the circumstances of the times, the challenges, dominant forces or the course of the religious, philosophical or political tendencies, among others, mankind started building a conception of peace which nowadays is closely linked to the process of change and transformation in the personal, social and structural order that are implicit in the transfer from a culture of violence to a peace culture.

However, in a more contemporary stage, the same has very well defined historical precedents by well read people who have been in charge of defining ideas and conceptions accordingly, among them Jan Amos Comenio as one of its more significant figures.

For Comenio the fact of educating implied a universal criteria: to teach everybody: children and youth, rich and poor, men and women, normal adults and handicapped, which was the role of the State, and which will imply a decrease of violence and war, because for Comenio, a great part of it lies in ignorance, lack of schooling, inaccessible culture, among other factors.

During the 19th century in Latin America very important figures emerged who saw universal education as the main formula to eradicate war and preserve peace. Personalities such as Simon Rodriguez, educator of Simon Bolivar, Benito Juarez, and Jose Marti, are key examples. Juarez even gave a definition of peace that has transcended time: "Respect for the rights of others means peace" that has become a principle of the Mexican State as a nation.

Jose Marti on his side points out in one of his manuscripts "the only condition of peace is that in which there hasn’t been a single right diminished", linking from a very early stage, and the existence of peace with human rights, something that, with time, has turned into an indivisible unity.

However, it was in the last century when the organic idea of peace education worldwide reached a high level which has a starting historical factor in the First World War and its subsequent socioeconomic and moral effects that make it to be initially conceived initially from the point of view of peace as the absence of war.

Consequently, in a date as early as 1927, in Prague was held the International Conference for Peace Education that, bound to the recent movement of the New School, focused on the human being and it reviewed the working methodologies of schools, widely dominated at that time by authoritarianism and violence, typical features of the traditional school.

The conceptual lines in the pedagogy in the School for life and freedom, the active School, and experimental pedagogy with figures such as Maria Montessori and John Dewey, divulged the positive conception for peace in the school which had considerable influence in the first half of the century. Some other less known names in the western context such as Krupskaia in the then Soviet Russia also had consequences in the transformation of the traditional school and of the focus of peace education.

Taking the end of the Second World War as a starting point, when peace education and culture began to take their contemporary form more or less as a concretion of an organized social thought, during the development of the international democratic movement and the defeat of fascism which gave, as a result, the creation of a world wide movement in favor of peace that would have numerous expressions in the different social systems.

This makes the concept to continue evolving by carrying on with the studies of the education for international understanding, and that new contents are added, such as Education for Human Rights and then, Education for Disarmament as a consequence of the Cold War which will characterize the historical period after the end of this world conflagration.

Since 1945, with the creation of UNESCO which sets up as its ultimate goal the use, protection, growth and dissemination of education, culture and science to contribute significantly to peace and security, that these conceptions of a peace culture and education became a foundation matter and many personalities will assume this projection in their lives and work.

Among these ideas, international institutions or meetings will be created that will set as a primary goal the attainment of peace, like in 1951 the International Institute for the Improvement of School Manuals, which started with a program to review school text books, and derived into an important work in education for international understanding; the international Peace Academy in 1970 aimed at training people in the ways and contents of peace education, and other institutions and meetings on human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and the agreements of Geneva of 1949, enlarged and completed with protocols I and II on Humanitarian International Rights, will be closely bound to peace education.

Finally, during the sixties and seventies, the contents of peace education are extended, reconsidering its concept with Education for Development, with Paulo Freire among its main promoters.

It is since the eighties when the ideas related to peace education became organized in a more organic way in their more recent versions, approached from different angles and positions in consistency with the diverse currents assumed by the social thought.

With the new millennium that is characterized by an extraordinary wave of violence, this is not only focused in an international level and relations between States, but its extension to diverse parts of life can be observed: family, school, cities, and its marketing in books, games, videotapes that show in an explicit or implicit way the connection of this violence as an expression of daily life, with violence as a resource for States to solve their conflicts.

In sum, the evolution of the content of education and peace culture are no longer an exclusive matter for the normalization of the relations between States and the solution of the juridical problems derived from these relations, but rather they become the foundations of the formation of the personality, and obviously, of the education of the child, who, from very early stages must learn how to coexist in peace with fellow human beings, and develop abilities that will allow him to solve in a peaceful way his conflicts, which will evolve so that, as an adult, he possesses internal mechanisms that will allow him to offer a friendly behavior, of solidarity and appropriate social relationships, and peaceful approaches to adversities that arise in his life as a human being and as a citizen.

1.4 Peace education and Peace culture

The terms peace education and peace culture seem related often in bibliography, and it would be necessary to wonder if they mean the same thing, if they are exclusive, or on the contrary, they are so strongly interrelated that it is not possible to speak of one without mentioning the other one.

Education, as it has happened with culture, has been historically filled with the intention of achieving peace among human beings. Starting from the concepts established by UNESCO since its founding, the relation culture-education has had the intention of serving peace through education, emphasizing the fact of visualizing culture as an educational objective in the promotion of peace as a human value.

This conception of Peace culture has been present in the founding principles of UNESCO, and has been developed by many institutions and personalities during many years.

In this sense, and in its more general approach, it is not about spreading information about peace for the information in itself (what would refer it to the teaching of principles, bases, etc. about peace), but the formation in human beings of particularities of personality that would show an appropriate behavior about peace (which would identify it with education), and that, in turn, will also be felt in the social behavior and the society superstructure (which would imply a culture). In this way, teaching, education and peace culture go hand in hand but are not identifiable or reduced one into another.

This way, a current approach of peace culture assumes a form of socio-cultural coexistence that will be characterized by the validity of human rights, sustainable development, justice, respect for differences and cultural diversity, democracy, ecology, overcoming social wrongs (poverty, illiteracy, hunger, illness, etc.) and solidarity of human relationships that will closely link the local, national and universal components.

In this sense the peace culture doesn't proclaim the social standardization, neither the absolute eradication of differences and conflicts, but proclaims the spread and expansion of culture of the differences, tolerance, negotiation, agreement, dialogue, and awareness that finds its best flow through an educational process since the earliest years.

This way, a peace culture is created through education and science, based on human solidarity.

Peace education is conceived as a social process that prepares the individual for life in the historical moment that he was meant to live in, in harmony with himself and others, which allows him to contribute in the social practice to build peace, and can be understood in general sense as an interactive, reflective and critical process that through its social participation interiorizes a set of human values in search of social justice, in which the equality of economical, social and cultural possibilities is the starting point for social, individual and political freedom, within a historically conditioned social context, and that it is expressed in the culture of such society. From this point of view, peace education and constitute a dialectical unit.

This means that education constitutes the most appropriate way of building a peace culture, but also, the norms, values and behaviors that it proclaims must indicate the objectives, purposes and contents of such education.

In this way if peace culture means that the group of values, attitudes, traditions, behaviors and ways of life are the axis to reach a widespread peace, then education is the process that will conduct and contribute to its attainment, and guide it through the appropriate paths for its development. It is like this that peace education and peace culture keep a permanent connection, in which the first one points out, orients, determines educational objectives and projects, and the second is the one that makes possible the formation of models and new cultural meanings, and constitutes the most important agent for cultural change and social progress. Education as it is makes possible the whole development of the person and his awareness of the social problems, and the search for solutions for these problems.

A peace culture is not an abstract concept, but the consequence of a historical activity in favor of the peace in different social contexts, in this process education plays the most important part since, due to its relationship with the peace culture, it favors its development. It is through education that society reaches its peak in human development, overcoming prejudices and stereotypes that segregate and separate some human beings from others, and establishing relationships based on cooperation and participation, cultural diversity is assumed and understood, and the abilities and capacities necessary for group communication are developed, encouraging respect for human rights, and the strategies to solve conflicts in a peaceful way are taught and learned.

The very definition of peace culture establishes the way and the levels of analysis of the relationships between education and culture, and includes the cultural dimension of a development model that should be compatible with both the human right to peace and the right to a general human development. This relationship not only points out the purposes of education but also the goals of society which is expressed, among other ways, through culture.

Therefore, education, will prepare the individual for his social development, make him capable of carrying out his role as a citizen and make him succeed as a human being, which then implies that, at the present time, education cannot be limited just to the educational system because the objectives of education and the educational process that the society and peace culture itself require are so complex that no school institution would be able to carry out this task by itself. The solution implies to involve to all its components and institutions in this process: media, public administrations, unions, civil communities, non-government organizations, among others.

This means that the establishment of a peace culture as a main goal of education is not an exclusive issue of the educational system in question, but that it corresponds, as well, to the society as a group, therefore, once more, it emphasizes the unbreakable unit between culture and peace education.

Encouraging values, norms and behaviors on which a peace culture is based is an educational goal that supposes a teaching and learning process capable of creating citizens who are able to deal with difficult and uncertain situations in the individual and social plane, and where autonomy and personal responsibility play a main role.

Peace culture is centered mainly in the process and methods to solve such problems, and it is supposed to generate structures and mechanisms that will make the individual capable of going through with it. Its generalization pursues the eradication of structural and direct violence, through the use of non violent procedures in the resolution of conflicts and through the assumption of preventive actions.

Building a peace culture is a slow process that supposes a change in the individual, group and social way of thinking, in which education plays the main role for its incidence in the creation of the personality of the new generations and in the construction of the values of the future citizens, in a way that such values promote a peace culture. This change, although slow, will promote the building of a new way of thinking, and the attainment of the objectives of peace.

This obviously requires a multilateral action, and, as it has been said already, the school by itself cannot reach this goal without the support of the most diverse educational and social agents.

1.5 Peace Education and Human Rights

One of the many definitions of the human rights establishes them as elementary demands that any human being should have for the fact of being it, and that have to be fulfilled because they refer to basic needs whose satisfaction is essential for his development as able and capable human being. They are rights so basic and important that it is difficult to live a worthy life without them. They are universal and non negotiable.

Human rights are universal because they belong to every human being, without exclusion or difference for social, ethnic, cultural, religious reasons, or any other reasons.

They are a priority in the sense that if they enter into conflicts or contradictions with other rights, they have to be protected in a high-priority way.

Finally they are non negotiable because no society can deny the protection from those rights to its members, and it must try to ensure them when for some reason they are injured or diminished.

The terms of peace education and human rights education are frequently used as synonymous concepts. It is observed this way that some authors of texts about these contents sometimes start their works with one of the two denominations, and other, with the second one. In some occasions peace education is presented as a part of human rights education, as might be the right to live in a world free of aggressions and violence to solve problems in a peaceful way, to accept ethnic and cultural diversity, etc.), and in others the opposite, human rights education is considered as a main part of peace education, as when establishing the existence of a peace culture as an indispensable condition to develop human rights.

Still, in other occasions, peace education and human rights education are mentioned as two different contents, with many points in common, but different.

There are organizations, such as Amnesty International which assume in their programs the term of "education in human rights", while there are others centered in that of peace.

This might have to do more with the dealing of contents they intend to cover in general, and attributable to any of the two, as might be that of accepting multiculturalism or peace actions to avoid ethnic or cultural, or more specific conflicts, as might be the analysis of civil and political rights, or the curricular traverse study of peace, of different theoretical elements. In any case, sometimes it impresses more as a matter of form than of essence.

What some call Culture of Human Rights was born in the social arena after the Second World War, following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948, although the interrelation Peace – Human Rights was previously identified as a constant in the political work and social thought in Latin America.

This Education in Human Rights has been defined by the High Commissioner's Office of the United Nations for Human Rights as "the group of training activities, distribution and information, aimed at creating a universal culture in the field of human rights, activities that are carried out by transmitting knowledge and modeling attitudes…"

This Education in Human Rights has many forms of expression, and in some educational systems it occupies a significant space, placed as a content aimed at the solution of problems resulting from diversity and dealing with differences, and also as a mediator and problem solver in the interpersonal and international level, to create a mentality directed against the abuse of the power, wherever this comes from.

We frequently find that there is a very close bond between peace education and human rights education, however, this bond does not eradicate the controversy about whether or not, one or the other, or both are part of the official program or whether they mean only internal peace, or should include, in the same way, external peace, among other analysis, all of them highlighted by the different definitions of peace, violence and conflict.

Despite the conceptual range, there are common identifiable components such as the theoretical, philosophical and sociopolitical bases, system of categories, contents and methods, dealing with different levels of teaching and social contexts, common problems that affect peace as much as human rights, such as economic and social inequality, ethnic and cultural discrimination, poverty and marginality, among others.

As a general idea, it can be said that they constitute a wide range that has many different, but interrelated, aspects to which it is possible to enter through one or the other, and so, the great majority of authors, independently of the initially selected field, they move through both with no semantic or conceptual concern.

This has made that many of the existent UNESCO chairs in many countries assume the name of "about peace and human rights" and include in it both denominations.

Regarding this, both the concept of positive peace and the one of human development have implicit the idea of human rights, and both of them of democracy. This means that there can not be peace without development and social justice, without democracy or without the fulfilling of each and every human right.

Human rights have three main characteristics which define them: dignity, universality and indivisibility, and that of being a historically built process.

Dignity refers to the fact that any judicial or political formulation is an inherent moral condition to every human being without any kind of distinction, whether it is for economic, physical, cultural, racial, sexual reasons, etc.

The universality and indivisibility of human rights sets that every right should be developed and protected; therefore, there can not be any civil and political rights if the economic, social and cultural rights don't exist, and the other way around, in an indivisible and diverse unity.

These characteristics have been taking shape not overnight but in a historically conditioned process, therefore, they are not an isolated, random or recent social fact.

Human rights and Democracy are expressions of the same conceptual universe, in such a way that there can not be democracy without human rights and vice versa.

The education and human rights are closely related with the processes of formation of culture, and the new perspectives of education require not only teaching the child in technical and economical knowledge but, also, in the construction of the values that democracy requires.

Every state has to contribute in the world context to accomplish the fact that human rights, of every person, are respected, regardless of the society he belongs to.

In summary, human rights are moral concepts of social justice which should be fulfilled because, without them, we cannot build a fair society or a world in peace and harmony.

These human rights are inherent to people for their human nature, indispensable for the enjoyment of a worthy life; this means respecting every person and guaranteeing them education, health, work, justice, security, freedom, with a juridical support that serves to protect and defend those rights and to punish any kind of violations of them. As long as they satisfy the human beings' material and spiritual needs, they are susceptible of being internalized by people and transformed into reasons that will guide their activity in the different areas of life, personally and socially.

Human rights are expression of human values, and they are not limited to individual morality, but equally to society. Educators have the role of influencing in the formation of the new generations, to guarantee the satisfaction of the most basic needs in people, among which peace stands out for its importance. Education is a key element in this process, because through it the vital formation of people capable of understanding the main contents of peace education and human rights is possible.

This education of human rights should consider human diversity, and keep present the social context and the complexity of the socio political regimes that coexist nowadays and of societies in which cultures, races, traditions, and religions are mixed. This also implies differences between people which are a reaction of social significance that encircles them, but with personal meanings, linking this way both elements: societies and human beings, and in which peace is guaranteed by the respect to human rights.

1.6 Peace education and citizenship education.

It is not possible to understand the concept of peace education without considering the people that will practice it, the citizens that compose the society in question. This implies the education of these citizens for a correct behavior according to the objectives, purposes and projections of such a society. That is why citizenship education is mentioned as one of the main elements for a peace culture and the respect and defense of human rights.

Citizenship education is something more than preparing the human being to respect and develop a peaceful behavior, implying educating him to live in such a way that it diminishes the possibility of emergence of social crises, and of knowing how to deal with them in case they come up. This education has a preventive nature, and it promotes values that allow the appropriate interrelation between personal interests and those of the others.

This way, the formation of values such as solidarity, cooperation and mutual help, collectivism, equality, social coexistence, honesty, among others, must be a part of the formation of the citizens of any society. This way the civic formation is a process integrated in the formation of a peace education and culture.

This way, in our society, education must contribute to form people that can coexist in a climate of respect, tolerance, participation and freedom, and that will create a conception of reality in which knowledge is integrated in the ethical and moral values.

Many international documents and declarations state that it is the role of education, and the school, to promote active citizenship and social cohesion, by teaching civic values which constitute the main point of citizenship education.

Life in the social group demands concrete actions and behaviors that require from the individuals the consideration for others, the right of all to be taken into account and the necessity to fulfill certain rules of coexistence. Children and adolescents should learn that their belonging to a democratic society is to be part of a collectivity with values and norms that expresses agreement, rationality, freedom, respect for others and the solidarity that constitute the foundations of the collectivity. When this is fully achieved, it will lead to peaceful citizenship.

In our society the education in values should necessarily refer to those who teach the development of citizenship. Educating attitudes and behaviors of respect, tolerance, solidarity, participation or freedom, should be among the objectives and tasks of the educational system.

This is why assuring the right to a quality education for all is a primary social objective, if we want to develop a citizenship education according to the needs and problems of the current and future world. If it is not done this way, equality, a major feature in the main notion of citizenship, is not met. Education must promote the teaching and reflection needed to become free, honest and active citizens, and help achieve the acquisition of habits of coexistence and mutual respect, and to develop attitudes of solidarity.

Citizenship education starts in the early years and places the foundations for the children to learn that they are members of groups in which they should show respect, love, order, and care toward other people and also for objects.

To achieve the purposes of citizenship education, it is necessary to consider the aspects of living in a society, coexistence, participation and educational strategies. Tolerance, cooperation, reciprocity, consideration, responsibility and appreciation of diversity are indispensable elements to live in harmony, achieving individual and common objectives.

The early childhood center is a space where children can be taught how to solve conflicts in a peaceful way, where they have the possibility of recognizing, to valuing and respecting different ways of thinking, feeling and acting. Also, they will develop attitudes of help and cooperation taking into account the individual and collective differences.

To educate for life in society through citizenship education in the early years is to offer children significant experiences that will support the development of positive attitudes for them and towards others.

Everything said before determines that the formation of a peace culture as an integral part of peace education includes in a meaningful way all that implies a citizenship education, since it will be useless to educate a child not to be aggressive and to coexist in peace with the others, if he is not taught and formed in values, norms, attitudes and behaviors for an appropriate social coexistence, in which being a good citizen is a basic condition to make such coexistence possible.

In the same way citizenship education is linked with human rights, because there can not be a fair and decent citizen, if the rights of others, not just his own, are not respected and fulfilled.

1.7 Principles, objectives, levels and strategies of peace education

What we have seen so far leads us to the conclusion that peace education is not is not limited only to the formation of values, even if sometimes it’s considered this way, but also implies a wider spectrum that includes the peace culture, human rights, citizenship education, even in aspects not appreciated before such as ecology, because the depredation and overexploitation of the natural resources have been many times the source of conflicts between towns, regions, and even countries. It is not possible to damage the environment without harming people that coexist with it, and already that is an attempt against their human rights, a sample of a faulty civic formation, and a lack of culture and education for peace.

The specialized literature generally offers theoretical precisions about the bond between the concepts of peace, human rights and values, even when the approaches differ. This trilogy is focused, naturally, according to the conception sustained by these values, that if these they are restricted by a firm individual ethic; they won't be reflected in human rights, given their socio-political character.

Human rights are inherent to people because of their human nature, essential to enjoy a worthy life; which supposes respecting everybody, to guarantee their education, health, work, justice, security, freedom, just as stated in the documents and declarations of the United Nations. It implies in the same way a judicial support that serves to back up the protection and defense of these rights and to punish any violations. While these rights fulfill the material and spiritual needs of the human beings, they are susceptible of being internalized by them and transformed into reasons that will guide their activity in different spheres of life, personally and socially.

This way, human rights are the expression of human values, which are not limited only to the individual morals, but they express the interpretation and actions of many people in the world they have to live in. They express values devoted to social life, and the needs of a certain historical context and develop in the edge of the socialization process. This is a process of adaptation of values in which the conscience of what is right is clarified starting from historical-cultural influences, and related with the social environment, based on the life experiences of the individuals, their own practice and their own contradictions.

This is why, when the time comes to consider how to provide peace education that encompasses all these instruments and theoretical approaches, there are four main levels to be considered:

An individual level which entails interiorizing in the individual a personal ethics based on self-esteem which means that every human being should take care of his own life, health, development of his own intellectual potentialities and of his spiritual wealth; of the protection of nature; as well as developing his abilities for work as a vital activity; all of which would allow him to create life projects according to his personal possibilities and with the social context in which he lives, and achieve success in that occupation, as a condition to live in harmony with himself. It is about, as it has been said in the Delors report, of learning how to be, to know, and to do.

A social level which intends to structure ethics in interpersonal relationships in the family, school, work centers, community, public places, on the base of human solidarity, respect for differences, tolerance, defense of one’s own opinions and of all the human rights. That is to say, to learn how to live with the others, to live together as stated in the Delors report.

A national level which implies the assimilation of a reflexive and critic understanding of the country’s social situation, its history, current struggles, achievements and difficulties, in a way that might enable to accomplish a true social participation, the recognition of the cultural identity and the preservation of the national unity and sovereignty, on the base of a human development that supposes social peace and opportunities for all, which implies learning how to build peace within the nation.

An international level which makes possible to understand, in a reflexive and critical way, the problems of the contemporary world, and of how the country becomes inserted and related in that global context, as an element in the struggle for a better world, through concrete actions that demonstrate the international vocation, as a contribution to a peace that guarantees the human development in the planet, and promote understanding in the world, which implies learning how to contribute to peace in the world.

In synthesis, a system of peace education encircles the subject as a person, those that surround him, his country, and mankind in its entirety. That is why one of the "most human" rights is the right to education, because through it people can assume their identity, improve their self-esteem, may set goals in life that can be reached with success and internalize values that guide their activity in the social practice toward the highest ethical goals, in the individual and social levels. The lack of guarantee of the right to education limits the human side of each person, and cripples him as social being.

Nowadays and in conformity with the transformation of the concept of what peace is, the most general trend is no longer opposition to war, but a wider one, opposition to violence, of which war is one of its most critical expressions.

In this sense some authors like J. Galtung propose that when the basic human needs are not satisfied, four types of violence can be present:

1. “Classic” or direct violence which goes from aggression, homicide, to war,

2. Poverty and deprivation of material needs in the country.

3. Repression and privation of human rights,

4. Alienation and denial of the main needs of man.

Other authors don't talk about violence, and introduce the category of "conflict."

These authors point out that conflict usually has the concept of peace as a main negative interpretation, as something unwanted, pathological or aberrant, as a dysfunction or pathology and, in consequence, as a situation that is necessary to improve and mainly to avoid. They add that most of the people, and particularly the different sectors of the educational community, have a negative vision of the conflict, associating it, in occasions, to violence, and confusing certain answers to a conflict with their own nature.

In this sense, they point out that it is necessary to distinguish between aggression and any kind of violent behavior, as a negative answer to a conflict, and that of conflict itself, confusing violence with conflict. Even though violence can be one of the means to solve the conflict, it is not the only way: violence is a means, while conflict is in fact, a state.

Therefore, these authors assume conflict as a natural and circumstantial process of life which, seen positively, might be a factor of personal, social and educational development. So, for conflict they understand a process of incompatibility between people, groups or social structures, through which interests, values and contrary aspirations will be affirmed or perceived.

The conflict can be seen even at the academic level, being present in educational centers, as in every organization, appearing in a chronic form and approached from democratic and not violent assumptions, constitutes a fundamental motive and preferable strategy to facilitate the organized, autonomous and democratic development of the school centers. For this reason, the position to assume before a conflict is not to ignore it or to hide it, but confront it in a positive and non violent way.

The concept of negative peace has led to confuse conflict with violence. This confusion at the present time persists in the popular opinion and continues in our own use of language, the Dictionary of the Spanish Language defines the term peace as a "situation and mutual relation of those that are not in war" or "peace and good relation between one and other, in comparison with disagreements, fights and arguments", while in one of its meanings it defines conflict as "the most difficult part in a combat", that is why it is considered that for a long time it influenced that researchers of peace were devoted to the study of war and warlike conflicts.

In the criteria of these authors, peace is a way of interpreting social relationships and a way of solving conflicts which diversity itself, present in society makes obvious. For conflict they understand not only military conflict but also the opposition of interests between people or groups or different forms of understanding the world.

They understand conflict as a natural fact of social relations, which implies that its solution cannot be by means of violence, and in the society the mechanisms to solve conflicts are found in the skills of human intelligence: communication, dialogue and cooperation. These capacities, considered basic in a peace culture should be applied in all the environments and scales of society: in the family, the company, in politics and also at local level and international level.

That is, conflict is often considered negative because it is perceived through the destructive consequences brought about by it. But conflict is not similar to violence; it is something habitual in the relations between social and interpersonal groups. It is the interaction of people with incompatible objectives. Violence supposes rupture, the negation of the conflict; it supposes to opt to solve the conflict in a destructive way.

From this point of view peace education is a continuous and permanent process, founded in the concept of positive peace and the creative perspective of conflict, that seeks to develop a peace culture, helping people to face the complex and conflicting reality and to act in consequence.

This point of view goes beyond the trend that considers peace as the absence of war, and the relation, not only with the end of military hostilities but with other phenomena closely linked with violence: poverty, absence of democracy, poor development of the human capacities, structural inequalities, deterioration of the environment, tensions and ethnic conflicts, lack of respect for human rights, among others.

According to this point of view, peace education pursues the reduction of violence and tries to identify the mechanisms and dynamics of the conflicts to find ways for peaceful solutions to them, through the study of the changes in behavior of the societies, with scientific methods and studies that analyze situations contrary to the peace culture, and offer and orient solutions (research); it requires information and the formation of citizens on the world issues to look for and to work in their creative and positive solution (education); and, it demands the practice of measures, resources and human efforts that build the peace (action).

As a result, it is set that peace education at the present time rests on two basic concepts which are positive peace and the creative perspective of the conflict that is understood as a natural and circumstantial process to the human existence, and aggressiveness as a natural characteristic of the human behavior that is not negative in itself but positive and necessary as force that it should be channeled toward useful activities.

Paulo Freire, the outstanding Brazilian educator, was an emphatic defender of this position; he stated that the struggle for peace didn't deny the existence of conflicts, but its critical confrontation and the search for correct solutions, and that the best way to speak in favor of peace was to make justice.

In definitive it seems that the criteria that considers absolute peace as unreal and that the current world is full of conflicts is generalized. The difference between approaches seems to be that, for some, conflict is part of development and they can not think of the world with the absence of it, and for others, it is an expression of the violence with negative connotations. Then, we may ask if conflict is a dialectical contradiction, a normal phenomenon and always present in development.

The other difference lies in, and it is what will determine the need for peace education, the fact that it is possible that conflict can be solved through dialogue, peaceful confrontation, communication which, for some is an unreachable utopia in the current world. Resulting of all the previous matters, in PEACE EDUCATION there are some main principles that guide their social and pedagogic work. Among them we find:

• Peace education is supposed to teach and to learn how to solve conflicts. Conflict that has been omnipresent in the historical development of society as an expression of diversity of interests and views of the world that can be very diverse: territorial, cultural, economic, social, work, ethnic, among others, and traditionally have been solved by means of the use of force. Peace education sets out, nowadays to form social and human mechanisms that allow solving conflicts in a different way and within a peace culture.

• Peace education is a particular form of values education. This begins with the fact that education always transmits, in a conscious way, or not, a scale of values. Talking about peace implies building in a conscious way, values such as justice, freedom, cooperation, respect, solidarity, critical attitudes, commitment, autonomy, dialogue, participation, and it tries to avoid the creation of others such as discrimination, intolerance, violence, ethnocentrism, indifference, and conformism.

• Peace education is part of the action and is built for the action. It implies to activate and channel the initiative and the interest in the activity, to create ways of action that will revert in the activity. It is a concept to be built, not a given knowledge.

• Peace education is a permanent process. It is obvious that if it is to form attitudes and behaviors, the same one cannot be conceived as something casual or random, but as obligatory. From this point of view, it must constitute a content of the educational curricula, so much in the institutional road as the no formal, and the informal one.

• Peace education is based on the concept of positive peace that implies recognizing the existence of the conflict and confronting it in a non violent way.

• Peace education must constitute a common area in the educational curriculum, in such way that it is related with all the contents, and with its organization and methodology.

• Peace education must take in its projection all the educational and social agents (school, family, community, mass media, associations and organizations, etc.)

The objectives of peace education have been pointed out in this unit, but from them we can establish conclusions valuing different contributions and authors, keeping in mind that this is a formative process of the personality, to educate for the conception that it is possible to live non violently, and that it implies a personal and social ethics based in coexistence, freedom, equality, and democracy.

• To develop an appropriate self-esteem that will allow trusting in the personal capabilities and in the social reality in which one lives, to overcome one’s own limitations and difficulties, and to be able to contribute to a positive and optimistic development of life and humanism.

• To develop positive feelings and sensibility towards others, learning how to accept diverse differences of those who surround us, and to accept that they cannot coincide with our own criteria.

• To recognize and confront conflict situations in a peaceful way, making negotiated decisions for their solution in a tolerant and non violent way.

• To accept social and cultural diversity with an open, respectful and tolerant spirit, recognizing the wealth of diversity as a positive element of the world that surrounds us.

• To participate in diverse activities of solidarity with other peoples and cultures, in an international spirit that will foster relations of dialogue, help, harmony and denouncement of unfair situations.

• To know and respect human rights, showing a critical, solidary and committed attitude in front of well-known situations that attempt against such rights.

• To value peaceful coexistence with other peoples for the common wellbeing of mankind that favors progress, well-being, and understanding, rejecting the use of force, violence or imposition, and assuming the mechanisms of dialogue, agreement and negotiation, in equality and freedom.

These objectives can be enlarged or reduced, in the extent that we want to focus in a more general or specific way but, definitely, the consideration of what is a peace education and culture should always be present in its essence.

The activities that can be done to achieve these objectives can be multiple and, of course, they must be adjusted to the different educational levels and to the particularities of the evolutionary process of the students. Among them, we can refer:

• To provide situations that favor the self-esteem as an important base of the personal and social relationships.

• To propitiate situations that favor communication and coexistence with the inner and outer aspects of contexts.

• To participate in celebrations and acts related with peace and solidarity.

• To carry out exchanges that will foster reflection, exchange of opinions and argumentation as defense.

• To stimulate the understanding of the points of view of partners by means of diverse actions.

• To foment group work and collective projects.

• To use reflection and moral development techniques: debates about experiences, values clarification, discussion of dilemmas, conflict resolution, dramatizations, and simulation games, among others.

It is easily noticeable that these activities, among many others that can be done, correspond mainly to the primary and intermediate levels, due to the fact that this unit is about the problems and more theoretical and general aspects of peace education. For the ages included in early childhood education, in fact, there is not much established and, even less, written about but in the following units we will offer some materials.

The strategies to be used in peace education may vary, and it may be that the most important one is to set it out as a way of educating starting from the earliest years, to form from the beginning of the life those values, norms and behaviors that must characterize a behavior of peace so that they become an integral part of the individual's personality.

This implies including in official documents and programs a group of positive attitudes, knowledge and behaviors for a peaceful and harmonious coexistence, defining a group of rules that bring out respect and appreciation for oneself and the others.

If this is sp, the training of educators will have to assume the contents of peace education, because one can not teach what one does not know, has not seen, or does not possess. For this, it is desirable to set in the educator’s profile various distinctive features decisive in an educator to consider him capable for this work, and where basic integral elements will be clearly defined, such as, among others, to keep peaceful attitudes and the denial of violence as the solution to conflicts.

Furthermore, the internal organization of educational centers should allow for the real participation of all the members of the school community, opening enough channels of collaboration, dialogue and negotiation, between students, parents, teachers, administration staff and social organizations.

An important matter is the critical revision of the programs and regulations, to determine in what measure are their contents contributing to the goals of peace education, or on the contrary, they praise those values that we want to eradicate. This means, in sum, to study the hidden curriculum of these regulations.

Using methods and techniques that will allow the open debate or discussion about the different problems that concern peace education is a valuable strategy. This can be extended to diverse methodological procedures such as the diagram of curricular areas, the creation of conceptual schemes, the functionality of operative groups, to name some examples.

In the same way the inclusion of workshops, group exchanges, with contents of peace education, in coordination with different organizations and institutions (Red Cruz, various NGO’s, Amnesty International, etc.) constitute an easily achievable strategy for the educational center.

1.8 Projections of peace education

The most general projections in peace education in the educational environment should assume coordinated and interdependent actions in the following aspects:

• A peace culture through education.
• Sustainable economic and social development.
• Respect of all the human rights.
• Equality between men and women.
• Respect for differences and non discrimination.
• Democratic participation.
• Understanding, tolerance and solidarity.
• Participatory communication and free circulation of information and knowledge.
• Peace and the international security.

At the present time, the quick changes in our society evidence that the civic exercise is not limited only to have political, civil and social rights, but also to participate under the same conditions as the others in a communication exchange, in the handling of information, and in the access to public spaces, among other aspects.

The projections of a peace education and culture promote the conception of the educational center as a learning community, in which the center of its activity regarding these contents can contribute more efficiently to the construction of that culture.

If the primary objective of peace education consists on forming citizens that promote the achievement of a peaceful society, the educational centers should have as a goal to favor a more and more participative and democratic organization that by the non violent administration of differences and conflicts, reaches its objectives through the cooperation of all its members, since to understand and solve the conflicts in the educational centers is an essential feature of its own democratic organization based on the mutual respect, diversity and pluralism.

Different researchers such as Ehman, Lynch, Dimmock and Harber have concluded in recent studies that the most open and democratic educational centers favor the democratic levels of the society; the pedagogic and cooperative methods diminish the ethnic conflicts and favor the understanding among the different cultures; the democratic educational practices respond better to the learning needs of the pupil; and the centers that favor the democratic experiences in the classroom and the school, the skills, values and democratic behaviors contribute, better than other centers, to the establishment of a peace culture and of non violence. It is so that it becomes indispensable to take the educational center from a model centered in the traditional relationship between faculty and pupils in the closed space of the school organization, to a model open to the community. To go from educational centers to learning communities.

It is clear that peace education and culture question the school organization and the curriculum, as well as education and society, when promoting the training not only based on the social, economic or political conditions of the present, but in connection with the vision of the future they aspire to. This questioning not only forces to redraw the school organization to reach higher levels of democratic participation, but it demands that these same levels are present in the society.

It is known that during a lot of time was limited almost exclusively to transmit the scientific or technical knowledge that the citizens needed to carry out the functions demanded by the society, which meant considering that the correct academic knowledge had to come from this scientific knowledge, organized through the different subjects or disciplines. But at present time, the changes that are taking place in the world of science, knowledge and information have suppressed the existence of absolute truths, which imposes the need for a new curricular focus in which the traverse dimension constitutes a basic condition of the educational programs, to avoid traditional teaching that doesn't prepare the pupils to become citizens with full rights in a democratic society, by not allowing them the access to precise knowledge on the current social problems, to develop their own moral autonomy, to build their own knowledge and to participate in the solution of the serious problems that affect mankind.

Therefore, the capacities to form no longer have to do only with the knowledge contributed by the diverse curricular matters or disciplines, but also with momentous questions in the current time on which societies claim a high-priority attention. Peace education, consequently, should help the citizens to understand those crucial problems, echoed by the international community, and to elaborate a critical opinion on them, to adopt behaviors and attitudes based on values, rationally and freely assumed.

1.9 Peace education in diverse social contexts

A last conceptual question regarding peace education leads to a significant question: Is peace education focused in the same way in the different social contexts? The answers can be very diverse, in the same measure that there are different contexts.

Education is the process of directed and systematic formation of the individual, in which there is an appropriation of the social experience accumulated by the previous generations that determines the formation of the conscience and the development of the personality. In this sense, education is a social product and an expression of the context where it develops.

Education, therefore, is a reflection of the social reality, and it expresses the interests of the dominant class in a specific context. From the point of view that the contexts can have different social conditions and different class relationships, it is probable that in each context there are different focuses on peace education.

Peace education can only be based on the different international documents and declarations that, due to their own essence, reflect the interests and projections of the majority of mankind, which allows to relate principles, objectives and strategies (which is not the same as homogenizing them) of peace education coming from different contexts and give them a holistic and global approach. Thus, the projections for peace education are satisfied because the basic needs of all the human beings (education, health, culture, safety, etc.) are the same in all the social contexts.

Nevertheless total identification is not maybe the best thing, and the differences and the diversity must always be present, because they enrich the concept of peace education. Unit and diversity are the two faces of the same coin, they constitute a dialectical reality that doesn't imply an identity, or that one disappears in the other.

This way peace education and culture of peace have a similar significance in all the social contexts, and although there are differences given by culture, tradition, customs, their historical development they are not antagonistic, and they allow for dialogue, reconciliation and understanding, as ways of solution of the possible conflicts that can arise, inside a pacifist projection of those relationships.

The ethnic, cultural, religious, and economic diversity, among other many, enrich peace education instead of constraining it, and they transform it into an instrument of human development towards a fair, peaceful and solidary society, which constitutes, and has always constituted, a dream, of the whole mankind.

Evaluation A. Consult the meanings of the concept of Peace appear in the Dictionary and look for what the different definitions have in common, and make your own definition from your observations. Support each part of your definition. B. Design a group of activities that, following the principles and objectives of peace education that appear in this unit, are adapted to the level and strategy that you select.