Student ID 102265514

Name: Bui Thi Hai Biinh

Course: Global trend in education

Educational and cultural exchange toward peace building. How is it possible?

Abstract: This paper will examine the idea of how education and
cultural exchange can contribute to solve conflict between rivals.
It will look at the sources of conflict and answer the question
whether these kinds of exchanges would contribute to peace
building and to what extent. In general the inter group contact
hypothesis might work well to solve the conflict individually or
in context of small group. However to solve the conflict
especially those armed conflict happening in the world
unfortunately these exchanges might be just one in thousand of
initiatives to bring up peace which is an endless progress in
human history until present day. In the case of warfare the
prerequisites for the theory to be effective is hardly met therefore
the ideal situation of reducing conflict due to the reduction of
animosity and prejudice by the mean of education and cultural
exchange would be unachievable proposition. Not mentioned that
the approach to causes of intergroup conflict itself a debatable
question which first in hand needed to be addressed.

Keywords： conflict, inter group contact theory, education, cultural exchange,

war

The hypothesis is that with exchange between rivals and by the mean of education
it would actually reduce tension and conflict sounds compelling. Once people of
two sides have the sympathy and empathy toward the other there would be a
chance for peace building, they would have a gentler attitude toward opponent and
gradually eradicate the hostility and conflict. Background of the hypothesis could
be based on inter group contact theory which was proposed by Allport in the 50s as

1
an effective way to reduce prejudice between groups. However the idea that by
reducing the prejudice the conflict would be reduced accordingly seems to simplify
the sources of conflicts. This is the fundamental problem of the hypothesis that
cultural and educational exchange could contribute to peace building; it minimizes
conflict to hatred and discrimination between groups. In many cases armed
conflicts are not solely caused by animosity, misconception nor misunderstanding.
It is not solely conflict of identity base, religious, or tradition, it all needed to
examine in a broader context of highly politicized environment. This paper will
analyze two types of conflict, armed conflict/civil war and conflict of interest
between nations/states; whether education and exchanges would bring up solution
for these conflicts.

Allport’s theory may work well in the context of small group or between minorities
and majority, and non violent conflict however to the larger extend, the conflict
between states/country/nation, armed conflict, civil war is an entirely different kind
of rivalry. Analysis of these historical accidents involves in whole other range of
discipline such as, cultural anthropology, international relation, which educationist
might over look. The issues of conflict resolution must be looked at not only from
the assumption “ that fear and prejudice lead people to enter violent conflict, that
conflict resolution skills can be learned, and that distortions can be redressed
through better communication and confidence-building measures between groups”.
(Saunders) It’s an accident that involves in politic, economic and social
institutional context. That might be the most difficult precondition for the
hypothesis to work out. It is not the interpersonal resolution; it is strongly related to
inter group and international relation which is undoubtedly largely politicized in
conflict zones. It is not to argue the value of contact theory, or the ideas of the
hypothesis; yes it works to reduce prejudice and discrimination however warfare is
an “historical accident” rooted from more than just collective memory and
hostility. Simply it is two different contexts that resolution for individual does not
necessarily work for intergroup or state/nation.

To solve the problem of conflict we need first to address the root of the conflict.
Two approaches to intergroup conflict will be addressed. One has focused on

2
“patterns of individual prejudice and discrimination and on the motivational
sequences of interpersonal interaction which proposed by many of the work on the
social psychology of intergroup relations”.(Tajfel, 1979) It is logical to explain the
proposition that, once the civil education, human rights education reach citizen of
both sides there will be positive effect on the whole society/group. Advocates for
this approach would ultimately support for the hypothesis that reducing prejudice
would reduce conflict. Here comes the role of contact theory which is described as
one of the best ways to improve relations among groups that are experiencing
conflict. (2014)

There would be no argument against the theory as empirically proven. However

the approach itself poses an unconvincing proposition and the contact theory
requires a number of conditions that are hardly met in the circumstance of armed
conflict and conflict between states/nation. There were reports on positive contact
effects even in situation that are lacking key conditions. Nevertheless noteworthy
that these studies mostly concentrated on school and housing situation or majority
and minority group which is different to armed conflict on the base ground. Not
even mention the conflict between states is highly doubted are base on economic
interest. In addition the theory works in setting circumstance, and it does not
specify how the (Pettigrew, 1998) Once the conflict is at level of
state/countries/nation education and exchange activities even play an opposite role
to dismiss tension as it might be use as a tool for the battle. This will be analyzed
in the later part of the paper.

Four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the
situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. These
conditions are hardly met in the circumstance of violent conflict between groups
especially the condition of support from authority. The realistic group conflict
theory might questions the hypothesis that by education and cultural exchange
conflict will be solved. The approach to international relations that today is called
"Realism," and Realist theorists of international relations which have always
recognized Hobbes school of thought as philosophical radical source. The stand is
that human nature is driven by egoistic compassion of competition, glory,

3
diffidence. (Dawson, 1996) Under the form of realism in modern day it’s the
nationalism, national interest that lead foreign policies of each and every single
state either because of defending their territory or to be hegemonic in the world, to
gain more and to minimize lost, to lead the game or to pursuit the ideology, the
vision that the (national) leader once subscribed.

Simply This is the place of nationalism - the  ideology based on the premise that
the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or
group interests. Most of the case, education is a tool of political leaders to control
the mass, to mobilize to have support for nationalism. “Collectively held historical
memories are (Salomon, 2003) sense of identity and the source of the stereotypes
and prejudices it holds of others.” Unfortunately decision maker are deeply
understand this logic so that the textbook, school book and education system are
use to strengthen the sense of identity, to hold the view of us and them. None the
less “there is no fact only interpretation”, it’s “ (Santayana)” . Text book school
book is manipulated for political purposes. “ the distortion of history takes place
intentionally and unintentionally both through acts of commission as well as
omission” (Bush)

Even individually a person might perceive the other as a friend, it is not necessary
that he/she will not give up his national identity/belief in the battle. If one is
familiar with Confucianism – the system of thoughts where loyalty to the nation is
placed over personal interest and even family, one might easily understand the
position that in another setting the two can be friend but in battle ground they
might shoot each other. The identity and proud is bigger desire than to be alive.
It’s the nationalism embedded in the ideologies, the culture, the text book,
literature sometimes the patriotic spirit is mixed with the nationalism to fuel the
idea of defending territory and independence that makes one might even scarify the
life and his friendship with people from the other side. And yes we do not expect
this to come however to change the mind set which rooted for thousands year how
much time do we need?

4
In this situation education system, curricular, text book may be a very good tool for
remaining hatred and grievance because this is fuel for the war to serve the idea of
group/national leader. To answer the question whether education and exchange
activities can solve the conflict thus this is necessary to reexamine the nature of
war. However it is out of limit of this text to trace the origin of war whether it
serves a grand function of reducing population or human evolution. I would like to
mention the Rousseauean thesis of war; it is not human nature but it was invented
by states to serve the function of internal solidarity and externally maintain the
balance of power. (Dawson, 1996) This is very much in tune with the realism idea
of state and international relation.

Education for tolerance and understanding of the others clearly is not sufficient
enough to solve the conflict if it was cause by economic interest. I would doubt
any kind of education and exchange that would lead to a greedy leader to give up
his benefit. It is the question of greed or grievance that fuels the war and conflict.
It’s not a place to trace back of human history of war, of how man conquers new
land new tribes for his own good. It not to generalize that all civil war and violent
conflict happened for economic interest neither to dismiss the theory of grievance
and hatred that caused the conflict. Noteworthy that a study by Collier from
Oxford University had concluded:

“When the main grievances - inequality, political repression, and ethnic and
religious divisions -are measured objectively, they provide little or no explanatory
power in predicting rebellion. In most low-income societies there are many reasons
for grievance, but usually these do not give rise to rebellion. Objective grievances
and hatreds simply cannot usually be the cause of such a distinctive phenomenon
as violent conflict. They may well generate intense political conflict, but such
conflict does not usually escalate to violent conflict. By contrast, economic
characteristics . dependence on primary commodity exports, low average incomes,
slow growth, and large diasporas . are all significant and powerful predictors of
civil war.” (Collier)

5
The studied was base on 73 civil war occurred in 161 countries during the period
1965-1999 and a sample of 47 civil war and a update version of the study to the
year of 2004 remained the same findings. Before process to further example a
recent settled civil war worths to mention was in Africa – Sierra Leone. “ A rebel
organization built itself into around 20,000 recruits and opposed the government.
The rebel organization produced the usual litany of grievances, and it’s very scale
suggested that it had widespread support. Sierra Leone is, however, a major
exporter of diamonds and there was considerable evidence that the rebel
organization was involved in this business on a large scale. During peace
negotiations the rebel leader was offered and accepted the vice-presidency of the
country. This, we might imagine, would be a good basis for rebel grievances to be
addressed. However, this was not sufficient to persuade the rebel leader to accept
the peace settlement. He had one further demand, which once conceded, produced
(temporary) settlement. His demand was to be the Minister of Mining. Cases such
as this are at least suggestive that something other than grievance may be going on
beneath the surface of the discourse.” (Collier) So it’s the greed not the grievance
that drives the discrimination and hatred in order to fuel the conflict?

If the conflict is over economic it would not be solved by the mutual understanding
of each side. Whether one nation/ group would give up its economic interest? It
would be too naïve to think that conflict of those over economic interest to be
solved by exchange view point or education program on human right. Reason such
as ethnicity or oppression of minorities, religious division is perfectly embedded in
the propaganda for warfare. “Ethnicity itself is often asserted to be a key
contributor to ‘ethnic conflict’. However, it is increasingly evident that “ethnicity
neither causes conflict, nor in many cases does it accurately describe it. Rather
ethnicity/identity is increasingly mobilized and politicized in contemporary violent
conflicts” (Bush) It is to distinguish the non violent conflict and armed conflict
and the sources of conflict is a radical issues needed to looked at. Not all those
conflict are base on misunderstanding and misconception but between states
mostly it involved politics and national interest, it’s the conflict triggered because
of people are unstoppable in the battle to fulfill their infinite desires. Therefore the

6
solutions can’t be base on dismissing misconception and misunderstanding but it
must base on negotiation of interest.

It’s such a gloomy picture of how to solve the conflict between rivals. Education
and cultural exchange might not yet solve the conflict. How to solve the math is a
long progress that has not been finished in human history. Nevertheless we are
aiming for reducing the violent conflict, to reduce victims and look forward to
peace. If the cosmopolitanism is spread out all over world there would be no war,
yet all we need is education and the universal cosmopolitan view point for all
people which is unnecessary to say that it is by no means possible. Education and
exchange might be one of the ideas. However if two parties do not agree to sit and
exchange the view toward a “common goal” how do we foster the peace building
resolution? Here comes the role of mediation that education and exchange might
take a vital part.

There are three level of education and exchange activities could be divided as: state
led, organization led or people led.

State led activities: it’s simply impossible as mentioned above, education system
in a controversy issue where “public education does not serve a public. It creates a
public. The question is, what kind of public does it create?”(Postman, 1995) ,
needless to say about the negative face of education; the peace destroying conflict
maintaining impacts of education are presented within specific identity based
conflict ( and non conflict).(Bush) “Schools can play an important role in bringing
about such change, but they constitute only one agent, and a major societal change
requires the participation of political, societal, and cultural institutions, mass
communication, leadership, and elites”(Bar-Tal and Rosen, 2009). In addition the
exchange activities can only take place where two groups or states are in non
violent conflict. In other word the condition of Allport theory that support from
authority is hardly met in this situation of armed conflict where anything could be
politicized for the war of greed.

7
Organization led, these organization must be neutral, however these mediation
organization only cannot lead to a sustainable development of peace:”
international groups have an important role to play in trying to end conflict and the
abuses that accompany conflict, but emphasized that lasting solutions must be
locally rooted and reflect local capacities and priorities”.(Saunders). Also whether
exist a powerful “middle man” with enough resource and good will to solve the
conflict

Notwithstanding that due attention should be paid on mediation. It plays an

important role in conflict resolution however in the context of interstate conflict
even mediator is an issue. Even given that education and exchange would bring up
more understanding and help bring up solution, the question remains how powerful
mediator poses in terms of financial and human resources. How many teachers and
exchanges activities, how many NGOs, how many resources to get the rivals sit
down and talk? People take part in these kinds of activities may change however
how many people needed to participate in peace education, who and how to get
affect on the decision makers to cease the fire. That the fundamental obstacle that
any kind of exchange and education programs should address in aim to bring up
peace. Do we have enough resources to fight against cultural Darwinism, social
Darwinism extremist, terrorist, to provide updated and provide non bias
information for all of the people who might be isolated and badly immersed in the
“nationalistic” education of the nation involved in war? In this endless road how
many people can be reached to offer awareness of human rights and peace
education program? Sadly the program works but in small scale, the system of
world does not serve as a refugee camp for victims of racism, aggressiveness and
realism. Yes it’s true that all we need is contact, how to get contact that’s the
problem. Yes it is true that to reduce prejudice and raise tolerance all needed is
contact which is impossible in conflict zone where the travelling and contact is
prohibited. Ideally may one cross fingers and wish for a social movement to boom
out from these people who once have exchange experience, democratic education,
civic and human right education?

8
Contact hypothesis would be out of the argument. “If one has the opportunity to
communicate with others, they are able to understand and appreciate different
points of views involving their way of life. As a result of new appreciation and
understanding, prejudice should diminish” (2014)The issue remain on how to get
opportunity for people to have contact with the other side and how many people
need to be involved in exchange to transformed a society and government hostile
policies towards the opposite. There are programs to involve people from two sides
of the conflicts however the evaluation of these programs is limited and not to say
that there is insufficient information on long term impact of these programs on
citizens of each sides. Also one issue is the length of these impacts. After short
term in contact with the other side coming back to the old tradition how much
tolerance and understanding for the others remain while one is surrounded by
halters and animosity. Whether once come back and being surrounded by those
prejudices and stereotype will again raise the hatred in one who used to be
exchanged?

Last but not least the exchange activities and the learning process must be originate
and initiative from the local, from the people who directly involve in the conflict to
bring up peace. However, once again such a bright idea faces a huge challenge. To
do this we need enthusiastic people who have a world view and humanistic view
（ the ideal situation is this initiative comes from both sides）, and once again it
is the puzzle of resources in terms of finance, time and even sacrifices. The
challenge is even more serious in case of countries without freedom of speech, any
kind of statement against authorities would be oppressed and the person would
face serious consequences. This is no easy dream to pursue.

Finally I would like to touch upon the fundamental issues, the conflict of
ideologies which always been there not only between states but also between
individual. Is it people try to convince other of the opposite to agree with them?
Ironically I am writing this text also as a part of the conflicting ideas with the
argument of the hypothesis. I express my thought under the form of text and accept
and respect that readers might or might not agree upon my thinking. Satirical
enough it works the same way to the conflicting ideas between states. The world

9
put sanction North Korea as authoritarian country where the leader “propagate”
citizen to pursuit his ideology however base one what criteria one might adjust that
some countries are qualified to pose nuclear weapon and the others do not? Is
one’s idea is truly respected or this is in turn another conflict of ideologies?

Conclusion

It is a buzzed of word that one may confuse, there is distinct feature of peace
education and conflict resolution. ”teaching conflict resolution or cultural
exchanges focuses on self perceptions, self monitoring and certain social skills that
include listening, negotiating and being helped by mediation while peace education
and to solve the conflict between states, it deals with the inter group not
individual”.(Salomon, 2003) An opened mind toward the other are always needed.
More tolerance, less prejudices, no discrimination, post modern, cosmopolitan
view point is worth effort to spread. However sadly that “Education on its own
cannot be expected to manage or resolve identity-based violent conflicts, just as
diplomatic and peacekeeping initiatives on their own cannot be expected to resolve
militarized conflict in the absence of complementary political, economic and social
initiatives. Any solution to violent conflict will be sustainable only if it is
developed and supported by both governmental and nongovernmental actors within
violence-affected societies in ways that are consistent with the fundamental and
universal principles of human rights”(Bush) . It is not difficult to admit that human
is against each other because of the conflicting ideas and because of greed. At the
individual level the conflict may be sovled by mutual understanding, tolerance and
reducing prejudice but under the realist view of international relation discipline it
is hardly a bright picture for conflict resolution between states/nation.

References

2014. Contact hypothesis [Online]. Available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis [Accessed 2014].

10
BAR-TAL, D. & ROSEN, Y. 2009. Peace education in societies involved in intractable
conflicts: Direct and indirect models. Review of Educational Research, 79, 557-
575.
BUSH, K. The two faces of education in ethnic conflict.
COLLIER, P. Economic causes of civil conflict and their implications for policy.
DAWSON, D. 1996. The origins of war: biological and anthropological theories. History
and Theory, 1-28.
PETTIGREW, T. F. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49, 65-
85.
POSTMAN, N. 1995. The end of education : redefining the value of school, New York, A.A.
Knopf.
SALOMON, G. 2003. Does Peace Education Make a Difference in the Context of an
Intractable Conflict?
SANTAYANA, G. Available:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgesant105733.html
[Accessed].
SAUNDERS, H. Year. Bridging Human Rights and Conflict Resolution: A Dialogue Between
Critical Communities. In.
TAJFEL, H. A. J. C. T. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflic. The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

11