Tweet
Educating against violence
By Nimrod Aloni
Ha'aretz, Israel
July 18 2005
These days everyone is obsessed with stamping out violence. There are
"Giuliani save us" rituals; projects to flood Israel with police and
military to control every bit of our lives; plans to fine parents for
the sins of their children, and proposals for the harsh punishment
of violent pupils.
Even if the intentions are good, when dealing with violence it is
important to think things through before taking action. Maybe severe
discipline can develop humanism, but discipline that fails to make
human dignity its main focus is what creates fascism.
Not every use of force involves violence. Violence is using force
to do evil while trampling on human dignity. It is bullying conduct
that harms the person, soul and dignity of human beings. Violence
has many faces. There is violence between communities or nations
based on religious, national, ethnic or ideological hostility. There
is violence between individuals and within communities according to
different circles of social life.
The most radical example of violence between communities is reflected
in Nazism, which is responsible for the Holocaust of Europe's Jews and
for many millions of victims of war and oppression. Other examples
include the mass murders of the Armenians by the Turks, the Tutsi
by the Hutus, and of millions of "reactionaries" or "dissidents"
by communist regimes in Russia, China and Cambodia. In the Israeli
context, such violence is reflected in the occupation regime in
the territories, in the Palestinian terror against Israelis and in
persecution of foreign workers.
As for intra-communal and inter-personal violence, the most prominent
examples are murder, rape and battery of women, child abuse, street
thuggery, racial humiliation, corporal punishment in schools - to
which teachers have also been subjected recently - and excessive use
of force by the law authorities.
It is important to mention that although there is no necessary
connection between intra-communal and inter-personal violence, in
many cases the two are bound up with one another. Violence in wars is
usually accompanied by the rape of women, and hooliganism in football
fields is often inflamed by racial hatred.
Violent conduct can certainly be reduced by proper education. The
first principle of such education is recognizing that in order
to avoid such behavior, three elements must be present in the
individual's consciousness: free will to act nonviolently based on a
moral commitment; self-restraint to curb a violent outburst and fear
of social sanctions.
The second principle of education to prevent violence is the
recognition of three factors conducive to violence. The first factor
is economic distress, especially the despair among the impoverished
and the frustration caused by economic differences. The second factor
is an authoritative, tribal and belligerent world view, which is
also reflected in rigid thought and zealousness favoring a certain
moral code. The third factor is displayed in cultural wantonness,
which attributes no meaning to demanding norms concerning morality,
education and culture.
The third principle, which can be deducted from the first two,
incorporates the pedagogical means to prevent violence. On the one
hand, the pupils' personality should be fostered within a social
climate of humanism and decency, an intellectual culture of open
minds and critical thought, and a universal value code centering on
human dignity and the equality of man. On the other hand, educational
fostering must include strict standards of respect for human and civil
rights, fair and egalitarian behavior, self-restraint, obedience to the
law and preservation of public property and the natural environment.
To sum up, the combination of proper education, a fair society
and a demanding and humanistic culture could conceivably lead to a
significant reduction of violence in our midst. But there is a price
to pay: To achieve these goals we must renounce nationalistic and
religious ethnocentricity, all-devouring capitalism and abandonment
of culture.
Anyone want to pick up the gauntlet?
Dr. Nimrod Aloni is head of the Institute for Educational Thought at
the Seminar Hakibbutzim Teachers College, and the academic chairman
of the HAMA network for state-humanistic education.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Nimrod Aloni
Ha'aretz, Israel
July 18 2005
These days everyone is obsessed with stamping out violence. There are
"Giuliani save us" rituals; projects to flood Israel with police and
military to control every bit of our lives; plans to fine parents for
the sins of their children, and proposals for the harsh punishment
of violent pupils.
Even if the intentions are good, when dealing with violence it is
important to think things through before taking action. Maybe severe
discipline can develop humanism, but discipline that fails to make
human dignity its main focus is what creates fascism.
Not every use of force involves violence. Violence is using force
to do evil while trampling on human dignity. It is bullying conduct
that harms the person, soul and dignity of human beings. Violence
has many faces. There is violence between communities or nations
based on religious, national, ethnic or ideological hostility. There
is violence between individuals and within communities according to
different circles of social life.
The most radical example of violence between communities is reflected
in Nazism, which is responsible for the Holocaust of Europe's Jews and
for many millions of victims of war and oppression. Other examples
include the mass murders of the Armenians by the Turks, the Tutsi
by the Hutus, and of millions of "reactionaries" or "dissidents"
by communist regimes in Russia, China and Cambodia. In the Israeli
context, such violence is reflected in the occupation regime in
the territories, in the Palestinian terror against Israelis and in
persecution of foreign workers.
As for intra-communal and inter-personal violence, the most prominent
examples are murder, rape and battery of women, child abuse, street
thuggery, racial humiliation, corporal punishment in schools - to
which teachers have also been subjected recently - and excessive use
of force by the law authorities.
It is important to mention that although there is no necessary
connection between intra-communal and inter-personal violence, in
many cases the two are bound up with one another. Violence in wars is
usually accompanied by the rape of women, and hooliganism in football
fields is often inflamed by racial hatred.
Violent conduct can certainly be reduced by proper education. The
first principle of such education is recognizing that in order
to avoid such behavior, three elements must be present in the
individual's consciousness: free will to act nonviolently based on a
moral commitment; self-restraint to curb a violent outburst and fear
of social sanctions.
The second principle of education to prevent violence is the
recognition of three factors conducive to violence. The first factor
is economic distress, especially the despair among the impoverished
and the frustration caused by economic differences. The second factor
is an authoritative, tribal and belligerent world view, which is
also reflected in rigid thought and zealousness favoring a certain
moral code. The third factor is displayed in cultural wantonness,
which attributes no meaning to demanding norms concerning morality,
education and culture.
The third principle, which can be deducted from the first two,
incorporates the pedagogical means to prevent violence. On the one
hand, the pupils' personality should be fostered within a social
climate of humanism and decency, an intellectual culture of open
minds and critical thought, and a universal value code centering on
human dignity and the equality of man. On the other hand, educational
fostering must include strict standards of respect for human and civil
rights, fair and egalitarian behavior, self-restraint, obedience to the
law and preservation of public property and the natural environment.
To sum up, the combination of proper education, a fair society
and a demanding and humanistic culture could conceivably lead to a
significant reduction of violence in our midst. But there is a price
to pay: To achieve these goals we must renounce nationalistic and
religious ethnocentricity, all-devouring capitalism and abandonment
of culture.
Anyone want to pick up the gauntlet?
Dr. Nimrod Aloni is head of the Institute for Educational Thought at
the Seminar Hakibbutzim Teachers College, and the academic chairman
of the HAMA network for state-humanistic education.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress