The EU Commission put greater emphasis on learning to live together as one of
the four pillars that it proposes for European citizenship. Learning to live together
involves developing an understanding of others and their history, traditions and
spiritual values. The aim is to create a new spirit which, guided by recognition of a
growing interdependence and a common analysis of the risks and challenges of
the future, would induce people to implement common projects or to manage the
inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way. Utopia, some might think,
but it is a necessary Utopia, indeed a vital one if we are to escape from a
dangerous cycle sustained by cynicism or resignation.
While the Commission has indeed a vision of the kind of education that would
create and underlay this new spirit, it has not disregarded the other three pillars
of education which provide, as it were, the bases for learning to live together.
Violence all too often dominates life in the contemporary world, forming a
depressing contrast with the hope which some people have been able to place in
human progress. Human history has constantly been scarred by conflicts, but the
risk is heightened by two new elements. Firstly, there is the extraordinary potential
for self- destruction created by humans in the twentieth century. Then, we have
the ability of the new media to provide the entire world with information and
unverifiable reports on ongoing conflicts. Public opinion becomes a helpless
observer or even a hostage of those who initiate or keep up the conflicts. Until
now education has been unable to do much to mitigate this situation. Can we do
better? Can we educate ourselves to avoid conflict or peacefully resolve it?
While the idea of teaching non-violence in schools is certainly praiseworthy, it
seems quite inadequate if we look at what is really involved. The challenge is a
difficult one since people have a natural tendency to overestimate their own
abilities or those of the group to which they belong and to entertain prejudices
against other people. Moreover, the general climate of competition that prevails
in both domestic and international economies tends to turn competitiveness and
personal success into modern values. In fact, this competitiveness is nowadays
translated into a relentless economic war and a tension between rich and poor
that breaks apart nations and the world and exacerbates historic rivalries.
Regrettably, with its incorrect interpretation of what is meant by competition,
education sometimes helps to sustain this state of affairs.
How can we do better? Experience shows that it is not enough to set up contacts
and communication between people who are liable to come into conflict to reduce
this risk (for example, in inter-racial or inter- denominational schools). If the
different groups are rivals or if they do not have the same status in the same
geographical area, such contact may have the opposite effect to that desired - it
may bring out hidden tensions and degenerate into an opportunity for conflict. If,
on the other hand, this kind of contact is organized in an egalitarian setting and
common aims and projects are pursued, the prejudices and latent hostility may
give way to a more relaxed form of co- operation, or even friendship.
The conclusion would seem to be that education should adopt two complementary
approaches. From early childhood, it should focus on the discovery of other
people in the first stage of education. In the second stage of education and in
lifelong education, it should encourage involvement in common projects. This
seems to be an effective way of avoiding conflict or resolving latent conflicts
One of education's tasks is both to teach pupils and students about human
diversity and to instil in them an awareness of the similarities and
interdependence of all people. From early childhood, the school should seize
every opportunity to pursue this two- pronged approach. Some subjects lend
themselves to this - human geography in basic education, foreign languages and
literature later on.
Moreover, whether education is provided by the family, the community or the
school, children should be taught to understand other people's reactions by
looking at things from their point of view. Where this spirit of empathy is
encouraged in schools, it has a positive effect on young persons' social
behaviour for the rest of their lives. For example, teaching youngsters to look at
the world through the eyes of other ethnic or religious groups is a way of avoiding
some of the misunderstandings that give rise to hatred and violence among
adults. Thus, teaching the history of religions or customs can provide a useful
reference tool for moulding future behaviour.
Lastly, recognition of the rights of other people should not be jeopardized by the
way children and young people are taught. Teachers who are so dogmatic that
they stifle curiosity or healthy criticism instead of teaching their pupils how to
engage in lively debate can do more harm than good. Forgetting that they are
putting themselves across as models, they may, because of their attitude, inflict
lifelong harm on their pupils in terms of the latter's openness to other people and
their ability to face up to the inevitable tensions between individuals, groups and
nations. One of the essential tools for education in the twenty-first century will be a
suitable forum for dialogue and discussion.
