Endorsing empowerment? A critical comparative study of peace education in Jamaica and Peru

Abstract

Is empowering peace education primarily about providing individuals with skills to respond to violence they experience and capabilities to enhance their own lives? Or is inspiring social transformation to alter forms of injustice that contribute to violence an equally valid and important dimension of an empowering peace education program? This article draws upon the authors’ experiences researching peace education programs implemented by local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in two different contexts: Jamaica and Peru. The basis for comparison is grounded in the discourse key actors in these NGOs utilized in reference to their respective educational initiatives, explicitly emphasizing empowerment for marginalized groups. Using critical qualitative techniques and troubling the idea of ‘empowerment,’ the authors analyze the discourse of empowerment to look beyond explicit truth claims and unveil tacit assumptions regarding the purpose and desired outcomes for the beneficiaries of their respective programs. The authors interrogate what definitions of empowerment – social and/or individual – the program stakeholders envision as well as how they believe such empowerment comes about. The study’s findings contribute to the need to critically unpack the commonly uncritical use of the term ‘empowerment’ as necessarily directed toward addressing social inequalities and altering unjust power relations.

Keywords:

• peace education
• empowerment
• comparative
• critical

Notes

1. We have intentionally chosen an integrated approach toward the fields of peace education and human rights education based upon a shared orientation toward locating and eradicating social inequality. As critical researchers who strive to break down and critique inequalities in policy and practice, it logically follows that we should also challenge divisive and hierarchical structures of scholarly practice that serve to privilege one field, discipline of study, or discourse over another.

2. This is a pseudonym used intentionally to protect the anonymity of research participants.

3. This is a pseudonym used intentionally to protect the anonymity of research participants.

4. While spending more time in the field collecting observational data and interviewing program beneficiaries would help us triangulate our findings beyond our reliance on program documents and interviews with stakeholders coupled with short-term observation, it was not possible due to time constraints. Additionally, the relationships each author has cultivated over time and maintains with the respective organizations give us a high level of confidence in the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the participants’ claims and perspectives shared with us.

5. For a good discussion on how we view validity and reliability from a critical qualitative perspective (see Carspecken 1996).