Learning about peace: Choices and the U.S. Institute of Peace as seen from two different perspectives.

Abstract

Almost everyone is against nuclear war, but not everyone agrees on how to prevent it. In the United States, two general policy approaches have emerged: (a) the "peace through strength" (PTS) approach, which emphasizes the development of nuclear weapons to achieve a nuclear capability that will deter attack or blackmail and facilitate negotiations on arms control among nations, and (b) the "peace through cooperation" (PTC) approach, which emphasizes the use of conflict resolution techniques to reduce international tensions and promote trust and cooperation among nations. Many people believe these two approaches are incompatible. There is antipathy by proponents of each approach toward the other.These two policy approaches reflect different Weltanschauungs: world views based on different assumptions about human nature and society that come to different conclusions not only about the prevention of nuclear war, but also about relations among people, institutions, and nations. To illustrate the impact of the PTS and the PTC perspectives on education, research, and training about international conflict and nuclear issues, I will briefly describe and compare these two Weltanschauungs and then discuss the reactions of proponents of each view to Choices, a junior high school curriculum on conflict and nuclear war (Union of Concerned Scientists, Massachusetts Teachers Association, and the National Education Association, 1983) and to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), established recently by Congress. Finally, I will suggest how psychologists can contribute to a better understanding of the issues raised by these two world views.

Culture of Peace: Sociostructural Dimensions, Cultural Values, and Emotional Climate

“…There is increasing agreement that a culture of peace must refer to the meeting of human needs and not simply the absence of war (Kimmel, 1985; Wagner, 1988; White, 1988). It must also be based on societal structures such as democracy, open communication, and gender equality that are the opposite of the hierarchical structures, secrecy, and male dominance characteristics of a culture of war.…”

“…Peace, however it is conceived, is a characteristic of a system, at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, intrasocial, or intraglobal level. It is a concept applied to a system and it is, therefore, necessarily impregnated with the traditions that in a given civilization are responsible for concept formation and system development (Galtung, 1985, p. 75).There is increasing agreement that a culture of peace must refer to the meeting of human needs and not simply the absence of war (Kimmel, 1985;Wagner, 1988;White, 1988). It must also be based on societal structures such as democracy,…”

“…There is increasing agreement that a culture of peace must refer to the meeting of human needs and not simply the absence of war (Kimmel, 1985;Wagner, 1988;White, 1988). It must also be based on societal structures such as democracy,…”

In the Eye of the Beholder: Accounting for Variability in Attitudes and Cognitive/Affective Reactions Toward the Threat of Nuclear War1

“…Female subjects, on the other hand, gave nuclear war a greater chance of occurring within the next 10 years (29% according to female undergraduates), and rated worry, anxiety, overall life impact, and the Disarmist orientation significantly higher than did male subjects. These results may well reflect differences in traditional sex-role socialization processes, with more males taking on a "peace through strength" perspective (Kimmel, 1985), and sensing challenge and paternal responsibility in dealing with the aftermath of a full-scale nuclear war. For women, socialization processes that focus on the development of empathy and emotional perspective-taking skills (e.g., Barnett, King, Howard, & Dino, 1980), may well vie against the will to survive in a post-nuclear world, and instead, lead toward a strengthened abolitionist perspective (Smoke, 1984).…”

Reviews of Research: Children and Nuclear War

“…Some curricula have been criticized as overly frightening and anti-American in their peacethrough-cooperation approach (Adelson & Finn, 1985;Kimmel, 1985): The sensitivity of this topic for children, parents and administrators demandscareful evaluation of curricula. Equipped with information from carefully chosen sources, students can make rational decisions based on knowledge, rather than pure emotion.…”