Challenging Constructions of an Enemy: Building Cultures of Peace With Canadian Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence has been a constant reality in most societies throughout history and continues to be normalized as an innate part of the human experience. Today, millions of people each year are impacted by violence, from individual to societal levels including physical, psychological, and social impacts. In fact violence is one of the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 (WHO, 2002). Within this dense and interconnected phenomenon of global violence, the impacts of contemporary armed conflict are reaching far beyond those directly involved in the fighting. Wars, or collective violence, are increasingly impacting civilians and resulting in and or exacerbating many humanitarian crises. According to the Seville Statement on Violence (1986), which was created during a UNESCO meeting of scientists from the international community, humans do not have a natural propensity for violence. Yet, while the impact of violence continues to be widespread, the spaces to disrupt patterns of violence and transform conflict are shrinking. Community-based peace organizations are struggling to maintain funding; formal school systems are increasing curricular outcomes in the areas of numeracy and literacy, while excluding explicit focuses on peace studies; and many Western governments have ceased or significantly reduced support for conflict prevention and peace focused work. This research paper will present findings from an empirical study which focused on violence prevention and peace building with Canadian young adults already engaged in peace work. This qualitative study explored how ten Canadian young adults, who were active volunteers with the Even Wars Have Limits working group of the Canadian Red Cross, have learned to construct their notions of enmity, their contextual understandings of power, and how they can create learning spaces to reflect on and challenge or transform these constructions. The lack of literature focusing on youth and young adults engaged in peace work outside of formal education structures will also be addressed. The study utilized a collaborative, participatory, and arts-informed methodology to centre the perspectives and voices of the young adult participants. Specifically, this qualitative research was situated in a critical paradigm. Central to a critical qualitative approach is a critique of power relations and knowledge constructions (Merriam, 2009). Within this paradigm, critical methodologies “ seek to draw attention to the relations of power that shape social reality ” (Morrow, 1994, p.59). Critical methodologies focus on questioning inequalities while seeking collective action or change (Merriam, 2009; Morrow, 1994). In the paper, I will share our collaborative findings, which highlight the influences of socialized norms of violence as a leading impetus towards the construction of an enemy. I will present our findings within three peace-building pedagogical themes: critical reflection, power analysis, and the nurturing of respectful and equitable relationships. I will conclude the paper with recommendations for adult educators in relation to policy and practice in the area of peace and conflict transformation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".