本專案計畫由國家教育研究院教科書發展中心與國立臺灣師範大學教育學系合作辦理。主軸一為進行和平教育經典書目與期刊論文之研讀會,主軸二為辦理教科書研究方法工作坊-以和平教育為例,一方面期能有系統地耙梳經典文獻論述,探討與批判教科書和平教育之困境與爭議,另一方面期能對參與本計畫的研究者或有志趣的研究者,提供教科書和平教育研究方法之實作訓練,以厚實研究的基礎能力。
 

研讀會擬每月聚會1次,每次2小時,一年預計聚會12次,進行有關教科書文本與和平教育相關研究文獻論述之導讀,每篇論述皆安排主讀者報告20分鐘,評論人10分鐘,及共同討論時間。所有參與者均需閱讀原文資料,並參與對話討論。
 

The Center for Textbook Development at National Academy for Educational Research (NAER) and the Department of Education at National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) worked together on a research project entitled “Discourse and Praxis on Textbooks Construction for Peace Education” in hopes of carrying out comprehensive study on issues related to discussions of relevant textbook content and peace education and engaging in extensive dialog and carrying out feasibility studies and develop peace education appropriate for the Taiwan context. For the research project, which commenced in 2010, peace education literature from Taiwan and around the world is being collected, organized, and peace education programs promoted abroad introduced into that in Taiwan and set up a peace education website specifically for this research project to serve as a platform for providing and exchanging information about the activity. Since 2011, classic peace education literature workshops, covering such topics as research, organization, and textbook analysis methods, have been held and relevant achievements are being compiled into a book for publication (currently expected to be published in October 2013). In order to realize innovative thinking in the design of Taiwanese teaching materials to understand the influence of different cultures and perspectives of various countries on textbooks, starting in 2012, we analyzed developed international peace education in continental Europe, Middle East and East Asia to understand how these regions employ cross-national history textbooks to work together to create experience to give an account of themselves and to better understand others, to resolve potential enmity, clashes, and conflict, and to consider the feasibility of cross-national cooperation in the writing of history textbooks and design curriculum and teaching materials in Taiwan that open up a new international perspective and drive new research in peace education in Taiwan.

計畫主持人
甄曉蘭 (國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教授)
 
共同主持人
潘文忠 (國家教育研究院副院長)
陳麗華 (淡江大學課程與教學研究所教授)
 
 
Safe harm」概念由來及相關討論
陳姵琁 *
陳姵琁
台大歷史所碩士。「教科書文本與和平教育之論述與實踐——對話、研議和發展」專案專任研究助理。

2011319號的讀書會中,對於David Perkins "Paradoxes of Peace and the Prospects of Peace Education"一文有很多討論,特別是文章中「safe harm」的概念,在眾多和平論述中顯得獨樹一格。因此筆者在甄曉蘭老師的指導下做了相關的研究,希望能釐清safe harm概念的意涵。

Safe from harm vs. safe harm

考察網路上的資料,「safe harm」的概念應是David Perkins首創;相較之下,「safe from harm」一詞出現的頻率高出許多,除了在流行音樂中不少歌曲就叫「Safe from harm」,關於社會救助與社工的團體也常用safe from harm的概念。如英國一社會救助團體就取名為safe from harm1

在跟和平教育有關的論述中「safe from harm」也還算常見,如Mary B. Anderson所著Do no harm: How aid can support peace--or war一書中,就多此提到「afe without arms」跟「Doing no harms」兩個概念。關於該書在Google圖書有此書的全文2,另外可以找到此書的簡介。3

safe from harm」的概念之所以廣泛地出現,是因為safeharm這兩個字有強烈的相關性,遠離傷害就能得到安全,換言之,安全的首要條件是要能避開傷害;安全的另一個意義就是免於恐懼、避免傷害。

Safe harm in the context

"Paradoxes of Peace and the Prospects of Peace Education"一文中,safe harm42-52頁每頁皆有出現,分別表列如下:

pp.42 What is needed is an enforcer to eliminate safe harm.

pp.43 It is hypothesized that a core part of human psychological makeup is a safe harm schema, a schema what warms us against leaving ourselves in position where another can harm us safely. 全段皆討論 safe harm.

pp.43 Safe harm can be physical. Safe harm can also be symbolic.

pp.44 Safe harm can involve the past, the present, the future, or some combination of these.

pp.44 The tragedy of safe harm is that sometimes the safe harm schema works too hard.(prisoner’s dilemma)

pp.45 Indeed, the safe harm schema explains the force that generates the paradoxes of peace.

pp.45 It is important to emphasize that the safe harm schema is not a war schema.

pp.46 The concepts of safe harm and the biologically rooted safe harm schema explain the force behind the paradoxes.

pp.47 First, these models of peace (retaliatory peace) do not speak equally to the problem of safe harm. Some protect the parties involved against safe harm much better than do others.

pp.48 全頁討論五種不同和平對 safe harm 有無防治方法。

pp.49 In contrast, interdependent peace, civil peace, and retaliatory peace all protect against safe harm through repercussions, albeit by quite different mechanisms.

pp.50 Groups who feel they have suffered safe harm in the past are still looking for the balance to be righted….. The safe harm schema will drive them away.

pp.50 Nonetheless, the commission (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa) offers a clear example of an endeavor to recognize and exorcise the ghosts of past safe harm.

pp.50 Again, although there are, no doubt, ethical arguments, there is a strong pragmatic argument: Without free speech and other avenues of protest, civil systems will not be—and should not be—trusted, because they will not be able to protect their constituencies from safe harm at their own hands.

pp.51 Peace education cannot neglect civil mechanisms either lack sufficient generality or do not protect against safe harm.

pp.52 It has been argued here that the plan of construction involves the safe harm schema and its consequences, the paradoxes of peace, the several kinds of peace, and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

從本文的脈絡來看,safe harm是本文作者Perkins相當重要的概念,文章中所提到五種公民的和平都和safe harm 有相互作用。在Perkins的概念中,safe harm以及為了詮釋safe harm所引用的the prisoners’ dilemma都精確地說明出和平的矛盾。如同第一頁所提到safe from harm的概念廣植人心,人有免於恐懼的需求,希望安全並且遠離傷害,但也是這樣的防衛心態產生了新的悲劇。為了保障自己不受傷害,進而武裝自己。當防止安全遭受傷害的機制過度反應時,往往會造成悲劇。延續這樣的概念,Perkins在討論五種和平的模式時也著重在這些模式有沒有防範safe harm的措施(可以參考黃春木老師講義第三頁)。

關於safe harm概念的由來,我之前寫信詢問David Perkins教授,獲得他的來信(信件原文),在此將信件內容翻譯如下:

首先,關於safe harm概念從哪裡來的問題,根據我所能追溯的,是一段時間對不斷昇溫武裝暴力衝突的反思,進而演化出這個概念。

其次,也許我應該在討論防禦機制前給safe harm概念一個簡單的描述,抱歉在原始的文章中講得不夠清楚。

所以,它的基本觀念是人們積極地去避免safe harm的情形。這些情況是當一個團體感覺另一個團體可能會傷害他們,而且對另一個團體本身沒有嚴重後果。舉例來說,一個微弱軍事國家的人民可能會害怕鄰國用壓倒性的武力,而且幾乎不擔心遭到報復,來攻擊他們。或者,在較小的規模,老百姓生活在粗暴的城市社區可能擔心被街頭黑幫攻擊,而黑幫不擔心受到報復。或者,另一類的例子,一群住在水源下游的人可能擔心住在水源上游的人會為了自己的利益把水源用光,而住在下游的人卻無法對這件事多做什麼,因為距離上游那群人太過遙遠。

當然,法律和國際公約應該更好地管理這種狀況。法律和國際公約是對safe harm的解決方案之一—對公民/法律結構的解決方案—當法律和國際公約是有效的時候。不幸的是,他們有時是無效的。一些公民/法律系統無法有效運作,因為效率不彰或貪污腐化。國家破壞合約。即便如此,公民/法律結構通常有幫助。

現在來討論心理機制的問題。在你的來信中把它稱為防禦機制,是非常正確的。我在文章中的提議,基本動機是天生的,是基因制訂的。這就是說,人們往往注意到另一群人可能因安全或個人利益威脅他們,而人們積極地避免或改變這些情況。

試圖解決safe harm問題的方法是人類創造力與文化,有很多這樣的方法。我不嘗試將它全部列出來,只舉一些途徑:

  • 公民/法律結構,如前面提到的。
  • 擴大軍事及武器裝備以達到權力的平衡,當然這往往也導致軍備競賽。
  • 離開危險區域,如果你能的話。
  • 發動先發制人,在潛在敵人摧毀你之前摧毀他。
  • 建立正面的關係,如詳盡的貿易關係,如此一來該集團就不能安全地傷害你,並不是因為你可以報復,也不是對另一個集團的威脅,而是因為另一個集團在傷害你時就等於傷害他自己,並且破壞了他自身的貿易利益。

這是我原文結尾所提到的幾種模式,端看他們的取捨。

希望這幾點能幫助你並謝謝你的提問。

另外,黃皮書Peace Education的作者Ian M. Harris"Paradoxes of Peace and the Prospects of Peace Education"一文寫過書評,對於safe harm的概念及prisoner dilemma有明確的闡述,在此條列如下。(書評全文)

Curriculum Inquiry, 34(1), 109-122
Book Review
The Ideal of Peace
Ian M. Harris

David Perkins宣稱我們都是戰爭的囚徒。即使我們沒有生活在受戰爭摧殘的地區,我們依然受政府統治著,而政府花費大量的資源維持軍事力量以確保安全。(只有兩個國家,哥斯大黎加跟冰島沒有軍隊)。更進一步說,我們所生存的文化歌頌暴力、恐嚇公民並且訓練人們殺戮。Perkins呈現了和平教育的五種矛盾和safe-harm的悲劇,這與寓言中族群或個人感到受威脅時,會想使用力量來保護自己或威嚇侵略雷同。Perkins將他的概念推展到文化的傳統:當你的祖先屠殺我的祖先,可能會點燃當前的衝突。害怕明天會處於safe-harm的情境可能導致今天衝突的昇溫。在過去遭受侵犯的族群在今天仍尋找恢復的可能。這樣「囚犯的困境」造成人們無法在充滿假想敵的世界信任和平。

Perkins呈現出五種和平的模式:友誼的和平、倫理的和平、依存的和平、公民的和平與報復的和平,並強調公民的和平是可以避免safe harm的唯一模式。公民的和平並不只是由政治家,而必須由公民社會中的公民一起參與才能建立。和平教育者應該讓他們的學生能在公共事務中有非暴力的參與。

Ian M. Harris認為safe harm的概念與寓言中部落有些相似,都是因恐懼自身的和平被破壞進而武裝;但Perkins的特出之處是將safe harm的概念找出文化傳統上的根源,以及可能的發展趨勢,並且提出具體的模型說明哪些行為可以防止safe harm的發生,強化在公共事務中的非暴力參與,如此一來公民社會才有可能建立公民的和平。

書評原文:
David Perkins states that we are all prisoners of war. Even though we do not live in war-torn areas, we are governed by states that expend a huge amount of their resources on maintaining a military force to provide security. (Only two countries, Costa Rica and Iceland, do not have armed forces.) Furthermore, we live within cultures that glorify violence, frighten citizens, and train people to kill. He presents five paradoxes of peace education and the tragedy of what he calls "safe-harm," which is similar to the parable of the tribes (mentioned above) where one group or individual that feels threatened will want to use force for protection and/or will become armed to deter aggression. Perkins spreads this concept to cultural traditions where "your ancestors slaughtered my ancestors, may fester and fuel present conflicts. Fear of being put in a position of safe harm tomorrow may promote escalation today" (2002, p. 42). Groups that have been violated in the past are still looking for that balance to be restored. This "prisoners dilemma" makes people distrustful of peace in a world full of perceived enemies.

Perkins goes on to present five different models of peace—friendly peace, ethical peace, interdependent peace, civil peace, and retaliatory peace—stating that civil peace is the only model that protects us from harm. This civil peace is not just for the politicians but must also be constructed by the active involvement of people in civic society. Peace educators should prepare their students for active nonviolent participation in civil affairs.

David Perkins 原信:
Thank you for your inquiry. Let me see what I can do to answer your questions.

First of all, where did the safe harm concept come from? As far as I recall, I formulated it myself after a period of reflection on the dynamics of escalation toward armed conflicts.

Second, perhaps I should give a brief account of what the concept of safe harm means before discussing the defense mechanism. I'm sorry that this was not clear enough in the original paper.

So…the basic idea is that people feel motivated to avoid situations of safe harm. These are situations where one group feels that another group can harm them without serious consequences to itself. For instance, the people of a nation with a weak military might fear that the nation next to them could attack with overwhelming force, and little fear of reprisals. Or, on a smaller scale, ordinary people living in a rough urban community might fear that street gangs could attack them with little chance that anybody could effectively retaliate. Or, for a different sort of example, a group downstream from a water source might fear that a group far upstream could use up all the water in their own interests, and the group downstream couldn't do much about it because the group upstream is too far away.

Of course, laws and international agreements are supposed to manage such situations better. Laws and international agreements are one kind of solution to the problem of safe harm – the solution of civil/legal structures – when they are effective. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not. Some civil/legal systems do not work very well because of inefficiency or corruption. Nations break treaties. Even so, civil/legal structures often help.

Now to the question of psychological mechanism. Terming this a defense mechanism, as you do in your note, is entirely appropriate. I suggest in the article that the basic motivation is innate, genetically programmed. That is to say, people tend to notice situations where another group might threaten them with safety to its own interests, and people feel motivated to avoid or change those situations.

Ways of trying to solve the problem of safe harm are a matter of human ingenuity and culture, and there are many such ways. Without trying to list them all, some approaches include for instance:

  • Civil/legal structures, as mentioned above.
  • Expand armies and armaments to achieve a balance of power, which of course tends to lead to an arms race.
  • Moving away from the danger zone, if you can.
  • Mounting a preemptive strike, to destroy the potential enemy before the potential enemy destroys you.
  • Establishing positive relations, for instance elaborate trade relations, so that the group that might harm you can no longer do so safely…NOT because you can retaliate, that's not the threat to the other group, but because the group will do itself harm by harming you and destroying its trade interests.

There is a discussion of a number of models toward the end of the original paper, with their trade-offs.

I hope that these notes help and thank you again for your interest,

Dave Perkins

網頁由國家教育研究院教科書發展中心維護,最佳瀏覽解析度為 1024*768 以上
本專案執行單位:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系、國家教育研究院教科書發展中心