Also, some questions come to my mind related with, how we can motivate young people who in some ways have permeated for violence for a long time? 

I consider that psychology, as my previous academic study, plays an important role as it allows questions to be raised as, how individuals could contribute to peace building and conflict management? This is something that we should start to create as community or what individual process should become to be aware of others? To some extent this could a long debate that could take years, but it’s necessary to break down these elements to have a deeply understanding in how peace and conflict studies could have an impact in an individual and social way. 
In my non-academic experiences PACS relates with young violence prevention projects, particularly in academic- educational contexts where some students do not have further possibilities to access to quality education. Also, for some student’s violence becomes an important adaptation strategy, that is the reason why finding other way to prevent violence and conflict in this context is something necessary. 

I expect to have a deeply understanding in conflict and peace strategies, how to create connections with other contexts and experiences, to have more questions related to practice and find a balance between theory and ways to implement further strategies regarding the background

The “state of nature is rather a state of war” and the role of nature in the human kind, as how she “ has chosen War” as a way to discover new territories and to connect different tribes from others continents. ¿Nature has chosen war or what is the role of men on choosing nature to get more power in their conquest? 

 

Is there a human tendency towards moral good? This idea, which was raised in the text, left me with questions regarding the consequences that some countries have experienced in relation to their history and how this so-called "moral good" develops in societies where the rules work and where the laws established in the constitution are complied with.

 

Additionally, in the text appears the Pacific Federation that would be distinguished from a treaty or compact of peace that could put an end to all wars. Immediately, arose more questions that arguments related of how this Pacific Federation could be implemented nowadays, where is a permanent lack of confidence between countries and guarantees in the Peace agreements that are established during time. 

 

I find that I agree to some extent with the arguments given in the text, in terms of putting on the table the role of morality and freedom in understanding perpetual peacemaking. The process remains confusing, and I connect it to the context I come from, Colombia, where colonization and the quest for power have been part of the history and have made state formation look like an institution lacking in trust and security. 

How can we understand or even imagine these maxims being implemented in countries with perpetual internal warfare? 

Project: 

Teach the teachers (transmission of knowledge in a different way)

Why teaching?

Addressing the fear from the people through discovering and analyzing those fears. 

Danger through imposed fears is affecting the way knowledge is transmitted

Understand teaching as way to rethink the way history has been understood over time

Fear: to approve/agree to a peace agreement.

Who?

We want to teach the teachers. 

When? 

At the beginning of the school year at teacher meetings. 

How? 

→Teachers get input (by whom, on what exactly?) and then discuss in focus groups.

What exactly do we want to teach?

Intended outcomes:

Furthermore, During the indigenous occupation at the time of colonization, violence was somehow justified because it was necessary, but this hints at elements related to how those who were colonized constructed elements of their identity related to legitimized violence.  

Thus, the term war without end refers to the violent biopolitical normalization through the state, where this normalization was given through exclusion of the previous indigenous culture. 

 Another argument that caught my attention was how violence and the notion of death, become a main factor in postcolonial indigenous subjectivity, as since it is through the “desire” for death of both the colonized and the colonizer, the identity start its foundation. Likewise, the idea remains that through absence, vulnerability, and recognition of what has been lost, the state of otherness towards the other can somehow be developed, rather than focusing on the construction of an eternal peace, absent of violence.

I consider that the text sets out influential elements regarding the impact of identity construction and notion of violence, through the example of the consequences of colonization not only in indigenous people but also non- indigenous. The understanding through this element, allows us to see identity through that which is lost but also, the resistance and the latent permanence of which belongs to a certain person or community. Inevitably, I relate it with the Latin-American context, where violence remains as a consequence of what has been lost and the naturalization of dynamics that becomes part of their identity. Violence here sometimes becomes a  legitimized means of achieving ends, but there is an underlying impossibility of recognizing what we have lost as a continent, and what remains as a part of our identity as a colonized nation. 

On the other side we can see the natives position, which is associated with which has been lost but at the same time the feeling of encourage, to take position about what has been lost, and there comes the word “ decolonization” which the author mention as how the native start to “bring into existence the history of the nation--the history of decolonization” (Fanon, p.51).

Through the masses  that are part of a colonised society, we can identify the native intellectual ( permeated by the colonial bourgeoisie) and the peasants , who live the consequences of the colonisation from different sides, but play an important role during the whole process of decolonization: they take part of what they received.  

The author introduces a statement related to how violence turns out into a means that could include 2 meanings: First, the means by which everything was stripped away through the settler, but also, the force that re- empower the native people. Beyond violence, there is such a necessity to develop and recover their own identity, but this feeling becomes the continuous need for the mobilisation of the masses in search for a unity. 

I connect this text with the role of violence especially in Latin America, which has been a means by which people express their voice. Here violence is lived as an individual and collective act that is charged with  emotions and thoughts where people constantly demand something that has been lost : order, stability, to be heard by a “ state”. The social protest that we experienced  a year ago in some countries of Latin America was permeated by violence on both levels and at some point was needed to make people 's voice louder.  

Here comes the question about ( in the case of some countries of Latin America)  how we can re-signify violence? How do we start to feel  “ fearless”  and “restore our respect” as a nation to develop our critical thinking? 

During the text, the author describes what it could be called civilization, characterized by their identities, history and tradition, each one different from the other. Through time, these differences have been the main cause of violent conflicts, and the dynamics that we live as humankind, have made the differentiation among the fundamelist groups much stronger. 

Religion has played a  fundamental role in the whole process, the division that has been established in the territories through wars and history has impacted a huge number of people, and has marked several points during the development of  history in the civilizations. 

Another important argument is how the influence of Western culture ( and this includes religion, rituals, beliefs and nowadays, media content) has developed its power through the world, leaving in the background the non-western culture, which could be seen as more traditional and conservative. Here it emphasised the fact that western countries used international institutions to legitimitate its power, to maintain  the predominance of western traditions and values. Here's the question about the role of international organizations ( as United Nations ) that apparently work in favour of the majority of countries but technically was created in a western country. ¿How do international organizations keep their neutrality?

I consider  interesting the argument about how the world has been influenced but the western beliefs and tradition, and how some of non-western countries, fight for keep their our traditions even if it's catalogued as retrograde or more conservative. Nowadays, we live in a world permeated by globalisation, which makes me wonder about nationalism, what makes people feel proud about their countries and which role traditions and cultural heritage play in identity development.  At this point, sometimes people take their beliefs as truth, which prevents the possibility to develop a genuine coexistence with others. 

Also, I consider it is important to balance the expansion of Western culture and to enable spaces where non-western people could express their identity and empower themselves to belong to them. For instance, in south- america where we’ve been living a cultural movement of appropriate traditions to recover the most autochthonous actions through music, writing and cultural spaces. “ Recover what belongs to us” say some of them, but here the discussion must go beyond, how to coexist with the difference, what could be totally new for others and perhaps question ourselves about western culture as that which has been established as unique and true in some countries. 

This text seems to be quite of essentialist taking into account the reductionism that he underlines through his assumptions. I consider that some authors should be aware about this assumptions that take for granded, without evidence or without anything that support their statements.

During the text, the author describes what is called conflict transformation, through an extended definition of what we refer as a conflict and the main differences between conflict resolution and conflict transformation. The main difference between them is the focus on their own purpose: while resolution aims to eliminate the violent actions of a conflict, transformation implies something deeper, tackling the root causes over a long-term period. 

There is a permanent question related to the difficulty in maintaining peace agreements, and here it identifies relevant gaps: Interdependence, Justice and the process-structure gap. 

I consider  the distinction made by the author relevant, when he explains the level organization in the “ peacebuilding pyramid”, specially because in some regions of Colombia, the intervention to tackle conflict is centred in the level 3: grassroots leadership. International organizations focus their actions on this level, and although it has a relevant impact during the intervention, some people claim that the main causes of the conflict will continue which generates mistrust in actions aimed at building peace. People often feel over-diagnosed, and express the importance of involving the stakeholders ( level 2 and 3)  to be part of the peacebuilding process, otherwise, it feels like a stall action. 

Furthermore, I consider important what the author mentioned about “ Economic development and the role of business”, especially for the question about how the private sector contributes indirectly by “ reducing the economic sources of conflict”. In some countries of South America, it is not clear what are the roles of private institutions in the conflict transformation, and this is fundamental considering the impact that has on economic development during peacebuilding implementation.

Sometimes, understanding conflict transformation seems like a broad process, so the investment should not only be focused on the implementation of certain actions, but also in the way we assess the impact of them. 

However, opponents to these statements refer to post developing school as some kind of essentialist and romantic in the way of view and also to not be propositive in the alternatives. Also, the definition of development for PD opponents, seems to have different connotations, these include the development as an ideology, as a failed project, as a hierarchic construct, as a reductionism to economy category. In some point, the author refers that both could have common perspectives, in terms on how to empower people who really need it. 

I consider the comparison and analysis that the author brings valuable considering the arguments for both parties, both development theory and post-development school. Beyond reducing the statements to certain categories as the influence of western- non western, I consider pertinent to zoom  in on the alternatives that the local communities could bring about, even if it is in the north or south parts of some continents. However, I believe that it is important to deconstruct these categories that create wider differences  between one culture and another. At a certain point, I agree with some post-development statements which refer to how these categories of developed or undeveloped countries, sums into wider differences between cultures, reducing people into fixed characteristics, denying the diversity and their own forms of economies that can be a way of growing as a society too. Furthermore, It is thus a challenge to empower communities through the development of consciousness and help them to find ways against oppression or situations that reproduce the inequality in a micro level relationship ( as could be relationship between citizenships or between institutions). 

Also, for me has been really pertinent to understand the different meanings of what we understand as conflict ( the difference between resolution and transformation for instance) particularly because I consider that during my experience, I have  been a witness to strategies that aim to conflict resolution, but develop some kind of transformation in a conflict requires analyzing from different perspectives beyond finding specific strategies. 

 

Regarding the ideas of the term paper, I would like to focus on peace education ( how a critical vision of peace could be developed), and connect conflict transformation with the role of education. Even though this could be seen as a broad topic, my interest in connecting with youth violence prevention remains. 

Finally, I think that at this point we’ve been going through topics that require not only de-construct some beliefs regarding conflict and the way peace could be developed, but also understanding conflict and peace as a process that is not linear, but more systematic and critical. 

The main example that is developed during the text is how to understand genocide, not only as a “ cause/ effect” situation but also as a “ social practice” that take place during a considerable amount of time. In addition, queer theory allows the expansion of thinking in terms of understanding roles, dynamics that are intertwined during a transitional justice process and also to understand national identities in terms of the analysis of norms and normatives that people live in their countries. 

The main example that the author develops is through the Indonesian text, in which the narrative of national identity is represented through main characters, each one with specific characteristics that represent principal actors in a country ( the government, principal stakeholders, people etc). With these tools, understanding national identity becomes more fluid, inclusive and diverse. 

Finally, the author reinforces the idea of questioning who is vulnerable at the moment to analyse a transitional process and also the inclusion of gender and sexuality as an inclusive way of analysing these particularities. 

During the text it is mentioned that queer theory could help to reveal “ marginalizations and structural inequalities” and also it helps to understand how this role plays an important field in transitional justice. However, the text seems to me quite broad and not clear at the moment to explain the role of the theory in understanding these marginalizations. I consider that sometimes queer theory deals with relativism, so it is quite difficult to understand the main impact of these reflections. I would say that it is more clear to me in terms of a systemic approach instead of a queer approach, since the former accounts for the actors and dynamics involved in a situation at a much specific level. 

On the other hand, this course for me was an experience to connect with other disciplines and challenge myself in terms of going back again to the academy after being working for a few years. During this whole period, I always asked myself about the impacts that the academy has on day-to-day life, and how these great ideas that come in the classrooms of the university could be translated into projects that have an impact outside, in real life. I have to say that sometimes for me it was difficult to get into the theories again but at the same time it was really fascinating to de-construct this notion of development and start to think differently. I really enjoyed the way the class dynamic developed during time, because it was a safe space and for me was an opportunity to get more about my partners through their personal opinions and experiences.

For the next semesters, I would like to start connecting these learnings into possible projects or actions that I can develop with the current peace agreement process that it’s happening in Colombia, which has had plenty of failures, challenges, and also community debts. With the above I would like to further develop ideas in youth prevention violence, connecting the designing of  peace education projects in rural contexts.