ABSTRACT
Peace education is rst and foremost part of education. But education, as Lee S. Shulman (1988) correctly observed, is not a discipline; it is an applied eld that is based on a number of disciplines. This applies to peace education as well. As this volume has tried to show, a number of disciplines-social psychology, peace psychology, political science, philosophy, moral studies, communication, and more-underlie peace education, affect its purposes, and provide its rationale and its shapes, from the contact hypothesis underlying meetings between adversaries to addressing opinion leaders and gatekeepers and from recategorizing group identities to teaching the nature and history of con icts. Yet the translation of the underlying disciplines to actual educational actions, programs, and projects is anything but straightforward and simple, as a slew of new questions emerges during that process. Not all questions emanate from the disciplinary bases; a number are unique to the educational realm. A case in point is the question of whether peace education should be part of the regular school curriculum or left to nongovernmental organizations and out-of-school undertakings. On the other hand, not all questions that pertain to the underlying disciplines are necessarily relevant to issues of peace education, as, for example, the question of whether adversaries are perceived on the basis of their personological attributes or the circumstances under which they operate. Still, many questions emanate from the interaction between the underlying disciplines and the world of peace education practice.
