Challenges to the Education for Peace, Galtung and Violence in Digital Social Networks
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article analyzes violence in social networks from the perspective of Johan Galtung's theory, in particular his triangle of violence. The purpose of the above mentioned is to show the need to integrate the analysis of violence in social networks as an important part of Education for Peace strategies. First, the UNESCO Guidelines and recommendations regarding Education for Peace are introduced. This is followed by an exploration of the three types of violence proposed by Galtung —direct, structural, and cultural— in a general manner and in the context of how they operate in social network settings. The proposed theoretical framework is considered as a basis for identifying how these forms of violence are interrelated and reinforced in, and because of, social networks. Finally, both Galtung's and UNESCO's recommendations are discussed in the face of violence in these digital environments, highlighting the importance of including this phenomenon in such Education for Peace proposals. As a result, the outline of a conceptual framework that connects the theory of violence with digital dynamics in the context of social networks is proposed as a step in the development of targeted educational solutions for addressing violence in digital environments.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authorship: The list of authors signing must include only those people who have contributed intellectually to the development of the work. Collaboration in the collection of data is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion of authorship. "Sophia" declines any responsibility for possible conflicts arising from the authorship of the works that are published.
Copyright: The Salesian Polytechnic University preserves the copyrights of the published articles, and favors and allows their reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Ecuador license. They may be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly displayed, provided that: i) the authorship and the original source of their publication (journal, editorial and work URL) are cited; (Ii) are not used for commercial purposes; Iii) mention the existence and specifications of this license.
References
Aparici, R., & García-Marín, D. (2019). La posverdad: el software de nuestra era. En R. Aparici & D. García-Marín (Comps.), La posverdad: Una cartografía de los medios, las redes y la política (pp. 25-43). España: Gedisa Editorial.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Castro-Higueras, A.; Pérez-Rufí, J. P.; Rodríguez-Vázquez, A. I.; López-García, X. (2024). Medios Nativos Digitales y Sus Comunidades Virtuales: Estrategias de Interacción y Participación en Redes Sociales. Profesional de la información, 33, (1), e330015. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.0015
Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Why AI undermines democracy and what to do about it. Cambridge: Polity.
Del-Fresno-García, M. (2019). Desórdenes informativos: Sobreexpuestos e infrainformados en la era de la posverdad. El Profesional de la Información, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.may.02
Floridi, L. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Principles, challenges, and opportunities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Galtung, J. (1964). A Structural Theory of Aggression. Journal of Peace Research, 1(2), 95-119.
Galtung, J. (1998). Tras la violencia, 3R: Reconstrucción, reconciliación, resolución. Afrontando los efectos visibles e invisibles de la guerra y la violencia. Bilbao: Bakeaz/Gernika Gogoratuz.
Galtung, J. (2003). Violencia cultural. Biskaia: Gernika Gogoratuz.
Galtung, J. (2016). La violencia cultural, estructural y directa. En Ministerio de Defensa: Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (Ed.), Cuadernos de estrategia 183: Política y violencia: Comprensión teórica y desarrollo en la acción colectiva (pp. 147–168). España: Ministerio de Defensa.
García-Marín, D. (2020). Infodemia global: Desórdenes informativos, narrativas fake y fact-checking en la crisis de la Covid-19. El Profesional de la Información, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.11
García-Raga, L., Boqué, M. C., & Alguacil, M. (2019). La educación para la paz en las políticas educativas: Un balance histórico y desafíos del futuro. HSE: Social and Education History, 8(3), 298–323.
González, F. (2019). Big data, algoritmos y política: Las ciencias sociales en la era de las redes digitales. Cinta Moebio, 65, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2019000200267
Guallar, J., Codina, L., Freixa, P., & Pérez-Montoro, M. (2020). Desinformación, bulos, curación y verificación: Revisión de estudios en Iberoamérica 2017–2020. Telos Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, 22(3), 595–613.
Human Rights Watch. (2023, December 21). Meta’s broken promises: Systemic censorship of Palestine content on Instagram and Facebook. https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and
Jackman, M. R. (2002). Violence in social life. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 387–415.
Labrador, C. (2013). Educación para la paz y cultura de paz en documentos internacionales. Contextos Educativos: Revista de Educación, (3), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.18172/con.463
Lerch, J. C., & Buckner, E. (2018). From education for peace to education in conflict: Changes in UNESCO discourse, 1945–2015. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1387769
Lima-Strong, C. (2021, October 26). A whistleblower’s power: Key takeaways from the Facebook Papers. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/25/what-are-the-facebook-papers/
[Anonimizado para revisión.]
McIntyre, L. (2018). Posverdad. Madrid: Cátedra.
Morales, E. (2024). Social media and the mediation of everyday violence: A study of Colombian young adults’ experiences. New Media & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241236756
Oremus, W., Merrill, J. B., Alcantara, C., & Galocha, A. (2021, October 26). How Facebook’s algorithm works. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2021/how-facebook-algorithm-works/
Pineda, P., Celis, J., & Rangel, L. (2019). The worldwide spread of peace education: Discursive patterns in publications and international organisations. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(5), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1665988
Polyzoidou, V. (2024). Digital violence against women: Is there a real need for
special criminalization? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37, 1777–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10179-3
Rehman, I. U. (2019). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data harvesting: What you need to know. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 2497. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2497
Rubio, R. (2018). Los efectos de la posverdad en la democracia. UNED, Revista de Derecho Político, 103, 191–228.
Salinas Arias, B. A. (2023). Educación para la paz desde Johan Galtung. Análisis: Revista Colombiana de Humanidades, 55(102). https://doi.org/10.15332/21459169.7634
Sanz Blasco, R., & Carro De Francisco, C. (2019). Susceptibilidad cognitiva a las falsas informaciones. Historia y Comunicación Social, 24(2), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.5209/hics.66296
Schultz, M. D., Clegg, M., Hofstetter, R., & Seele, P. (2024). Algorithms and dehumanization: A definition and avoidance model. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02123-7
Shin, H. (2023). Building credibility in polarized environments: Evidence from fact checking. [Tesis doctoral, University of Michigan]. EE.UU.
[Anonimizado para revisión].
Teo, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence and its ‘slow violence’ to human rights. AI Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00547-x
Tutt, A. (2014). The new speech. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 41, 235. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2295186
UNESCO. (2022). Recomendación sobre la ética de la inteligencia artificial. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. https://www.unesco.org/es/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence
UNESCO. (2023). Directrices para la gobernanza de las plataformas digitales: Salvaguardar la libertad de expresión y el acceso a la información con un enfoque de múltiples partes interesadas. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. https://www.unesco.org/es/internet-trust/guidelines
UNESCO. (2024). Lo que debe saber sobre la Recomendación de la UNESCO sobre la educación para la paz, los derechos humanos y la democracia. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. https://www.unesco.org/es/articles/lo-que-debe-saber-sobre-la-recomendacion-de-la-unesco-sobre-la-educacion-para-la-paz-los-derechos
Vallor, S. (2015, August 21). Social networking and ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/
Véliz, C. (2021). Privacy is power: Why and how you should take back control of your data. Londres: Bantam Press.
Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social media and the Arab Spring: Politics comes first. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137.
Wu, L., Morstatter, F., Carley, K. M., & Liu, H. (2019). Misinformation in social
media. ACM SIGKDD Explorations. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464.3373475