Prefigurative pedagogies for working toward peace and justice in changing times: insights from Korea

ABSTRACT

This study examines the contribution of university educators toward prefiguratively creating tomorrow today in the higher education classroom. Educators often teach for peace and social justice through a variety of normative pedagogical frameworks. Yet, this linkage of pedagogy and prefigurative politics in university classrooms is frequently under-examined. Moreover, such research has not yet been conducted within the context of Korea. Hence, this paper investigates – through a qualitative case study methodology – the varied approaches to pedagogy for social change in Korean universities today, including but not limited to: (a) democratic pedagogy, (b) critical pedagogy, (c) peace and social justice pedagogy, and (d) decolonial pedagogy. The paper examines these intersectional pedagogies through the lens of prefigurative politics, which is understood as a form of praxis that attempts to (re)construct through education a more just society. Findings indicate challenges and opportunities that Korean university educators face today in teaching for social change in higher education classrooms.

KEYWORDS:

• Prefigurative politics
• higher education
• pedagogy
• peace
• social justice
• South Korea

Introduction

Pedagogical practices in higher education (HE) often operate implicitly (or explicitly) under the assumption of promoting a better society, but the explicit theories of social change that underscore such pedagogies are frequently under-examined (Trifonas 2003). Furthermore, such pedagogies for peace and social change in higher education are often undertheorized, and no studies have yet explored this work in the context of South Korea (hereafter referred to as Korea). To explore and categorize the varied approaches that university educators make in response to contemporary social conflict, this study employs a qualitative case study methodology that examines diverse perspectives on university pedagogy as a form of prefigurative politics (Raekstad and Gradin 2020). Here, prefigurative politics is understood as a form of praxis that attempts to (re)construct through education a more peaceful, cohesive, and socially just society, broadly defined. The study includes an integrative review of literature (Anderson-Levitt 2017; Torraco 2016), document analysis, and interviews with eight Korean-based educators to provide insights into HE pedagogical practices that aspire toward positive peace¹ and social justice. The discussion is focused on the Korean context specifically – the context from which we write.

The primary questions guiding the study include: How and to what extent do Korean university educators’ visions and specific educational praxes work toward prefiguratively creating a better tomorrow today (as interpreted by scholars) in the HE classroom? How are these praxes conceptualized and outlined within the literature (both domestic and international)? What contemporary social challenges are Korean educators addressing with their responsive pedagogies? And, how and when are different theoretical, pedagogical, methodological, or policy approaches utilized to more effectively promote peace and social change? In the end, it is expected that the findings from the qualitative case study will contribute to generating good practices and theorizations on the transformative possibilities for HE pedagogy to support peace, democracy, and justice today. Findings from the Korean context may potentially hold implications for educators elsewhere practicing prefigurative education.

Our primary argument is that prefigurative politics provides a useful conceptual framework for better understanding the convergences (and divergences) between approaches to teaching for peace and social change in universities, and toward responding constructively to a variety of contemporary social problems. The paper offers new insights into prefigurative pedagogy and peacebuilding from the perspective of faculty in Korea as they seek to foster peace, democracy, and social justice in and beyond the HE classroom (Cremin 2016; Trifonas 2003; Zembylas and Bekerman 2013). As an overview, in the following pages we will first outline the literature and Korean context. This will be followed by a discussion of our prefigurative theoretical framework, methods, and presentation of findings. Before concluding, we offer a discussion of some challenges and new pedagogic possibilities for HE today drawing on prefigurative pedagogy.

Literature

The literature on prefigurative politics, peace and pedagogy in HE indicates several key fields through which educators seek to address contemporary social issues. These include democratic education, critical pedagogy, transformative education, peace education, human rights education, social justice education, anti-racism education, global citizenship education, and conflict resolution education, among others (Almanza 2022; Carter 2015; Jenkins 2016; Johnson 2013; Kang 2018; Kester et al. 2022; Leonardo and Norton Grubb 2013; Millican et al. 2021; Milton 2017). Millican et al. (2021), for example, explore the role of HE curricula in promoting citizenship, democracy, and peace in four conflict-affected contexts, writing ‘within current higher education curricula, spaces for discussing inequality, difference, conflict and cohesion can be found in courses on civic education, citizenship, ethics and democracy, as well as in specific courses on peacebuilding’ (572).

Bajaj and Hantzopoulos (2016) and Higgins and Novelli (2020), too, connect the fields of peace education, social justice, and critical pedagogy through curriculum, teaching, and policy; and Jenkins (2016) intimates prefigurative pedagogy when he claims that ‘structural transformation … requires envisioning and modeling of preferred alternatives’ (Jenkins 2016, 2). Moreover, Johnson (2013) suggests that university faculty can serve ‘as agents of conflict transformation and peacebuilding’ (343). In Korea specifically, peace and social justice education is often linked to global citizenship education, multicultural education, refugee education, and unification education (Kang 2018; Kim and Kim 2012; Kwon, Jo, and Seo 2020; Lim 2021), where the latter seeks to prefigure a reunified peninsula. Thus, the intersectionality of these key pedagogical fields is well documented in the existing literature both locally and globally (Almanza 2022; Hwang 2015).

Furthermore, within the literature a number of key social challenges are identified to be addressed through prefigurative pedagogy, including social division, extractive capitalism, environmental destruction, racism, gender inequality, colonialism, neoliberalism and new managerialism (Hunt 2012; Leonardo and Norton Grubb 2013; Spooner and McNinch 2018; Stein 2021). These are key hurdles to be overcome through HE pedagogy for promoting peace, democracy, and justice (Chen 2010; Connell 2007; Kester 2017b; Kester et al. 2021; Klees 2020; Wright, Singh, and Race 2012). Klees (2020), for example, argues that critical pedagogy (a form of prefigurative teaching) offers a fundamental alternative to neoliberal and capitalist education (see De Vita and Vittori 2022); and Muff and Donnelly (2022) contend that critical thinking in citizenship education may operate to empower students to promote political and community transformation in local contexts. From Eastern and Indigenous perspectives, Carter (2015) further details how concepts of peace, for example, from China and Malawi to the Iroquois Confederacy emphasize ethical interactions with oneself, others, and nature. These interactions are driven by a vision of ‘conflict management and dispute resolution with a future orientation’ (8) (see also Dietrich 2012; Malaviya 2020; Page 2008).

Hence, the literature indicates that HE pedagogies may be oriented toward social transformation (Johnson 2013; Milton 2017; Rasheed and Munoz 2016). Yet, on the other hand, HE can also serve to reinforce inequities and prejudices if it is not conducted sensitively and with careful thought (Milton and Barakat 2016; Kester 2020; Kester et al. 2022; Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Zondi 2016; Santos 2018). Thus, we will examine these pedagogies through the lens of prefigurative politics – and put them into conversation with illustrative examples from Korean university educators – in the findings and discussion. The present study, then, investigates university educators’ prefigurative pedagogies and their conceptualizations of the links between HE teaching and social change. We turn now to outline the research context.

Context of the study

Since its introduction in 1945, modern Korean HE has had strong links to politics and social change, being especially influenced by the roles that student movements have had in democratization and social change in the country (Kim et al. 2019; Lee 1989). In recent years, this complex relationship has been exemplified as numerous movements for social justice began on university campuses and have swept across Korea, particularly related to peace, human rights, democracy, gender, and economic inequalities. For instance, the 2016 Candlelight Revolution that started at Ewha Womans University in Seoul contributed to the ousting of then President Park Geun-Hye from office on charges of corruption.² This movement reflected earlier democracy movements in the 1980s that spread across university campuses and played a significant role in supporting Korea’s transition to democratization (Cumings 2005; Lee 1990).

For example, the 1987 student protests at Yonsei University and Seoul National University precipitated the change of government from autocracy to liberal democracy (Han 1988); and the Grand Peace March the same year³ was successful in leading to the broader institutionalization of social movements in society, enabling new civil society groups by providing tools, tactics, and discourses for the shift toward democracy and social justice (Shin 2020). These movements, too, trace back to the 1960s and 1970s during the rule of President Park Chung-Hee (the father of Park Geun-Hye), when religious and student movements converged in an attempt to oppose the government’s suppression of human rights (Shin 2020).

A major result of these movements was that scholars became free to vocalize their opinions, investigate past state atrocities, and publicly fight for human rights and social change (Kang 2002; Kim 2021). Many of the student activists who participated in these movements later became academics and politicians. This had a direct influence on the move toward pedagogies of democracy, civil rights, and social justice that were introduced (formally and informally) into curricula and teaching, as the review of literature and interviews with Korean faculty herein indicate. In particular, a new focus on peace, democracy, multiculturalism, and social justice education emerged (Kang 2018).⁴ Given this intimate relation between HE and social change in Korea, we turn now to detail the conceptual framework of prefigurative politics that informs the analysis.

Framework for analysis

To make sense of the data, we turned to the conceptual framework of prefigurative politics. Wini Breines (1980) argues that prefigurative politics is the attempt to ‘embody personal and anti-hierarchical values … to develop the seeds of liberation and the new society (prior to and in the process of revolution) through notions of participatory democracy grounded in counter-institutions’ (421). This means building community. She goes on to claim that the aim of prefigurative politics is to ‘unite the public and private spheres of life’ (1980). Here, we understand ‘embody’ and ‘unite’ to mean personal and political embodiment of the values and dispositions of a peaceful society. Related to education, this may mean enacting peace and democracy through curricula and teaching, but it may also equally entail the development of a sociological imagination that connects educators and students together with movements for social change (Freire 1970; Giroux 2014; Marovah 2021). For example, Ho and Tseng (2022) argue that Freirean conscientization and adult education movements in Korea in the 1980s were employed to prefigure a democratic society both in and beyond the classroom.

Specifically, we draw on two key tenets from prefigurative politics: (a) a correspondence between the means and ends of education, and (b) connecting the personal and political (Boggs 1977; Gordon 2018; Raekstad and Gradin 2020). The first tenet involves aligning the vision of education and social movements with the methods used to achieve social change (Raekstad and Gradin 2020; see also Dewey 1916; Freire 1970; Reardon and Cabezudo 2002). Dewey (1916), for instance, explains that the role of education – if it aims to support a democratic society – should be to develop in each individual a capacity for critical inquiry and active democratic citizenship taught through democratic means. Similarly, from Eastern spiritual traditions, Mahatma Gandhi and Thich Nhat Hanh promoted social change through nonviolence by aligning the message of peace with the method. Social education was a fundamental part of these movements to overcome colonial rule and enact a culture of peace and nonviolence in India and Vietnam (Galtung 1996; Hanh 2003; Narayan 2000). In the Korean context specifically, Lee (1990) argues, ‘the orientation of education should be … via the direct participation of democratic teachers, so that it contributes to fostering democratic citizens’ (167). Thus, a correspondence between the means and ends of education serves as a foundational tenet of prefigurative education (Yates 2015).

This brings us to the second tenet. Breines (1980) also conceptualizes a major aim of prefigurative politics as ‘unit[ing] the public and private spheres of life’ (421). Here, she draws on feminist scholars of the 20th century (Raekstad and Gradin 2020), such as Elise Boulding (1990) who states, ‘by drawing on our own life experience, with a little help on how to make the linkages, we can begin to map the outlines of the emerging world community’ (xxii); and Zimmerman, McDermott, and Gould (2009) claim, ‘The sharing of personal narratives and emphasizing relationships within and across culture generates spaces of political awareness, offering opportunities for increased communication’ across cultural and political borders (77). In turn, Brantmeier and McKenna (2020) and Cremin and Kester (2020) recommend a ‘pedagogy of vulnerability’ as a classroom practice that embraces personal experience to challenge injustice and empower learners to enact political and social change. The oft-cited Gandhi quote ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world’ may best encapsulate this tenet.⁵ All in all, we find in prefigurative politics a promising framework for analyzing data through a comprehensive philosophy of education for social and political transformation (Bolin 2017; Klees 2020). We turn now to describe the methods of the study.

Methods

To examine prefigurative pedagogy and peacebuilding in Korea, we used a qualitative case study methodology. Specifically, we utilized the integrative literature review methods of Anderson-Levitt (2017) and Torraco (2016), which the first author has used elsewhere (Kester 2017a; Kester et al. 2021). We combined this with interviews with eight Korean university educators about their visions for a peaceful and just society and questioned how they enact these visions prefiguratively through pedagogy. The interviews were additionally cross-referenced with a review of the educators’ syllabi, which participants shared with us during interviews.

The integrative literature review method was conducted both in English and Korean to support a deep cross-cultural reading of relevant studies. Torraco (2016) argues that an integrative literature review, ‘reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated’ (404). Further, Anderson-Levitt (2017) and Sobe (2018) call for cross-linguistic reviews. This was achieved in our study by vertically comparing concepts within English and Korean, and horizontally comparing concepts across the languages (Kester et al. 2021). The English-speaking co-authors completed the literature review in English while the Korean co-author completed the Korean review and translations. The purpose was to compare prefigurative pedagogies across cultural and linguistic contexts all the while specifically locating the study within Korea.

To identify relevant literature in both languages, we searched Google Scholar and the Korean Research Information Sharing System (RISS) to find papers and books and cross-examined these with leading journals in the ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Korean Citation Index. We searched the following keywords: ‘social change pedagogy’, ‘democratic pedagogy’, ‘critical pedagogy’, ‘transformative pedagogy’, ‘human rights pedagogy’, ‘conflict-sensitive pedagogy’, ‘peace pedagogy’, and ‘decolonial pedagogy’ in ‘universities’ (in Korean: ‘사회 변화 교수법’, ‘민주적 교수법’, ‘비판적 교수법’, ‘전환적 학습’, ‘인권 교수법’, ‘분쟁인지적 교수법’, ‘평화 교수법’, ‘탈식민지적 교수법’, ‘대학’). These keywords were chosen to offer a broad array of pedagogical traditions for social change, but we acknowledge that these are not exhaustive categories (others include: global citizenship education, intercultural education, environmental education, anti-racism education, and indigenous education, etc).⁶ We additionally examined relevant books, and categorized the papers and monographs into four different pedagogies (democratic, critical, peace/social justice, and decolonial). These four pedagogies were identified within the literature and also described by the university educators who participated in our study (see below). This method resulted in a review of 223 journal articles and books for the paper – examined through the lens of prefigurative politics – which we then narrowed down to a list of 127 papers cited herein. We included only texts that significantly examined one or more of the four pedagogies identified by the literature and interviews. Importantly, if a text did not substantially discuss the pedagogies, we omitted that work from our analysis.

In addition to the integrative review of literature, we interviewed eight university faculty in Korea (see Table 1).⁷ The four categories identified in the integrative review were also reflected in the interviews. We limited our final list of categories to those that were present in both the integrative review and interviews. Thus, the research unfolded in an iterative and dialectical process: from literature to interviews and interviews back to literature, and back and forth throughout the duration of the study. The interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, and each lasted approximately 60–90 minutes. The interviews addressed the prefigurative visions that faculty work toward through their pedagogical choices; underlying theories that guide their work; and challenges and opportunities they face in teaching for peace and justice through HE in Korea (see Appendix 1 for specific questions asked during interviews). Interview data was transcribed and reviewed by all co-authors to identify pedagogic categories and strengthen the reliability of the analysis. In the final part of the study, we examined the participants’ syllabi to triangulate data. Together, these three methods provided unique insights into the intersections between pedagogy, peace, and social justice in the Korean context (Cresswell and Poth 2017). We turn now to present the four pedagogic approaches that emerged from the literature, syllabi, and interviews.

Table 1. Study participants.

Participant	Gender	Age	Ethnicity	Region	Social change pedagogy	International/local faculty
P1	M	40s	Korean	Jeonju	democratic, critical	local
P2	F	30s	Korean	Seoul	peace, social justice	local
P3	F	40s	Korean	Seoul	peace, social justice	local
P4	F	40s	White	Seoul	critical, peace, social justice	international
P5	M	50s	Korean	Seoul	critical	local
P6	M	50s	Korean	Seoul	peace, social justice	local
P7	M	30s	White	Daejeon	critical, decolonial	international
P8	F	70s	Korean	Suwon	democratic, peace, social justice, decolonial	local

Prefigurative pedagogies

The interviews, literature, and syllabi reveal four types of prefigurative pedagogy that the educators in Korea practice, including: (a) democratic education, (b) critical pedagogy, (c) peace and social justice education, and (d) decolonial pedagogy. We analyze the literature, syllabi, and interviews through the conceptual lens of prefigurative politics. Quotes from the interviews are ‘italicized’ throughout to highlight the voice of participants. We turn first to democratic pedagogy.

Democratic pedagogy: practicing what we preach

The literature and interviews traced democratic pedagogy back to the ideals of democracy through education in the work of Dewey (1916), Bloom (see Fielding 2014), and Neill (1960). Here, we found diverse visions for the ends and means of education from the Right and Left of democratic politics, suggesting that whilst the Right have been remaking education through neoliberal and managerial traditions (Ball 2016) the Left struggle to change society as hoped for by socialists and progressivists (Chase-Dunn and Almeida 2020).

Drawing on the prefigurative framework, more definitive ends and means of education can be seen as academics critique the increasingly closed and depoliticized HE system, and in turn argue for more inclusive pedagogy that supports equity and justice. This is evident in how current educational structures (in Korea and beyond) push neoliberal agendas of commodification and corporatization of HE (Giroux 2014) through standardization of assessment and examination (Biesta 2010), global policies for ‘international comparative data’ (English 2016, 1060), competition, and ‘obedient consumer[ism]’ without criticality (Echeverria and Hannam 2013, 116). As Korean educators then turn toward democratic learning, Lee (1990) declares that democratic educators must ‘insist that the area of pupils’ autonomous activities should be expanded so that it can provide them with opportunities to practise democratic values and attitudes at school’ (167–168). In Korea, Lee (1990) is especially critical of how anti-communist education has historically inhibited critical thinking and democratic learning when anti-communism is positioned as patriotic. There is thus a dual critique of capitalism and anti-communism education here.

Turning to the interviews in our study, P1 shared how he integrates his belief in the values of democracy into his work as an academic: both in his departmental service and in his courses. He explained that as department head he wants student activism to be a legacy of his leadership. He says, ‘I would like to see the student activism and student activity as a legacy.’ In his course titled ‘Law and Social Studies’ (reviewed for this study), he leads students to reflect on social movements as a form of democratic citizenship. Another educator, P5, too reflects on the linkages between democracy and education, stating that the transition from an autocratic to democratic government in Korea had the following effect on education:

… when the mass demonstrations took down the military regime, thanks to the democratization movement … we made the jump from a developing country to a developed country … schools back then just were under heavy surveillance. We weren’t able to speak our minds. And after that, after the democratization … [we were] able to experiment, everything and anything to make ideas become actualized … that’s become the fuel for changes that took place in Korea … So I guess the extent of what I can do to do my part as an educator is to at least make or give people a chance to become conscious of what state the world is in, to develop an urgency to think about what we should do as our next step. (P5)

P5 then demonstrates this in his course syllabus for ‘Education and Anthropology’ (reviewed for this study), where he teaches the intersections of education and culture in diverse societies focusing on education as a process of ‘developing cultural empathy’ and ‘the way to go (taking action)’. It is thus evident that P1 and P5 are integrating democratic and social movement philosophy into their courses, in effect reinforcing the linkages between the intended prefigurative ends and means of education. P1 and P5 are intentionally practicing democratic values across their teaching, research, and service activities.

Critical pedagogy: raising consciousness and finding cracks in the system

Here, the literature and interviews articulate aspirations for prefigurative education through the emancipatory potential of education. This approach draws on work from Freire (1970), Giroux (2014) and others, as well as the Enlightenment humanism that has coincided with what UNESCO has called ‘the defenses of peace’ approach (Kester 2017a; McLaren et al. 2002). Much of this writing is deeply informed by Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where he calls for social transformation through critical consciousness raising (Kim and Yoo 2022; Magee and Pherali 2019). From the Korean context, Ho and Tseng (2022) write:

In South Korea, studies on Freire also originated in the 1980s; the democratic Freirean theory aligned with the South Korean democratization movements in that same era … Freirean studies in the 1980s–1990s Korea focused on connecting Freirean methods to popular education and to the conscientization of democratization ….(2)

Yet, Ho and Tseng (2022) also argue that in part the critical element of Freirean studies has been lost in modern Korea and replaced instead with sanitized forms of (inner) peace education and (interpersonal) communication studies, exacerbated by broader social values of competition, capitalism, neoliberalism, and employability regimes (Grant-Smith and Osborne 2017; Hur 2019). In response, in the interviews P4 explains that she attempts to maintain criticality in her courses through teaching critical theories of education. She says:

I address issues of equity and access in all of my courses, no matter what they are. The research [and teaching] that I do focuses exclusively on either theories, pedagogies, or methodologies for examining classrooms that are related to ways to promote equity … I have courses that specifically have focused on qualitative research with the subheading of critical race theory, feminist theory, and queer theory. So [the critical theories I employ are] introduced and used as our lens for thinking about what kinds of problems we could identify from those perspectives and then how to design research that would allow us to investigate those problems ethically and effectively. (P4)

From the perspective of prefigurative politics, critical education then emphasizes the personal is political when it creates small spaces of freedom for citizens to participate in questioning power structures, inequality, and social injustice as student-citizens learn to think critically, autonomously, and with a sense of personal agency (Agartan and Hartwiger 2021). Here, P3 too makes explicit her critical approach through course objectives of ‘critical analysis’ and the choice of textbooks that emphasize ‘critical’ global citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and peace education (see Appendix 2 for a syllabus extract). In his interview, P7 suggested that educators should ‘set an example’ in their teaching:

… educators have to set an example in their own lives … I think also that maybe the way to demonstrate that in an educational context, which is maybe more useful, is to be kind of accommodating and to attempt to be mentally stimulating to the students and to try and engage them in conversations and discussions and to develop their critical thinking faculties and so on, rather than their actions outside of the classroom, which students may or may not really know anything about … There were lots of professors that I had when I was an undergrad. I disagreed very strongly with their politics, but I thought that they were still quite humanistic individuals and quite sort of intellectually generous. (P7)

P7 is intimating the prefigurative tenet of the personal is political as he argues for educators to practice the values that they teach. Yet, to be sure, practicing critical pedagogy requires social and political action beyond the classroom. Here, P1 also writes in his ‘Law and Society’ syllabus that a critical perspective on law would question ‘how views on law differ based on gender, class, region, and age’ and how ‘various topics and issues cause social debate’ leading one ‘to vote for or against’. This approach is not aimed toward the management of students’ attitudes and behaviors but toward informed activism for social change (McLaren and Bosio 2022; Smyth 2011). This brings us, then, to peace and social justice education.

Peace and social justice education: toward harmony and justice

Next, peace and social justice education turns simultaneously inward and outward (Bajaj 2015; Cremin 2016; Park 2009). The prefigurative ends and means of this pedagogy seeks to achieve peace and harmony with the mind/body before turning to achieve peace and harmony in society (Carter 2015; Toh 2009). In so doing, this set of literature and the interviews critique education as a modernist enterprise involving the development of rational thought, technocratic processes, reason, mind/body dualities, and consciousness-raising (Cremin 2016). Instead, this pedagogy explores emotion and affect beyond the rational and modern, foregrounding Eastern and Indigenous concepts to localize education and emphasize the interconnectedness of humans, nature, and nonhuman life (Carter 2015; Dietrich 2012; Lim 2021; Marovah 2021). This prefigurative strand also draws on contemporary peace and social justice scholars such as Harris (1990), Reardon (2012), Bajaj (2015), and Zembylas (2018) to provide examples of peace education as political praxis. It argues that these peace approaches are a useful and necessary challenge to the earlier rationalist (traditional) pedagogies, all the while calling for civic action.

In Korea, for example, concerning domestic/inner peace before outer/global peace, Kang (2018) and Kester et al. (2021) elucidate that peace education is frequently focused on reunification, integration of North Korean refugees into South Korean institutions, and multicultural education for a changing demographic society (see also Jeong 2022). Connecting with the prefigurative tenet of the personal is political, Park (2009) and Lim (2021) assert that inner peace education in Korean society is necessary to emphasize peace, human rights, intercultural understanding, and environmental stewardship. This is also evident in the review of course syllabi, where P2, P3, P6, and P8 all teach for peace and social justice education through their graduate courses, seeking to foster domestic and global citizens who have ‘analytical perspectives and knowledge required for the critical understanding of education [in today’s world]’ (P3’s syllabus) and who ‘seek citizenship oriented toward peaceful coexistence’ (P8’s syllabus; see Appendix 2).

Similarly, drawing on Harris (1990), Cook (2014) claims that peace pedagogy may be exemplified through ‘cooperative learning, democratic community, moral sensitivity, critical analysis, conflict management and resolution skills practice, and a continuous process of questioning, challenging, acting, and reflecting upon behaviors conducive to peace’ (503). Here, drawing the tenets of prefigurative pedagogy together, P4 states: ‘universities really should be doing more to address issues of equity, access and participation. And I think those are all social justice issues … There’s people who are LGBTQ who are asking and demanding their rights, human rights here in the country. We need more support from universities to help transformation from the top and to be seen as sort of beacons of how to do things and how to be equitable.’ Hence, these educators are calling upon universities to find greater harmony between inner and outer peace. This brings us, finally, to decolonial pedagogy.

Decolonial pedagogy: toward epistemic justice and pluriversalism

Here, the literature and interviews reveal a strand of thought that argues the prefigurative ends and means for positive social change cannot be achieved without dismantling modernity/coloniality.⁸ This pedagogy draws from Chen (2010), Connell (2007), Mignolo (2007), Quijano (2000), and Santos (2014, 2018), among others. It is represented by the recent ‘decolonial turn’ in educational research and praxis (Andreotti et al. 2015), including in Korea (Kester et al. 2020, 2021; Kim and Joo 2013; Lee 2015). This perspective seeks to increase awareness and appreciation of the limitations of Western-centric normative knowledge claims while arguing for locally relevant education.

As such, decolonial pedagogy engages various disciplines, such as the humanities, literature, psychology, geography, and indigenous studies to argue for epistemic justice, that is, embracing alternative knowledge claims beyond the Global North or West (Cremin, Echavarria, and Kester 2018; Grosfoguel 2008; Kaiser 2020; Kurian and Kester 2018). For example, two popular campaigns to decolonize the university recently include the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ campaign at many South African institutions and the ‘Why is My Curriculum White?’ campaign at the University College London (UCL). In both these movements, students raised awareness and concerns of a ‘white’ (or colonized) curriculum by ‘white authors’ stemming from historical colonialism that naturalizes whiteness (Peters 2015).

In our interviews, too, P2, P7, and P8 discussed their concerns of an overly Western-centric knowledge system within Korean academia. P8 said, ‘everyone around me [when I was an undergraduate student] went abroad for their graduate studies, but I chose not to study abroad because the professor I respected back then said we need to study in Korea.’ She is emphasizing the need to elevate Korean HE to regard it as an equal among others, especially American, Japanese, and European HE. Similarly, P2 exclaimed that her teaching is informed by postcolonial thinking and development ideas ‘supported by the third world mostly, not the Western world … if development rights is the one supported by third world countries … then it might be better … it might be more practical’; and P7 said, ‘a higher education experience should have enough space and should have enough disciplinary flexibility to be able to have different epistemologies and then to be able to engage different perspectives and ideas.’ Additionally, P3’s choice of textbook emphasizes decolonization (see Abdi, Schultz, and Pillay 2015). Together, these perspectives advocate for a plurality of worldviews and epistemological approaches that reflect the values of decolonial education and that question: Whose voices are included, whose are not, how and why, and how might more equity and power sharing be achieved?

However, the discourse of whiteness/decolonial thinking is further complicated in Korean academia as decolonial discourse is often focused primarily on Japanese colonialism, making it difficult to interrogate other lingering forms of coloniality, such as Western-centered curricula with orientalist perspectives or the ways in which Korean education itself may perpetuate coloniality (Kim, Moon, and Joo 2013; Ra 2012). A danger here is the incommensurability of decolonial, peace and justice education if decolonial education is interpreted through the lenses of nationalism, nativism, and civilizationalism; this will reinforce ethnocentrism and undermine the values of peace and justice education (Chen 2010). Instead, Mansoor and Bano (2021) suggest that decolonial pedagogy may interrogate the colonial history of power and knowledge in and across diverse contexts through literary texts, critical essays, video lectures, and other creative teaching approaches emphasizing the perspective of the subaltern (see also Hajir and Kester 2020).

In summary, these four prefigurative pedagogies aim to address various elements of social, educational, and political engagement inhibiting the construction of peaceful and just societies. These pedagogies provide students with opportunities to practice related values and attitudes at university and in society, encouraging them to question power structures and social injustice, with a sense of personal agency. Beyond the rational and modern, they increase awareness of the limitations of dominant knowledge claims while arguing for locally relevant education. In the next section, we turn to discuss two challenges emerging from these findings and some implications for pedagogy.

Discussion

As evidenced in our review of the literature, documents, and discussions with faculty, there are several pedagogical approaches to addressing contemporary social problems through HE employed in Korea today. Yet the educators who do this work face several challenges, as indicated in their interviews. We will address two of these here and some implications for pedagogy drawing on our prefigurative politics framework.

First, the literature and interviews reveal the potential for systemic and pedagogical misalignment, as professors may hold the objectives and values consistent with the four pedagogical approaches above but lack a supportive environment due to many interactions within a larger ecosystem, such as: standardized learning and assessment, unequal social conditions, differentiated student experiences, large class sizes, and limited research on pedagogical theory (Agartan and Hartwiger 2021; Ahn and Kim 2017). As Muff and Donnelly (2022) write from the Northern Ireland and Israeli contexts, ‘Teachers with limited time, resources and motivation tend to avoid addressing the “thicker” dimension of [citizenship education] in favour of more palatable content related to cultural and social diversity’ (463). Here, P4 and P5 said during interviews that further institutional and individual resources are needed to support equity in and through Korean HE. Prefigurative pedagogies then play an important role as educators both practice prefigurative education in their classrooms and push universities to do much more to promote inclusion, justice, and diversity. This is exemplified in the interviews when P1, P3, P5, and P7 call for educators not only to raise consciousness and critique but to practice what they teach, in line with the tenets of prefigurative politics; and P4 additionally adjures universities to ‘do more to address issues of equity, access and participation’. This brings us to our second point.

Second, the literature revealed a lack of critical inquiry as to who is making the decisions for HE and why. This includes, for example, the exclusion of youth from discussing social issues of justice and inequality, and the organizational structures and traditions of HE institutions isolating themselves from the general public creating potentially undemocratic processes that carry over to society (Biesta 2010; English 2016; Fujino et al. 2018). An example of this in Korea is the assimilation practices for refugees, where integration of refugees into existing institutions does not challenge the structures that reproduce conflict through institutional disadvantages, inequity, lack of dialogue, and rejection of difference (Kang 2018). This may be further exacerbated by the choice of curricula and textbooks in Korea where Eurocentric (and/or ethnocentric) approaches present lingering colonialities that do not reflect the diversity among students (Kester et al. 2020; Kim 2006; Lee 1989; Ra 2012). However, the eight participants interviewed for this study explain that although literature on critical pedagogy and systemic critical inquiry may be lacking in Korea, the educators themselves – especially those who identify as working toward positive social change – are very much engaged in prefigurative politics in attempts to disrupt unjust cultural, political, and economic practices in and through HE to promote alternative possibilities. Thus, increased educator agency and power sharing is a desideratum in HE that aims to support positive social change. This brings us next to some pedagogic implications.

Finally, educators have the potential to contribute to transforming inequities in society by providing the space to challenge everyday injustices (Bolin 2017; Davies 2010; Dryden-Peterson 2010), where prefigurative politics as a form of praxis enables educators to actively work toward the (re)construction of a more peaceful, interconnected, and socially just society. As P6 recommends, community-based education might be one way that educators could contribute to positive change in and beyond the HE classroom. Here, Yoo (2007) too suggests, drawing on Freire (1970), that education has the potential to become a part of community change by supporting citizen’s ‘participation, reflection, and action’ (77); and P5 argues that it is necessary for educators to offer social alternatives, stating, ‘You can be very critical of the state of your society, but then not presenting any alternatives would be very irresponsible … Being in the education field, educators are at the forefront in terms of bringing about social change.’ In Korea specifically, many educators employ the concept of ‘maeum’ (마음 - heart mind) to emphasize that knowledge is acquired through heart, spirit, and body as well as cognitive faculties (Lee 2013). This Korean approach embraces learning transrationally through the heart and subtly dismantles modernity/coloniality by contesting the Western Cartesian duality of mind over body (i.e. peace, social justice and decolonial education) (see also Kester et al. 2019). From the perspective of prefigurative politics, this relates to aligning the method and message of peace, compassion, justice and social change (Son 2014). The goal of our research, then, has been to call attention to the theory and practice of HE scholars as they seek to practice education differently and prefiguratively create tomorrow today in Korean HE classrooms.

In the end, we trust that these prefigurative pedagogies are not limited to the Korean context. Rather, they may be identified and further practiced globally – adapting to local circumstances. The two key elements of prefigurative politics described herein (a correspondence between the means and ends of education, and the personal is political) may better enable the four pedagogies (democratic, critical, peace/social justice, and decolonial) to interact and dialogue with/for the calls for transforming HE today (Raekstad and Gradin 2020).

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have argued that pedagogical practices in HE often operate implicitly (or explicitly) under the assumption of promoting a better society. This much has been known, but in this paper we have brought together various pedagogical traditions in Korean HE to examine peace and social justice education through a prefigurative lens. By examining the literature, documents, and interviews on education for peace and social change through the framework of prefigurative politics, we have highlighted four contemporary variations of prefigurative pedagogy for peace in Korea. These four are not intended to be exhaustive, as there are many other education for social change traditions that could be included here. Yet we contend that the four covered are common approaches in the efforts to promote a peaceful and just world through HE, as shown throughout the paper. In the end, we hope that the analysis and discussion here serves to better support educators in diverse contexts to teach in heterogeneous ways for peace and social justice today.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University [Research Project: 700-20210034].

Notes on contributors

Kevin Kester

Kevin Kester is Associate Professor at Seoul National University and Director of the Education, Conflict and Peace Lab. His research interests lie in the sociology and politics of education with a focus on comparative international education; education, conflict, and peacebuilding; and decolonizing education. His most recent papers are published in Teaching in Higher Education; International Journal of Comparative Education and Development; and the Routledge book Innovations in Peace and Education Praxis. He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge.

Rira Seo

Rira Seo is a PhD student in the Interdisciplinary Program: Global Education Cooperation in the College of Education and research assistant in the Education, Conflict and Peace Lab at Seoul National University. Her research interests lie in refugee education in conflict-affected regions and peacebuilding in and through refugee education. She received her Master’s degree in Development Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Nicki Gerstner

Nicki Gerstner is a PhD candidate in the Interdisciplinary Program: Global Education Cooperation in the College of Education and research assistant in the Education, Conflict and Peace Lab at Seoul National University. She currently works in the English Department at Seoul Cyber University. Her research interests include global citizenship education for sustainable development, cosmopolitanism, partnerships toward peacebuilding, and decolonial practices for transformative education and pedagogies. She received her Master’s of Education in Global Studies in Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Notes

1. By ‘positive peace’, we mean educational efforts to prevent physical violence and address cultural, structural, and poststructural forms of violence such as poverty, racism, and patriarchy in and beyond HE (Galtung 1969; Hajir and Kester 2020; Kester and Cremin 2017). We understand education to be inextricably linked to peacebuilding and conflict transformation when it addresses all forms of violence in society and contributes to reducing prejudice and undoing unjust laws and policies through inclusive, conflict-sensitive, and sustainable practices (Reardon 1988; Zakharia 2016).

2. We acknowledge that the views toward the Candlelight Revolution in 2016 and the impeachment of President Park Geun-Hye remain politically contentious in Korean society (Cho and Hwang 2021).

3. In June 1987, more than two million people nationwide were involved in a democratic uprising. Due to the unprecedented size and the intensity of the protest, the military government did not use violent repression and instead promised the introduction of a democratic system (Shin 2020).

4. To be sure, there are contested visions of what constitutes peace, democracy, justice, and education on the peninsula (Cho 2016; Shin 2012).

5. It is unclear whether Gandhi actually said this, but the quote is often attributed to him and is one frequently cited in regard to prefigurative politics (Raekstad and Gradin 2020).

6. The first author has reviewed global citizenship education elsewhere (Kester 2022; Kester, Park, and Sohn 2021).

7. We followed the ethical guidelines of our home university from which the study received IRB approval (Seoul National University IRB no. 2110/004–002).

8. ‘Modernity/coloniality’, as drawn from the literature cited in this section, refers to ‘coloniality’ as the invisible side of ‘modernity’. The coloniality of power in politics and economics is notably linked with the coloniality of knowledge and being. Thus, achieving decolonization in the political and economic spheres equally necessitates achieving it in the domains of knowledge and personal life-spaces (Andreotti et al. 2015; Mignolo 2007). In prefigurative HE, this might be modeled through curriculum and pedagogy that disrupts and de-links learning from the logic of modernity/coloniality.

Appendix 1:

Interview Protocol

During this interview, you will be asked about your experiences teaching for social change, peace and conflict transformation in universities in Korea. I am interested in knowing how you conceptualize of a better more peaceful future society, what changes you think are necessary to get there, and how you employ aspects of higher education (e.g., curricular, pedagogic, and institutional policy strategies) to work toward creating that better future society with your students and colleagues. Please remember that the information you share during this interview will only be used for the purposes of this research. You may choose to not answer any questions you wish, or to withdraw at any time without consequence. Thank you again for agreeing to participate in the study.

Interview:

Preliminary questions

1. What is your nationality?

2. What is your gender identity?

3. What is your age bracket?

4. What is your highest level of education?

5. Where do you currently work?

6. What is your current position?

7. How many years have you worked in your current position?

8. When did you complete your degree, in what field, and at what university?

Substantive questions

1. What is your vision for a better world and how does it inform your teaching?

2. What type of social change are you seeking through education (e.g. peace, justice, human rights, international understanding, gender equality)?

3. Is there a philosophy or theory that drives your work?

4. What courses do you teach that employ a prefigurative philosophy? Would you be willing to share a sample syllabus that illustrates your practice?

5. What attracted you to this work?

6. When did you start thinking about doing this work?

7. Did you have any early experiences in your life that contributed to your decision to work for peace and social change through higher education?

8. Do you have a specific story to highlight the connections you make between higher education and social change?

9. Are there any other factors that made you decide to teach for peace and justice?

10. What do you think are the qualities and skills that are important for educators who advocate for social change through their teaching?

11. What are the challenges and opportunities you face in doing this work? Can you share a success story or failure?

12. How does this work relate more broadly to your research, administration and other duties at the university? For example, what is your research area? What administrative responsibilities do you have? Do you have any other responsibilities at the university, or in your field, that allow you to work holistically toward social change?

13. Who benefits from such education for social change?

14. Do you have any questions or ending comments?

Once again, thank you for your participation and the insights shared today. I will share with you soon the transcript of this interview for your review. Additionally, prior to the completion of the study I will share the findings for any final comments you may wish to add. It is my hope that this collective process will help us to better know how university educators working in Korea understand, encounter and respond to the challenges and opportunities of promoting positive social change through higher education.

Appendix 2:

Excerpts from syllabi

Excerpt from P3’s syllabus

Excerpt from P8’s syllabus

[English translation of P8’s syllabus extract: This course aims to foster nonviolent capabilities to deal with conflicts happening at current school sites under the themes of peace and cultivation of citizenship. The purpose of today’s citizenship education, such as democratic citizenship education or global citizenship education, is to seek citizenship oriented toward peaceful coexistence. Here, peace is a nonviolent means to prevent conflicts from turning into violence. This course covers definitions of peace and how to approach peace through education, particularly through global (democratic) citizenship education.]