If you could step into the year 622 and walk through the streets of Yathrib, today’s Medina, you would find a city poised between hope and collapse. The sun beating down on palm groves surrounding mud-brick homes, while inside the city, the air feeling thick with decades of unresolved tension. Two major Arab tribes, Aws and Khazraj, carried the scars of long-running feuds. Several powerful Jewish tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu al-Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, held their own alliances and grievances. Add to that a small Christian presence and a handful of new Muslim migrants fleeing persecution in Mecca, and you would find a city whose diversity was both its strength and its vulnerability.

Against this backdrop, an extraordinary meeting took place. Representatives of Yathrib’s communities gathered as a scribe recorded an agreement that would provide a new framework for life in the city: the formation of a one nation – an Ummah.  

“They form one nation”

This was the opening sentiment of what is now known as the Medina Charter (Sahifat al-Madinah) document that many scholars regard as one of the earliest written constitutional agreements governing a religiously and tribally diverse society. Rather than erasing differences, it sought to establish a framework through which the city’s various communities could coexist while sharing certain rights and responsibilities.

The Charter was not simply an attempt to end cycles of conflict. It outlined a political order based on mutual obligations, justice, consultation, and collective security. More than fourteen centuries later, it continues to attract the attention of historians, legal scholars, and students of interfaith relations as an early example of negotiated pluralism.

Many of the questions the Charter addressed remain familiar today. To understand why, we must first understand the city in which it emerged.

A city ready for change

Yathrib was shaped by strong tribal loyalties, and longstanding disputes permeated everyday life. Aws and Khazraj, the main Arab tribes, worshipped Manat and lived through long stretches of intermittent warfare. Jewish tribes had been in the city for centuries, with their own customs, legal practices, and alliances. Trade connected Yathrib to the wider region, yet local politics often reinforced division rather than cooperation.

By the early 600s, people wanted an arbitrator who could actually be accepted across factions. Their own leaders could no longer contain the conflicts, and every settlement risked reopening the next week. One name kept returning in these discussions: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was known in Arabia for integrity, and for his refusal to bend to wealth or status.

His migration (Hijrah) to Yathrib in 622 CE, an event that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, represented a turning point in the city’s history. Soon afterward, the Charter of Medina was drafted, providing a framework for regulating relations among its diverse communities and addressing many of the challenges that had long divided the city.  

A constitution ahead of its time

Many early political agreements spoke to only one group. A ruling elite. A single tribe. One religion, or one people. The Medina Charter moved in a different direction; it treated Muslims, Jews, and other groups living in Yathrib as part of a shared political community, without asking them to surrender their own religious or cultural lives. Rather than erasing differences, the Charter acknowledged them and established a set of shared rights and responsibilities.

The document’s significance lay not in abstract political theory but in its practical concerns. It addressed issues that shaped everyday life: dispute resolution, collective security, financial obligations, religious freedom, and the responsibilities communities owed to one another. Its provisions were intended to guide the daily life of a diverse city rather than merely express political ideals.  

Its structure rested on four guiding principles. Together, these principles shaped how peace and cooperation were maintained in Yathrib, and they continue to resonate in discussions of governance, pluralism, and social cohesion today.  

1. Unity without erasing identity

One of the Charter’s central features was its conception of the ummah: a community defined not simply by blood or tribe, but by shared responsibility. Yet the Charter did not demand uniformity. Article 2 affirmed that tribes could preserve many of their customary practices, including established methods of dispute resolution.  

The Charter did not require people to abandon tribal loyalties in order to participate in a broader political community. Instead, it recognized those loyalties while placing them within a shared framework of rights and obligations. Differences were not treated as problems to be erased. They were acknowledged, respected, and placed inside a shared set of duties. The Medina Charter represents an early attempt to address that balance—one that continues to invite comparison with similar challenges faced by modern constitutional systems.

2. Engineering cooperation through daily habits

One noble feature of the Charter was its use of everyday routines to build trust between groups. It wasn’t enough to declare peace; people needed to live it.

Article 22 required soldiers from different tribes to share their ride, literally sitting side by side in situations of danger. These small acts of interdependence slowly weakened tribal boundaries.

Article 21 required shared contributions toward common defense expenses. The same principle can be seen in modern security alliances, including, for example, shared defense spending negotiations in NATO. The Charter reflected a principle that continues to appear in modern systems of collective governance: cooperation is sustained when responsibilities are shared. These provisions were intended to shape everyday interactions, encouraging trust, familiarity, and a sense of shared responsibility across tribal boundaries.

3. Collective security and mutual protection

Another important feature of the Charter was its commitment to collective security. Article 38 stated that if any community bound by the Charter came under attack, the other signatories were expected to come to its defense. Communities that had once been divided by rivalry now assumed a shared responsibility for one another’s security.

At the same time, the Charter balanced that shared commitment with practical responsibility. Article 37 required each tribe to bear its own wartime expenses while contributing to the common defense. In doing so, it established a framework that combined mutual protection with clearly defined obligations, helping to reduce disputes over unequal burdens.

4. A trusted platform for justice

A central concern of the Medina Charter was the administration of justice. It recognized that peace could not endure unless disputes were resolved through an accepted legal authority. When disagreements arose that the Charter itself did not address, Article 42 required the parties to refer the matter to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather than allowing conflicts to escalate into cycles of retaliation, the Charter established a recognized forum for resolving disputes across tribal and religious boundaries.

The Charter also articulated an important ethical principle:

“Whoever is wronged must be helped, regardless of identity.”

This was a far cry from the tribal norms of the time and remains a model for contemporary peacebuilding.

What made the Medina Charter so modern?

Viewed through the lens of political science and constitutional history, the Medina Charter addresses questions that remain central to modern governance. It outlines principles of collective security, cooperation among religious communities, shared responsibility for public welfare, legal accountability, freedom of religion, financial obligations, and mechanisms for resolving disputes.

Its significance lies not only in its religious context but also in its civic vision. It functioned as a contract between diverse communities, rooted in the belief that justice is a shared human obligation.

Scholars such as Muhammad Hamidullah and Karen Armstrong have described it as the world’s first written constitution, while historians such as Said Amir Arjomand, Michael Lecker, R. B. Serjeant, Uri Rubin, and F. M. Denny have examined its legal, social, and communal dimensions in detail. Whether one emphasizes that constitutional claim or its broader sociolegal significance, the Charter stands well before the Magna Carta and later European social contract traditions as an early model of pluralistic governance.

The charter as a model of ethical leadership

The Charter also reflected the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) approach as a political leader. The way he led mattered for how the agreement functioned. Consultation informed decision-making, and moral commitment placed limits on the exercise of power. He demonstrated that authority could be firm without sliding into coercion, and that justice could be treated as an obligation rather than a slogan. His description of believers as “a single body” speaks to moral solidarity within the Muslim community; the Charter extended the search for order into a wider civic framework shared by Muslims, Jews, and other groups in Yathrib.

Differences did not disappear under the agreement; they were managed through shared responsibilities. Religious freedom did not appear as a temporary compromise, since it sat inside the structure of the community itself. Many societies still struggle with the same tensions, especially when identity politics deepen and legal order feels thin. The Charter continues to offer a historical example of how unity can be pursued without requiring uniformity.

Why the Charter still matters today

Contemporary peacebuilding literature often points to a few conditions that help diverse societies coexist. One is inclusion, understood today as attention not only to formal representatives but also to groups that may otherwise be absent from the process. Another is legitimate justice, since fair procedures and trusted forums reduce the pull of retaliation and private violence. A third is shared responsibility, since agreements fail when burdens fall on one side for too long.

The Medina Charter fits that pattern. It brought groups into one political community, and it did so without turning identity into a precondition for membership. It also directed disputes toward recognized procedures, reducing the likelihood that conflicts would return to cycles of private retaliation. Rights were accompanied by responsibilities, and authority was vested in a forum accepted by the Charter’s signatories.

Similar principles continue to appear in many contemporary peace agreements and constitutional frameworks, including those developed through the United Nations, the African Union, and other international institutions.

Conclusion

Return now to that small room where the Charter was signed. Picture the leaders of tribes that had long been caught in cycles of retaliation now placing their hopes in a shared agreement. Their differences remained, yet they chose cooperation over division, responsibility over revenge, and law over retaliation.

The Charter did not transform Medina overnight. Its significance lay in the way it guided everyday conduct, established shared expectations, and helped a divided city gradually reshape its habits. It asked little of shared identity, but much of character. Little of ritual, but much of restraint. Little of ideology, but much of responsibility.

The Medina Charter is often regarded as a landmark because it offered a framework for governing a divided city without requiring its communities to become the same. It sought to foster unity through shared obligations while recognizing the distinct identities of the groups it brought together. Rather than treating difference as an obstacle, it established common responsibilities that allowed diversity and cooperation to coexist.

More than fourteen centuries later, many societies face familiar pressures. Polarization deepens divisions, and public trust often erodes faster than institutions can respond. The Charter continues to invite reflection because it illustrates a sequence that remains relevant: define the community, establish shared responsibilities, provide trusted mechanisms for resolving disputes, and reduce the space for private retaliation. It is not a solution to every conflict, but it offers an enduring historical example of how peace can be sustained through shared commitments that people are willing to embrace.

References

1. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. (2001). “Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704. doi:10.1177/0022343301038006003

2. Arjomand, Said Amir. (2009). “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the Umma.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 41(4), 555-575. doi:10.1017/S002074380999033X

3. Armstrong, Karen. (2006). Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time. New York: Atlas Books/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-115577-2.

4. Denny, F. M. (1977). “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36(1), 39-47. doi:10.1086/372530

5. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. (2019). “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 287-316. doi:10.1177/0022002717739088

6. Hamidullah, M. 1975. The First Written Constitution in the World: An Important Document of the Time of the Holy Prophet. Lahore, Pakistan: Ashraf Printing Press.

7. Hamidullah, M. 1993. The Emergence of Islam: Lectures on the Development of Islamic World-view, Intellectual Tradition, and Polity. Islamabad, Pakistan: Islamic Research Institute.

8. Lecker, Michael. (2004). The “Constitution of Medina”: Muhammad’s First Legal Document. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.

9. Nilsson, Desiree. (2012). “Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace.” International Interactions, 38(2), 243-266. doi:10.1080/03050629.2012.659139

10. Rubin, Uri. (1985). “The ‘Constitution of Medina’: Some Notes.” Studia Islamica, 62, 5-23.

11. Serjeant, R. B. (1978). “The Sunnah Jami’ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the Tahrim of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-called ‘Constitution of Medina’.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 41(1), 1-42.

12. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Medina Charter, Peace Review Journal, Taylor & Francis, January-March 2006, Volume 18, Number 1, P 109-119

13. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter, Peace Review The Fountain, 2006 Issue 53 (January – March 2006) Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter – The Fountain Magazine  

14. Yildirim, Y. (2009). The Medina Charter: A Historical Case of Conflict Resolution. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 20(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410903194894

In the bustling streets of Abuja, Nigeria, students from different religious and ethnic backgrounds study side by side at Nigerian Tulip International Colleges. In Mindanao, the Philippines, dialogue centers bring together Christian and Muslim communities that have historically been divided by conflict. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, educational institutions serve as bridges between Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks still healing from the wounds of war.

These initiatives stem from the Hizmet Movement—a global civil society network inspired by Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen that emphasizes education, dialogue, and service to humanity. Operating through grassroots volunteers rather than centralized control, Hizmet has established schools, dialogue centers, and humanitarian organizations worldwide since the 1990s.

What connects these seemingly diverse initiatives across the globe? They all exemplify what the Hizmet Movement calls “peace islands”—spaces where cooperation flourishes despite historical tensions. But there’s something even more remarkable: these peace-building efforts embody sophisticated scientific principles that mathematicians have been studying for decades through a field called game theory—principles that become strikingly clear when we examine how cooperation actually works in practice.

The mathematics of cooperation

Game theory might sound abstract, but it addresses one of humanity’s most pressing questions: Why do people sometimes cooperate for mutual benefit, while other times they compete destructively? Despite the term “game,” this field analyzes the most serious of human interactions. The field emerged in the 1940s when mathematician John von Neumann began studying strategic interactions, particularly during the tense early years of the nuclear age when miscalculated decisions could have catastrophic consequences.

The most famous illustration of this challenge is the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Imagine two prisoners held in separate cells, unable to communicate, each facing a choice: cooperate by staying silent, or defect by confessing and hoping for leniency. If both stay silent, both receive light sentences. If both confess, both face harsh punishment. But if one confesses while the other stays silent, the confessor goes free while the silent partner suffers the worst outcome.

The dilemma captures a fundamental tension: while mutual cooperation yields the best collective result, each individual faces a tempting incentive to defect. This same dynamic appears everywhere—from arms races between nations to environmental agreements, from business negotiations to community conflicts.

The breakthrough came in the 1980s when political scientist Robert Axelrod organized computer tournaments to discover which strategies work best in repeated interactions. The winning approach was surprisingly simple: “Tit-for-Tat,” submitted by mathematician Anatol Rapoport —a strategy where you cooperate on the first move, then simply copy whatever your opponent did in the previous round. This strategy had four key characteristics that Axelrod identified as crucial for sustained cooperation:

• Nice: Start by cooperating and never attack first.
• Forgiving: Return to cooperation when the other party cooperates.
• Retaliatory: Respond proportionally when others defect.
• Clear: Maintain predictable patterns that others can understand.

These scientific insights about cooperation aren’t merely academic curiosities. They provide a powerful lens for understanding why some peace-building efforts succeed while others fail.

Islamic values and cooperation principles

Given the fact that Hizmet Movement emerged in a Muslim context and inspired by an Islamic scholar, it is important to see how Islamic values naturally align with Hizmet’s approach and these scientifically validated cooperation principles. The movement draws inspiration from concepts deeply rooted in Islamic tradition:

• Sulh (reconciliation) emphasizes voluntary agreement, dialogue, and mutual acceptance. It reflects the “nice” principle by avoiding hostility and prioritizing harmony in human relationships. Islamic tradition consistently highlights the value of resolving tensions through patience and negotiation, encouraging communities to seek understanding and peaceful settlement rather than confrontation.
• Islah (reform and reconciliation) focuses on repairing relationships through constructive engagement, embodying both forgiveness and the long-term thinking essential for sustained cooperation.
• Hikmah (wisdom) involves selecting the right response at the right time—a nuanced, context-sensitive approach that outperforms rigid strategies.
• Qisas (retaliation in kind) underlines justice through proportional response, ensuring that the consequence matches the offense without excess.
• Afw (forgiveness) highlights the moral choice to pardon rather than retaliate, reflecting Islam’s encouragement of mercy as a higher virtue. Qur’anic guidance praises those who forgive, framing forgiveness as a path to inner strength and social harmony.

The Qur’anic principle “Let them pardon and overlook. Would you not love for God to forgive you? God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 24:22) perfectly balances proportional response with a preference for forgiveness – remarkably similar to the “generous Tit-for-Tat” strategies that game theorists discovered work best in environments where misunderstandings occur.

“Peace islands” in action

The “peace islands” concept translates these theoretical insights into practical reality. In Nigeria, for instance, the UFUK Dialogue Initiative annually honors contributions to peace with awards recognizing prominent religious leaders who understand that dialogue transcends sectarian boundaries.

International events, such as “Countering Violent Extremism through Love and Tolerance” organized by UFUK and Nigeria’s Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution demonstrate how peace islands function as structured environments that reduce the risks of defection while increasing incentives for cooperation.

The movement’s approach embodies game theory’s key findings about scaling cooperation:

• Repeated interactions: Educational institutions provide ongoing contact that builds trust over time, rather than one-off events that rarely create lasting change.
• Multi-level engagement: Peace islands simultaneously engage grassroots communities, civil society organizations, and opinion leaders, creating reinforcing networks that raise the cost of defection.
• Clear norms: Structured activities and shared values establish predictable frameworks for interaction.
• Local adaptation: Each peace island adapts to its cultural context while maintaining core cooperative principles.

The network effect

Perhaps most remarkably, the Hizmet Movement shows how local cooperation can expand into a global network. Game theorists have found that many social systems exhibit “small-world” properties: tightly knit local communities that are nonetheless connected through short pathways, allowing cooperation and information to spread quickly. This is the same principle illustrated by the famous “six degrees of separation” idea, which shows how surprisingly few intermediaries can link distant individuals.

Hizmet’s model (locally organized volunteer groups connected loosely across continents) fits this pattern. With a presence in over 150 countries, its decentralized structure closely reflects this optimal small-world architecture.

Local dialogue centers maintain deep community roots while sharing resources and lessons through transnational networks. This combination allows trust-building mechanisms to remain intact while enabling cross-context learning.

In the Philippines, Hizmet-inspired schools are recognized for their world-standard science and mathematics education, creating spaces where dialogue emerges naturally from shared academic achievement. Ambassador David Shinn’s comprehensive study Hizmet in Africa documents similar patterns across the continent, where educational networks of ninety-five schools combine with social, humanitarian, and interfaith activities to create sustainable cooperation infrastructure.

When science meets spirituality

The convergence between game theory and Islamic peace-building values offers profound insights for contemporary challenges. While purely secular approaches to cooperation may struggle when short-term incentives favor defection, values-based motivation provides the ethical anchor necessary for sustained commitment.

Game theory shows us that cooperation isn’t just morally desirable—it’s often strategically optimal. But Islamic teachings add crucial depth by embedding cooperation within a framework of ultimate meaning.

This integration addresses a fundamental challenge in peace-building: how to maintain cooperative behavior when immediate benefits aren’t apparent. Religious commitment provides what game theorists call “shadow of the future”—concern for long-term consequences that enables short-term sacrifice for greater good.

Lessons for our time

The scientific validation of Hizmet’s peace-building approach offers hope in an era often characterized by polarization and conflict. The evidence shows that small-scale initiatives, when strategically designed and ethically grounded, can generate ripple effects leading to broader transformation.

Game theory reveals that successful cooperation requires more than good intentions—it demands strategic sophistication. The most effective approaches combine niceness with firmness, forgiveness with accountability, and clarity with adaptability. These aren’t contradictory requirements but complementary elements of robust cooperation systems.

For individuals seeking to contribute to peace, the research suggests several practical principles:

• Begin with cooperative gestures, but maintain clear boundaries
• Respond to cooperation with increased trust, but address defection proportionally
• Make your commitments predictable and your values transparent
• Think in terms of repeated interactions rather than single encounters
• Connect local initiatives to broader networks for sustainable impact

Perhaps most importantly, the convergence of game theory and Islamic values demonstrates that science and spirituality need not conflict in addressing humanity’s challenges. Instead, they can reinforce each other in powerful ways—scientific insights providing strategic clarity while spiritual foundations supplying motivational depth.

The path forward

As we face complex global challenges requiring unprecedented cooperation—from ethnic and religious tensions to territorial disputes to ideological conflicts—the lessons from peace islands become increasingly relevant. The Hizmet Movement’s experience demonstrates that civil society actors, guided by both strategic wisdom and ethical values, can build cooperation infrastructure capable of addressing large-scale problems.

The mathematical elegance of game theory and the spiritual depth of Islamic peace-building traditions point toward the same conclusion: sustainable peace requires patient cultivation of trust, strategic thinking about cooperation, and unwavering commitment to human dignity.

In a world where “strongmen” often dominate headlines, the quiet work of building bridges may seem insignificant. But science tells us otherwise. Like the butterfly effect in complex systems, small acts of strategic cooperation can generate transformative change across vast networks.

The peace islands scattered across more than 150 countries offer more than hope—they provide a scientifically grounded, spiritually anchored model for human cooperation. In understanding their success, we glimpse possibilities for addressing even our most intractable conflicts.

As the Qur’an reminds us, “O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other” (49:13). Game theory shows us how to make that knowing not just possible, but strategically beneficial for all. In that convergence lies a path toward the peace our world desperately needs. The science is clear: peace is not just an ideal—it’s a strategic necessity that benefits everyone.

References

• Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
• Gülen, M. F. (2004). Toward a global civilization of love and tolerance. The Light.
• Michel, T. (2013). Peace islands and positive action. In G. Barton, P. Weller, & I. Yilmaz (Eds.), The Muslim world and politics in transition (pp. 45-58). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 56-58.
• The Qur’an (M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Trans.). (2004). Oxford University Press.
• Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. M. (1965). Prisoner’s dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. University of Michigan Press.
• Shinn, D. (2015). Hizmet in Africa: The Activities and Significance of the Gülen Movement. Blue Dome Press.
• (2023, December 23). This game theory problem will change the way you see the world [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM

The constant threat to children by conflict and violence globally has led to the formulation of policies and rules to govern and protect children from unnecessary, deliberate, and direct exposure to violence and conflict. Children are beings of social construct, shaped by the environment they find themselves in. They are molded, and their minds instructed, by everyday realities which, during contemporary times, are frighteningly violent. Children, formerly regarded as symbols of peace and innocence, are now often seen as weapons for war and illustrations for conflict. This shift leads to skepticism over the future of sustainable peace. Even when children are not actively involved in conflicts, there is the possibility that they might, due to violent influences during their developmental years, be pre-disposed to conflict. It is with this possibility that this article concerns itself.

Subliminal influences or messages are the ones that affect our minds without us being aware of it. Studies abound on both sides of the spectrum as to whether subliminal influences or messages actually work and to what extent they are effective at affecting behavior or personal development. This is an attempt at exploring the concept of subliminal influences as pertains to conflict and violence in relation to children. It then highlights the peace building potentials of children and the importance thereof, with the possibility of harnessing the potentials of the children maximally, for sustainable peace.

Subliminal Influences

The term subliminal is derived from the Latin words sub (below) and limen (threshold). The threshold, in this case, is the threshold of conscious awareness; the level at which things can be perceived or understood through the senses. Therefore, a subliminal influence could be defined as something that affects the way a person responds to certain stimulus. This “something,” though it operates below our conscious “threshold,” might lead us to act, think, or feel a certain way or affect our mind without our being aware of its effects.

The area of subliminal influences is one of interest to researchers, especially with regards to advertising, and has prompted debates over the years as to whether subliminal perceptions or persuasions exist or work. A 1985 study to assess the effectiveness of subliminal influences in advertising and popular music concluded that they were not effective. Studies, such as that conducted by Theus, K. T. (1994), concluded that subliminal messages actually do affect people. Interestingly, studies that were based upon visual stimuli tended to agree more that there was an effect than those based on audio stimuli (music in particular). It was also suggested that children are more susceptible to being affected by subliminal influences than adults.

This paper aligns with the school of thought that believes that subliminal messaging exists and can significantly influence human motivation and behavior. The theory is that people can be emotionally and behaviorally affected by visual or vocal stimuli whose presence they do not report. The question then is, how does this theory affect children in particular?

Subliminal Influences in children

“The subliminal aspects of everything that happens to us may seem to play very little part in our daily lives. But they are the almost invisible roots of our conscious thoughts.” (Carl Jung)

From 0 to 15 years old, children are reported to be of an impressionable age—an age where they learn or unlearn, as the case may be, behaviors and values that shape who they will turn out to be as adults. For researchers such as Massey (1965), as put forward by Herron, R. (2010),
this is also called the “imprint period.” Between ages 0 and 7, the mind is like a sponge and unconsciously absorbs everything around it with no conscious filters. Between 7 and 14, children develop “heroes.” That is, other adults they look up to apart from their parents, and they consciously begin to emulate or model themselves after their heroes. Thus, Herron is saying that children are very impressionable at the ages identified above. He states that many behaviors are learned behaviors through body language.

It is important to note at this point that it has been suggested—and understandably so—that children are less able to identify subliminal messages for what they are. Ironically, this fact also means that they can be more effectively affected by them. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that children in Europe are bombarded with subliminal digital messages regarding (and almost glamorizing) unhealthy foods. These messages often appear seemingly unnoticeable on screens when children play video games or watch television. A 2004 study asserted that “…too many children are watching too much television and the shows that they are watching (even if they are cartoons) have become violent and addictive.” It further asserted that while the violence in cartoons seems downplayed mainly because the characters are not real, some of the scenes may subliminally cause long term damage as the children might start to see the use of violence as acceptable (Choma, S. G et al). Given that this study was conducted in 2004, two decades since then it has become even more challenging for children to know any better for it is not only TV they are exposed to such subliminal messages.

Through the media, body language, and everyday reality, the minds of youth are inundated with imagery of violence, conflict, and war. They are subliminally exposed to fighting, suffering, and death. This is not to say these activities are unreal, but the problem is the fact that continuous exposure to this kind of imagery leaves children desensitized and unsympathetic to these realities.

Television shows of pain and suffering are often some of the most watched. This is worrisome, as many youth might begin to believe that violence is a normal way of addressing conflict, and that pain and hurt can be funny. They may begin to develop the notion that conflict is funny, and, unless it happens to them, it is none of their business. Often, this happens through subliminal influence.

Children as Potential Peace Builders

It goes without saying that children are potential peace builders. Indeed, if one were to accept the notion that they are not, what future could we have? Children are not merely hapless victims of conflict. To begin with, if children do not begin to participate in peace building, their needs will be ignored during any peace building exercise. Also, children that lack any form of peace education, may eventually become obstacles to sustainable peace.

Children with deliberately devised peace education would be armed to think critically, identify positive role models, and manage conflict without resorting to violence. Children are often found to be resilient. They devise ways of staying safe during conflict. It is important that these children are involved in discussions about peace building. Children may raise awareness for peace; promote social values necessary for peace; and mend bridges and repair damaged social relationships. They can do this by:

1. Organizing youth meetings where they can share about how to live together and survive;
2. Preparing advocacy material on children’s rights and peace;

• Promoting conflict transformation and dialogue as well as supporting peer advice, counselling, education, and support;

1. Encouraging all children to get an education including those that might have been actively involved in conflict;
2. Speaking against discrimination, violence, corruption, and other vices in both school settings and within the community; and
3. Promoting youth participation in school and local governance.

Although children have actively participated in peace building with some levels of success in Uganda, Nepal, Guatemala, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is still a lot to be done. Their successes are limited by factors such as societal perceptions of the role of a child; prejudices, which they often “learn” from people of influence; discrimination on the basis of class, gender, etc.; and education. Many of these factors could be affected by subliminal influences.

Subliminal Influences and the Capacity of Children as Peace Builders

Values and beliefs are the core of our thoughts and behaviors. They form the driving force behind what we do, and why we do them. The older generation is therefore obligated to impart the right values, including the ethics of “humanism, tolerance, diversity, democracy and critical thinking,” to the next and much younger generation (Degesys, 2008).

Because most behaviors are learned, they can equally be unlearned and replaced with behaviors associated with non-violence and peace building. Degesys remarks that as education systems can sustain conflict within schools, they can also liberate it. Just as racism, sexism and xenophobia (concepts that are sometimes more primordial in nature than we think), can be subliminally learned through certain curriculums, the same power structures can be unlearned and replaced through transformative learning, which encourages students to engage and participate (in peace building) as conscientious citizens using transformative methods necessary to change their attitudes towards conflict.

The family (immediate and extended) is the first circle of influence and needs to begin to understand how to better train children to deal with current issues—and especially conflict. Parenting styles need to be adjusted to accommodate changes in our present reality. Children’s mindsets need to be re-engineered. Just as the mind might have been “poisoned with violence” through subliminal messaging and influence, it can be reconstructed and reshaped toward peacebuilding. Children need to learn how to handle their emotions and learn social arts and graces as well as personal responsibility.

Schools and other educational institutions form the second circle of influence. It is imperative for an increase in peace education resources targeting the 0-13 age bracket in schools. The younger youth receive a peace education, the better, because what they learn at this stage will be very difficult to unlearn as they grow. Therefore, they should be taught the positives rather than have them absorb the negatives. Just as people are taught to walk, they can be taught to be peacemakers and peace builders. Most of the education children get today is targeted at incidents that occur after conflict—that is, post conflict education. We need to teach them how to avoid conflict.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The concept of peace building is wider than the idea of state building and reconstruction. It is a core component of the conflict resolution process. Because it is part of a process, we take it for granted that it should be the first stage of the process and not the last. Peaceful habits and education need to be mainstreamed into our minds and our lives—and especially into children’s development from as early an age as possible. Peace education needs to be part of the educational curricula at every level, not just secondary and above. Nursery and primary schools need to adopt peace education, too. Teaching peace building is everybody’s business.

Specifically, in terms of subliminal influences, there is need for parents, and indeed the authorities, to pay attention to the content in children shows and other children-targeted media. As mentioned above, subliminal messages are sometimes tucked away innocently within seemingly harmless content. If children are continuously exposed to such content, it will have dangerous consequences for global peace and security.

There is also the need to thoroughly screen school curricula to flag any content that has the potential to subliminally influence children to respond with violence, prejudice, or other negative stimuli. More importantly, teachers should be trained on how to ensure that they do not project any personal biases or prejudice unto the children in their care.

References

• Anyadike, Z. and Ikelionwu, N. (2019) Nigeria’s Peace Initiatives: Chapter 13: Subliminal Influence and Nigerian Children: Implications for Sustainable Peace. 2019.
• Bornstein, R. F. (1989). “Subliminal Techniques as Propaganda Tools: Review and Critique. Journal of Mind & Behaviour, Vol. 10(3), 231-262.
• Degesys, A. (2008) Transformative pedagogy in conflict resolution as an alternative route to peacebuilding – roads less explored, in T. Woodhouse, ed., Peacebuilding and Security in the 21^st Evanston, II: Rotary Centers for International Studies.
• Egermann, H. et. al (2006). “Is There an Effect of Subliminal Messages in Music on Choice Behaviour?” Journal of Articles in Support of Null Hypothesis, Vol.4(2)
• Fiernstein, C., et al (2010): Children participation in armed conflict and post-conflict peacebuilding in B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas (2010): A handbook of children and young people’s participation perspectives from theory and practice. Oxford: Routledge.
• Herron, R. (2010). “Proactive Parenting: Through Conscious Communication.” Xlibris Publishing Company.
• Kaplan, E. (2005) “Child Soldiers Around the World” Council on Foreign Relations. Available at www.cfr.org/backgrounder/child-soldiers-around-world. Assessed May 14 2019.
• Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., Miall, H. (2011): Contemporary Conflict Resolution – The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts.
• Theus, K. T. (1994). “Subliminal Advertising and the Psychology of Processing Unconscious Stimuli: A Review of Research.” Psychology & Marketing, Vol.11 (3), 271-290;
• UNICEF: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1059-from-victims-to-peacebuilders-children-and-youth-in-the-digital-age.html
• study.com – Subliminal Influence: Definition and Overview.
• visualmeditation.com – Subliminal Messages: How They Work and How They Affect Us.
• psychologytoday.com – Hidden Persuaders: The Psychology of Subliminal Perception.
• https://www,unicef-irc.org/article/1059: From victims to peacebuilders. The 1990 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 2000. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict Security Council Resolution 1460.