Comparative study on education toward peace in South Korea, Japan and China: Focus on Perception of Self and Society in high schools textbooks

This study aimed to elucidate the characteristics of self and society perspectives in social studies textbooks from South Korea, Japan, and China, focusing on peace education. The analysis revealed that while all three countries use keywords like happiness, justice, and fairness, their interpretations and methodologies differ. Each country envisions a better society with “Secular-rational values” but prioritizes different aspects: Japan emphasizes “Self-expression values” (respect for diverse values, political participation, individual freedom), China focuses on “Survival values” (State-led, economic activity, diligence), and South Korea is in between. Explicitly speaking, In Japan, personal peace is depicted as self-realization and living freely according to one's autonomous will, while social peace is defined as a safe, secure, prosperous, and harmonious society, established through principles of happiness, justice, and fairness. Due to the diverse interpretations of these concepts, it is advised that citizens collaboratively work towards a better society by building mutual respect and consensus. In China, personal peace is described as a high sense of happiness, security, and safety among citizens, achieved through societal contributions. Social peace is seen as joint prosperity within the socialist system, supported by a new development philosophy, social security, political morality, sustainability, and legal observance, as well as social participation guided by a correct outlook on life and society. In South Korea, personal peace includes happiness, human rights protection, multiculturalism and social participation, while social peace refers to a just society that achieves personal peace without social or spatial inequality, created by a state-led social welfare system. In order to achieve personal and social peace, social consensus is respected, and there is a deontological imperative to limit individual self-expression. Further research on real teaching and learning is necessary to utilize these findings to promote a new peace education that fosters dialogue based on understanding similarities and differences.