View source for How Human Ecology Education Defuses the Roots of Terrorism

{{Article
|Headline=How Human Ecology Education Defuses the Roots of Terrorism
|Sort as=Human Ecology Education Defuses the Roots of Terrorism
|Section=Observatory
|Use book layout=No
|Teaser=Research suggests that extremist violence stems not only from ideology but also from personal grievances, raising the question of whether teaching life and social skills in schools could help reduce the risks.
|Authors=Sandra Ericson
|Has audio=No
|Has video=No
|Cover image=File:Stickmen_Oppressor_Victimhood.svg
|Hide uploaded media=No
|Suppress uploaded media caption=No
|Limit uploaded media width=No
|Source=The Observatory
|Is collaborative research=No
|Has map label=No
|Month first published=January
|Day first published=23
|Year first published=2026
|Display date=No
|TOC limit=6
|URL of the source=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BAzOGEBRFztAigWWtmiOx_xv6g9yarpIDlxKuU_a5hw/edit?tab=t.0
|Credit line=''An [https://www.humanecologyedu.com/post/the-fix-for-terrorism-risk <u>earlier version</u>] of this article was published in 2022 on the author’s blog,'' [https://www.humanecologyedu.com/ <u>Human Ecology Education</u>]''. This version was produced for the Observatory by the Independent Media Institute. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ([https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en <u>CC BY-NC-SA 4.0</u>])''
|Is altered=No
|Quick read=Yes
|License=Creative Commons ~ CC Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0
|Area=Education
|Tags=Education; Gender; Human Rights; Social Justice; Social Science; Teachers; Women’s Rights
|Featured=Yes
|Is published=Yes
|Date published=2026-01-23
|Published by=Rey
}}
==Introduction==

Terrorist attacks, whether by individuals or groups, are usually followed by attempts to explain the rationale and causes behind them. The core reasons, however, lie not in surface-level factors but in the deeper “machinery” of society: the values and worldviews that children absorb at home, in schools, and in their communities. This early socialization shapes the beliefs and perceptions that later guide adult behavior. Among the social mechanisms that can be changed to prevent such attacks in the future, education and community life are crucial.

The [https://www.ohchr.org/en/terrorism <u>definition</u>] of terrorism provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights states that “As a minimum, terrorism involves the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury, or the taking of hostages.”

However, the [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/ <u>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</u>] provides a deeper understanding of terrorists:

<blockquote>“All direct victims of terrorism are treated as objects to be used—indeed, used up—by the terrorist. But in being treated as an object, the innocent victim is worse off than the (alleged) guilty victim. Insofar as the latter is judged to have done a wrong, he is thought of as a human. … For the terrorist, the innocent victim is neither a human in this judgmental sense nor a human in the sense of simply having value ''as'' a human being. Of course, the terrorist needs to pick a human being as a victim… because [that] brings about more terror… But this does not involve treating them ''as'' humans. Rather, they are victimized and thereby treated as objects ''because'' they are humans.” (Nicholas Fotion, “The Burdens of Terrorism.” In [https://www.amazon.com/Values-Conflict-Life-Liberty-Rule/dp/002369520X ''<u>Values in Conflict</u>''], Burton M. Leiser (ed.). Macmillan, 1981.)
</blockquote>
Nicholas Fotion, in [https://archive.org/details/warethicsnewjust0000foti ''<u>War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory</u>''] (2007), describes the inherent ambivalence in the analysis of ethical decisions, including in the case of terrorism. However, most cultures adhere to the principles of not killing others, minimizing suffering, helping others, and treating people fairly. Fotion questions whether these principles permit exceptions. Should one, be it a country or a lone wolf, kill to save others, and if so, when? And how do we account for the difference in individual rationalization? Given the variance in justifications for shocking terrorist attacks—which seemingly disregard the cruel act of killing innocents for no reason—there is a need to look at what shapes the personal lives of terrorists and the cultures that influence them to prevent such attacks from taking place in the future.

Confronted with frequent headlines of terrorist attacks, the public tends to associate terrorism as a political act and not a sexually violent one, since these acts are more integrated into cultural norms. But, in actuality, the two forms of terrorism that are most harmful to society are political terrorism ''and'' sexual terrorism, whether perpetuated by a group or an individual. A comparison of these two acts reveals an interesting moral hypocrisy that is deeply ingrained in American culture.

Let us first consider political terrorism. A 2017 report by the Investigative Fund and Reveal [https://revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/ <u>analyzed</u>] “domestic terrorism” incidents that occurred in the U.S. between 2008 and 2016. The investigation found 115 far-right-inspired terrorist incidents. This trend has only accelerated with each passing year, with the far-right extremists being responsible for initiating approximately 66 percent of all attacks and plots in 2019 and 90 percent of such acts in 2020, according to an [https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states <u>analysis</u>] by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Meanwhile, terrorism by the far-left inspired 19 incidents, stated the 2017 report, which included acts relating to animal rights and violent environmental activism. Religious terrorism, post-9/11, led to 63 Islamist-inspired terrorist incidents.

For examining sexual terrorism cases, we look at the CNA Corporation’s “[https://www.cna.org/analyses/2025/07/domestic-terrorism-offender-level-database-(dtold)-a-data-driven-analysis-of-us-domestic-terrorists-life-histories <u>Domestic Terrorism Offender-Level Database (DTOLD): A Data-Driven Analysis of US Domestic Terrorists’ Life Histories</u>],” and the [https://www.nsvrc.org/sexual-violence-disasters/ <u>National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s</u>] (2021) [https://www.nsvrc.org/sexual-violence-disasters/ <u>“Sexual Violence in Disasters</u>].” [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth <u>Millions of people</u>] in the U.S. have experienced sexual violence during their lifetimes.

According to the [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth/ <u>National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010</u>], “More than half (51.1 percent) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8 percent by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4 percent) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1 percent by a stranger.”

A 2023 study [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10209983/ <u>published</u>] in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics stated that 50 percent of intimate partner violence-related homicides in the U.S. involved guns. The possession of firearms in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women substantially. A 2019 study confirmed this and found that “a higher rate of firearm ownership is associated with a higher rate of domestic violence homicide in the United States, but that the same does not hold for other kinds of gun homicide,” [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/gun-ownership-violence-statistics.html <u>stated</u>] the New York Times.

Yet the United States has not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, granting equal rights to all sexes under the law. In the absence of federal law, the level of protective legislation for women across states varies widely.

Here is how political and sexual terrorism are often linked. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11974915/ <u>A study</u>] published in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence concludes that “adherence to misogynistic belief systems presents a pertinent risk factor underpinning different types of private and public male violence. This suggests misogyny and its violent manifestations that target women serve as an ‘ideological’ justification that aims to uphold men’s power and dominant status, not just at home but equally within society.” The normalization of violence against women by accepting gender stereotypes and inequality ingrained in society builds acceptance for using violence in other situations, such as supporting political and religious ideologies. The connection is critical, but how did it form?

In the United States, the initial [https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2023/04/BBFH_Frontier_History_and_Gender_Norms.pdf <u>division of labor</u>] necessitated by the practical hardships of settling in a new country, and the [https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/women-s-studies-and-feminism/education-women-us <u>division</u>] within the state college system between home skills for women and work skills for men, led to the establishment of a cultural gender divide, which became normalized over time. It was even considered by many to be biologically natural. As capitalism and its markets became economically dominant, those who worked outside the home began to gain disproportionate power in many professional and personal spheres. Women were restricted to household chores and child-rearing and had no means to earn income or gain power. Thus, sexual domination became integrated within society even more, supporting the hypocrisy of using sexual violence to retain control and power over women and political violence to maintain or gain political power. The former was deemed culturally acceptable, while the latter became punishable by law.

Terror hypocrisy in which sexual terrorism is accepted, while political terrorism is condemned, cloaked as ideology, grants permission to terrorize “for a perceived good cause,” and maintains the status quo and tradition by groups or individuals. For a nationally systemic example of this hypocrisy, consider that even though the 1994 Violence Against Women Act allows women to seek civil rights remedies for gender-related crimes, in 2000, the male-dominated [https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/16/us/supreme-court-court-federalism-women-lose-right-sue-attackers-federal-court.html <u>Supreme Court</u>] invalidated parts of the law that permitted victims of rape, domestic violence, etc., to sue their attackers in federal court.

For another example, the 2020 Boston Review [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/anne-gray-fischer-reform-wont-end-police-violence/ <u>report</u>] states, “Forms of gender-specific violence are baked into the structure of law enforcement. … This violence is possible in part because of the extreme power disparity that exists between targeted women and police, which at once enables such violence and shields officers from consequences.”

Nonetheless, violent influences, whether at the national or personal level, or through a group, can move from sexual terrorism to political and vice versa. A 2024 Sage Journals [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01650254241287494 <u>report</u>] supports this, stating that exposure to political violence seems to shape male adult behavior toward domestic violence. “[E]xposure to political violence at almost any point in male individuals’ life increases their likelihood to perpetrate sexual violence on their wives… it is the exposure of men to political violence that matters, but not the exposure of their wives.” The report cited “that the critical age bracket is between four and six years of age.” Unfortunately, we are living in an era in which children are seeing incidents of political violence in the media and in communities with troops in the streets. We are also witnessing frequent deportations, protests, and irresponsible gun ownership.

==The Beginnings of Terrorism==

Terroristic motivations, culminating in group or individual acts, begin at the individual level. The “lone wolf” terrorist appears to be the most difficult to understand. Often, benign demographic statistics obscure personal issues, extreme beliefs, prejudices, slights, or fixations; however, these psychosocial factors are more difficult to quantify statistically.

[https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fdd-memo-composite-violent-extremism.pdf <u>The composite violent extremism (CoVE) model</u>] provides an organized framework for understanding the lone wolf terrorist. The model was developed from initial efforts by law enforcement in the United Kingdom and Australia to prevent emerging forms of terrorism. It was created by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and his team at [http://valensglobal.com/ <u>Valens Global</u>], in collaboration with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, to organize and expand those efforts into a framework for identifying the factors that prompt individuals to commit violent acts, thereby making it easier for more government agencies to recognize and prevent acts of terrorism.

The CoVE model shows that personal grievances are not merely isolated complaints, but ongoing narratives of unfairness that individuals replay and reinforce over time. They often involve three interlocking elements: the [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9629809/ <u>first two</u>] are perceived offense and blaming others for one’s pain, and then a grievance “[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4573455/ <u>story</u>]” organizes these feelings into a stable identity. Grievances, by themselves, do not automatically produce radicalization, but they create fertile psychological ground in which certain ideologies can take root. Ideology can then function as a cognitive and moral framework that organizes, amplifies, and legitimizes these underlying hurts. Exposure to grievance‑affirming narratives makes minor slights feel more significant, deepens alienation, and reframes ordinary frustrations as deliberate attacks by an out‑group. Terrorism begins to seem justified.

The CoVE model divides potential terrorists into [https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fdd-memo-composite-violent-extremism.pdf <u>four categories</u>]:

* Ambiguous: People with undefined or “coherent” ideologies.
* Mixed: Individuals with multiple extreme ideologies.
* Fused: Those who have a single core ideology but also convey viewpoints associated with other ideologies.
* Convergent: Individuals with different ideological beliefs who come together to follow “mutual interests.”

The CoVE model also divides the risk factors into four categories that have the potential to lead to grievance:

* Mental health issues,
* Individuals’ employment or educational prospects,
* Positive relationships with non-extremist and non-delinquent peers,
* Being a member of a marginalized group.

Beginning early in life, the model offers several personal risk factors that contribute to an individual’s developmental likelihood of engaging in terrorism:

==Push Factors==

* Marginalization: Feelings of exclusion from society.
* Social Inequality: Perceptions of unfair treatment or discrimination.
* Limited access to education: Lack of opportunities for personal and professional growth.

==Pull Factors==

* Material rewards: Incentives that attract individuals to extremist groups.
* Cultural disillusionment: A sense of loss regarding cultural identity or significance.

A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250171.pdf <u>overview</u>] of how lone-wolf radicalization occurs most often in the United States outlines a path that also begins with grievances: First, an individual forms connections with online sympathizers or extremist groups; the potential terrorist then connects with an enabler who, whether unwittingly or intentionally, assists them; then, they broadcast their intent to act; next, a triggering event occurs, which may be personal or political in nature, and they carry out their intent through a terrorist act.

The NIJ report points to ways in which families and friends of a person experiencing radicalization may intervene and prevent this movement toward terrorism by reducing ideological and personal problems and grievances before they escalate. For instance, “prevention and intervention efforts may benefit by addressing beliefs that justify violence and helping individuals to develop identities in which these beliefs are not central,” [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250171.pdf <u>stated</u>] the report.

The preventive approach focuses on two interrelated initiatives: Education and community programs. These measures have positive long-term effects. Over time, they have the greatest potential to reach more people worldwide and deliver exponential generational benefits—they last longer, thereby preventing many recurring costs associated with violent acts. The question is: What educational and community initiatives undertaken earlier in life prevent the eventual emergence of terrorist behavior before it escalates?

==The Historical Precedent for Educational Prevention==

To answer that question, we examine a single program that integrates both education and community engagement. They are combined and delivered as a single [https://humanecology.wisc.edu/academics/departments/civil-society-community-studies/ <u>program</u>] through an ongoing educational curriculum in local public schools—besides some colleges that offer it—which teaches students how society functions and how human needs, both physical and social, are met in ways that promote health, safety, and social assimilation. This personal education for a higher quality of life, rather than professional education for income, has been successfully delivered for centuries as a single program across many European countries since the late 18th century.

The concept began in Northern Europe with [https://eaea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/What-is-Bildung-pdf-English.pdf <u>Bildung education</u>], a system of [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202007/bildung-cultivating-wellbeing-education-and-development <u>folk schools</u>] designed to improve the quality of life for the peasant class living under oppressive monarchies. It has since become an intrinsic part of the democratic socialist form of government in the Nordic countries. It is foundational to their consistently [https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/the-nordic-exceptionalism-what-explains-why-the-nordic-countries-are-constantly-among-the-happiest-in-the-world/ <u>high global rankings in happiness</u>] and quality of life. The Bildung idea that personal life and living education are foundational to national success spread, and Lincoln embraced it early in his presidency with the [https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act <u>Morrill Act of 1862</u>]. The act helped states to set up public colleges using funds from the “development or sale of associated federal land grants. … [t]he new land-grant institutions, which emphasized agriculture and mechanic arts, opened opportunities to thousands of farmers and working people previously excluded from higher education,” [https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act <u>stated</u>] the National Archives.

The knowledge and skills were thus disseminated to settlers across all states and proved to be a significant benefit to national resilience during two world wars and the Great Depression. In the late 1930s, Myles Horton, an American, visited Denmark to study Bildung education and returned to found the [https://snccdigital.org/inside-sncc/alliances-relationships/highlander/ <u>Highlander Folk School in Tennessee</u>]. It was there, in their 20s, that many of the great civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, studied and developed the principles and practices of nonviolent civil disobedience to advance their human and governmental rights.

During the 20th century, American high schools for many decades required girls to enroll in home economics (HE) courses, and boys in shop and vocational classes. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, as the Information Age approached, schools ceased teaching home economics, also known as [https://www.aafcs.org/about/what-is-fcs <u>family and consumer sciences</u>] (FCS), and many schools converted HE classrooms and labs into [https://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/25/education/schools-enter-the-computer-age.html <u>computer labs</u>]. Culturally, however, the gender gap in the division of labor continued. Women continued to assume household and child-rearing responsibilities. Men forged careers. As society became more complex and women developed professional interests and greater legal rights, practical child care and family life became more problematic; this unequal burden overwhelmed women, even those with advanced degrees, while men, without domestic skills, became even less able to live independently.

Today, as family and consumer sciences education programs [https://www.edweek.org/education/shortage-of-consumer-sciences-teachers-hitting-home/1998/10 <u>shrink</u>], fewer boys receive structured exposure to domestic and caregiving skills, which increases the likelihood that [https://freepolicybriefs.org/2021/12/20/gender-gap-unpaid-care/ <u>unpaid household labor</u>] and emotional management will remain feminized and fall disproportionately on women and girls. This disproportionate division of home labor, since the 1980s, has contributed to more marriages failing, more single mothers, more people living alone, and more children becoming alienated. The reality is that an urbanized transitional society that becomes overly complex, without the education to navigate it, is threatening and confusing to people.

==Why Human Ecology Should Be an Integral Part of the Education System==

Following the principles of family and consumer sciences, human ecology, without the gender stigma of previous titles, is the current personal education program focusing on the different sectors of our human ecosystem; Cornell University expanded and retitled FCS/home economics to human ecology, encompassing contemporary life challenges and needs. As home to one of the earliest home economics departments in the U.S., which [https://human.cornell.edu/100/timeline <u>began in</u> <u>1903</u>], Cornell continued its national leadership by setting a new standard for traditional state colleges still using titles from previous eras. Human ecology is a preventive community education program that offers healthy alternatives and practices to counter extreme beliefs and grievances that may take root early in life.

Research by Cassidy Wallace, in her 2020 thesis “[https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=all_theses <u>Re-establishing the Value of Family and Consumer Science in the General Middle School Curriculum</u>],” underscores the historical and institutional challenges of bringing human ecology into K–12 schools. Wallace notes that without collaboration between traditional FCS departments and other disciplines, preparing a new generation of educators to teach these life skills remains difficult.

By teaching mental health awareness, coping strategies, and emotional resilience, the human ecology program addresses psychological vulnerabilities. Through practical life skills and career-readiness education, it strengthens employment and educational prospects. Social integration lessons cultivate positive relationships with peers, and curriculum content on inclusion and diversity helps marginalized students navigate societal pressures, reducing the appeal of extremist ideologies. In this way, human ecology not only develops practical competencies but also creates a protective environment against grievance-driven radicalization. This approach directly targets the key personal grievances category identified by the CoVE model.

At the individual level, human ecology teaches the knowledge and skills necessary to manage life, navigate social systems, and cope with the rapidly changing physical, social, and political environments in which people of all ages live today. It is the fundamental personal, practical education required to meet basic human needs for physical and social well-being. No matter how economically developed a country is, its people still require significant formal and informal learning to understand and manage life.

However, in America’s competitive capitalist environment, which often serves employers, this universal public education to prevent violence is generally absent and ignored. While there is no direct, large‑scale study showing “FCS cuts can lead to extremism,” there is a plausible chain: the absence of such education reduces life skills and the ability to sustain relationship-building spaces such as improvement clubs, granges, or social clubs. That can heighten social alienation and leave gendered domestic burdens intact, removing an essential venue among members for critical discussion of identity, care, and responsibility.

Vocational training and education in soft life skills are an integral step in preventing “violent extremism,” according to a [https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/448221510079762554/120997-WP-revised-PUBLIC-Role-of-Education-in-Prevention-of-Violence-Extremism-Final.pdf <u>World Bank paper</u>]. “Policy makers see skills and vocational training programs as an important entry point for targeting youth and young adults for… [countering violent extremism]. … [Vocational Skills Development] encompasses basic education, technical and practical skills training and also soft and life skills. It contributes to empowering youth, enhancing their technical and analytical thinking and giving them a sense of purpose resulting not only in employability but also societal inclusion.”

Given that adolescence is a period of identity formation and heightened susceptibility to radical narratives, especially under conditions of exclusion and uncertainty, the erosion of FCS, without the inclusion of contemporary human ecology programs, means fewer universal institutions explicitly tasked with teaching students how to manage everyday life, relationships, and shared responsibilities in a pluralistic society.

==Program Design==

The design of the human ecology educational program follows [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs <u>Maslow’s hierarchy of needs</u>], which posits that a human life path begins with physical and safety needs, progresses to social and professional needs in midlife, and culminates in maturity with self-actualization and the achievement of responsible personal agency. Maslow first addresses primal fears, such as fear of starvation or thirst, being too cold or too hot, or being attacked. These are deficiency needs and arise from the unmet basic human survival needs. These needs should be met early in life, particularly for children. Early fear of not having these needs met exerts some of the strongest influences later in life, on life choices and social integration. This is why a human ecology program begins with what are considered “home skills”: how to provide healthy food, clothing, shelter, safety, and comfort, both physical and psychological.

The middle range of the hierarchy addresses growth needs. Here, human ecology focuses on social integration and the study of the social systems that govern community and national life. At this mid-level, students develop skills that foster social and professional growth, thereby increasing their psychosocial sense of safety and acceptance within a complex society. As students near graduation and transition to adulthood, the focus shifts to the higher levels of the hierarchy that address self-actualization. Students begin to identify and value their personal interests and natural aptitudes, helping them choose a life path that is authentic and meaningful.

Offered at the K–12 level and progressing through grade-level stages that align with students’ maturation, human ecology programs empower students to transition to adulthood confidently with a sense of safety and acceptance, and, after graduation, to live independently—learning to take personal control and seeing the big picture while staying on course, becoming empowered to seek answers ''before'' reacting, resolving individual grievances, and not being easily influenced by extreme ideologies.

==How Human Ecology Prevents Violence==

One risk in the CoVE model concerns relationships. Quite simply, friends. By explicitly teaching students how to evaluate peer influence, recognize unhealthy social dynamics, and choose supportive communities, human ecology lessons strengthen one of the CoVE model’s critical protective factors: positive relationships with non-extremist peers. Students practice conflict resolution, empathy, and collaboration through role-playing, group projects, and discussion of real-world scenarios, giving them tools to resist radicalizing peer pressures. This practical application reinforces moral reasoning and social awareness, reducing the likelihood that grievances are amplified through unhealthy social networks.

The sexual ideology that justifies violence against women begins early. How girls are treated in schools, bullying, and similar actions become embedded behaviors if there are no counteracting lessons. Human ecology teaches young people to find positive values in others and to recognize that being a human being is, in itself, sufficient to entitle any person to dignity and respect. Individual birth characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, age, or income, do not define what it means to be a human being; they are natural and cultural differences.

School culture is a living laboratory, both conscious and subconscious, which offers opportunities to adopt healthy behaviors in a protected environment. Without the counterbalance of ethical education—like that provided by human ecology lessons—students may not learn to critically evaluate their choices or recognize the moral weight of seemingly small actions. In that vacuum, biases and harmful ideologies take root. Positive personal values, developed through human ecology lessons on ethics, cause and effect, and the power of cultural influences, build an early framework for life-long decision-making. This principle also extends beyond the psychosocial into the value of learning practical life skills. Lack of these skills predisposes a person toward violence by leaving everyday conflicts, stress, and social pressures to be handled with impulse, rather than with thought, communication, or empathy.

Consider how one example, a [https://uwo.ca/fhs/programs/hrs/fields/food_nutrition_he.html <u>human ecology foods and nutrition</u>] lesson, illustrates the thought, empathy, and value choices embedded in preparing a meal for a group. The lesson begins by exploring which foods meet human nutritional needs and why. It covers the sources of the food, the production processes, and the ethics of the food industry, while also introducing mathematics and science of real-world applications. Field trips to grocery stores or farmers markets, interpreting labels, and what “organic” means form part of it. Students examine how climate change affects resource availability and the need for adaptation. They learn to be mindful of their class’s personal preferences, allergies, and religious practices. Students plan menus, ensure meals are shared equitably, and prepare the food. They learn to present it attractively, practice dining etiquette, and enjoy the camaraderie of sharing and caring. Cleaning up after themselves teaches them the importance of sanitation and proper food storage.

Beyond practical skills, these lessons explicitly integrate critical reflection on ideology and personal grievance, encouraging students to discuss how inequity, bias, and exclusion affect communities and connect the ethical reasoning from daily activities (like sharing a meal) to understanding how extremist ideologies exploit genuine social and personal grievances. The key takeaway is that with just one meal, students experience that serving everyone best serves their own interests—the enjoyment of a meal with classmates. That realization, discussed and examined in class, begins to permeate students’ relationships in the broader culture as they mature.

In a comprehensive human ecology program, personal value-setting and character development are similarly reinforced through lessons on housing, for example, which provide an understanding of safety, security, and privacy, as well as aesthetics. The lessons also include finance, the legal system, home management, child development, and consumer protection. Each practical life skill increases the quality of life in a complex society. Poor life skills mean that students cannot translate abstract values (dignity, respect, and equality) into concrete choices about friends, groups, and the daily interactions and transactions within the complex social systems of our country and communities.

In essence, it becomes unthinkable to terrorize those whom you have learned, in your formative years, to understand, protect, and provide for. Students see themselves in others because they have learned that every human being shares the same basic needs.

By embedding problem-solving exercises into the human ecology program, fostering peer collaboration, and encouraging reflection on personal and social obstacles, students practice coping strategies and empathy in safe, structured settings. This comprehensive approach ensures that the curriculum does not merely teach practical life skills but actively cultivates resilience, self-awareness, and critical thinking—the psychological and social competencies that can reduce vulnerability to extremist recruitment.

Research indicates that a large majority of interpersonal communication is nonverbal, with some estimates suggesting around [https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Prince_Georges_Community_College/COM_1010%3A_Foundations_of_Communication/04%3A_Nonverbal_Communication/4.01%3A_Language_and_Meaning <u>80 percent</u>] of communicative impact comes from nonverbal cues (such as facial expressions, posture, and tone) rather than words. Social mobility and professionalism are advanced by understanding how personal presentation, gestures, etiquette, social protocols, and cultural differences are perceived and practiced, fostering positive interactions.

To further illustrate the effectiveness of life skills education in violence prevention, international examples can be instructive. [https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-social-and-emotional-learning <u>UNESCO</u>], [http://exploresel.gse.harvard.edu/frameworks/58/ <u>WHO</u>], and [http://exploresel.gse.harvard.edu/frameworks/43/ <u>OECD</u>] frameworks emphasize social and emotional learning, conflict resolution, and civic engagement as part of comprehensive life skills curricula. Pilot programs in countries like [https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/survey-on-social-and-emotional-skills/site-reports-20218/sses-helsinki-report.pdf <u>Finland</u>], [https://www.adeccogroup.com/our-thinking/articles-and-editorials/empathy-in-denmark <u>Denmark</u>], and [https://pb4l.tki.org.nz/PB4L-Restorative-Practice <u>New Zealand</u>] have integrated personal and social skills development alongside academic subjects, resulting in [https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/survey-on-social-and-emotional-skills/site-reports-20218/sses-helsinki-report.pdf <u>measurable improvements</u>] in students’ resilience, empathy, and social cohesion. These examples demonstrate that having a human ecology program in schools is not only theoretically sound but also has practical precedent, reinforcing its potential as a preventive strategy against extremism across diverse educational contexts.

In conclusion, the CoVE model demonstrates that violent extremism emerges not from ideology alone but from the interaction of ideology with unresolved personal grievances. Human ecology programs directly address these vulnerabilities by equipping students with essential life skills, social and emotional learning, and practical knowledge for navigating complex personal and social environments. By fostering empathy, responsible decision-making, and resilience, human ecology reduces susceptibility to extremist narratives while supporting individual well-being.

If widely adopted in K–14 public schools, human ecology programs would make these psychosocial and practical competencies universal, helping cultivate a more equitable, connected, and resilient society. For this reason, life skills education must be as core to schooling as math, science, and history. In a world shaped by rapid social change and instability, education focused solely on professional training is no longer sufficient; preparing students for the complete realities of human life is essential to sustaining a healthy, stable, and democratic nation.