Introduction

Studies on the pacific transformation of conflicts are utterly different in the sphere of peace studies. Therefore, in the present article it is intended to put forward another contribution by emphasizing the importance of reeducation in order to reach better humanization, in which, indubitably, the practice of positive regulation of conflict situations will hold an essential place.

Present-day societies demand to learn how to become used to the transformation of conflicts by pacific means for the purpose of fostering values that lead to more cooperation, empathy, and resilience when facing stress and tension. Indeed, such is the conclusion drawn in the first place, which refers to the transformation of conflicts by means of a descriptive methodological study, which defines the interpretation and main features, as well as the notion of conflicts.

Such section is interrelated with other two, in which the following results are reached: in the first place, emphasis is made in order to potentiate the methodology for the pacific transformation of conflicts, which requires, in formal-education contexts, to increasingly promote a libertarian pedagogical model, i.e., problematizing, whose theoretical substantiation is essentially put forward by ^{Freire (1970}, ^{1993 and 2001)}. Secondly, it stresses the way such pedagogy cultivates creative thinking, in this way, it favors, at once, the fostering of creative ethos for a reeducation in the pacific transformation of conflict situations. In this way, the study of creativity is supported on authors such as ^{Csikzscentmihalyi (1998)}, ^{García González (2014)} , and ^{Lederach (2007)} .

The first sections of the article are related to a series of limitations and conclusions regarding the fostering of creative ethos in the practices of transformation methodology, and thereby for a reeducation toward better humanization. In this regard, ideas are put forward in order to advance this task, also to sensitize the ways to address conflicts using pacific means, the need to prompt actions to accomplish better humanization, while increasing the creative ethos with dialogical pedagogies and the relevance of creating spheres of confidence with a view to accomplishing 21^st-century citizenship, closer to the pacific transformation of conflicts.

A call for a methodology for peaceful transformation of conflicts

Convulse times are those we witness nowadays in the Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World ^{(Galeano, 1998)} . After a pandemic that shattered the lives of people and radically changed their ways to relate, another war has been waged, and by means of which violence has defined the pace of each event and the most individualistic interests of some have regained their whole value. No doubt, it is a series of facts that favor the conjunctures of the suffering of humans and nature, and also the becoming of inequalities and social injustice; such situations are, to a certain extent, rather akin to the ways of life the current structures of the capitalist systems we have accustomed ourselves to.

In point of fact, in these times, there is a great loss of values, mainly as a result from societies which, for ^{Han (2017)} , characterize by being burnout societies, as they systematically reproduce routines of production and consumption so much in demand by contemporariness. So much so, that it is continually demanded to produce for a system where the only worth is economic value; therefore, people are constantly asked to produce goods with an economic cost, while at once, they are prompted to contribute consuming. However, the burnout society’s demands are also imposed by the individuals themselves, who are so distracted by the system that they end up spurring themselves to meet the symbols of capitalism. As a consequence, burnout overflows together with devaluing, according to which nothing is worth, if there is no economic profit.

Indeed, this is stated by ^{Ordine (2013)} by contesting the concept of profit and wonders why not to subvert its meaning in a way that it is understood as something that does not seem to be valuable; that is to say, consider activities with no economic return profitable for the purpose of learning to change the ways of life and not exclusively focusing on merely financial issues. A reassertion, following ^{Nussbaum (2010)} , who insists that the role of humanities in a world that has lost its way, with the generalization of the most instrumental reason, forgetting what being truly human is; a world where, as observable, violence prevails in its most diverse forms: direct, structural and cultural ^{(Galtung, 2003)} . In this regard, ^{Nussbaum (2022)} stresses such culture of violence by means of a reflection on the sexual abuses of women in the present day.

Therefore, the 21^st century needs a change in direction toward generalized humanization^{(París Albert, 2020 a)} , in dialogue with a reinforcing of values in order to become wide aware not only of the dangers of violences, but also of the available alternatives to relate. That is to say, it is pressing to realize the large variety of options to do things; understand that violence is a possibility, since it offers the chance to rebuild pacific competences to act in peace ^{(Martínez Guzmán, 2001 and 2005)}. Therefore, the 21^st century urges to emphasize such competences to make peace and with it an approach in favor of a positive transformation. Obviously, these can be dealt with by violently means; though, they can be regulated via pacific approaches. Owing to this, it is everyone’s responsibility tend toward their positive management, accustom to it and make it a habit, if what is intended is to move toward a more humanized look of globality, in the context of peacemaking culture ^{(París Albert, 2019)}.

The transformation of conflicts via pacific means is an essential element in the making and establishment of peace. Transforming conflict situations entails going beyond their current status in order to confer them a new character or new condition ^{(París Albert, 2019)} . A meaning perceived in the etymological origin of the word, according to which “transform” is composed of “trans”, i.e., beyond, and “form”, from Latin formare (shape), and takes the meaning of change shape, to go from one place to another. When a conflict is transformed, what is intended is to stress the idea that “its shape is renewed”; in this way, the tensions that cause them turn into the objectives that will enable maintaining relationships in the future.

In this regard, the transformation does not start from the notion of conflicts such as negative or positive situations, instead from a gaze that distinguishes them in function of the means utilized for their regulations. This is, it is noticed that if violence is resorted to giving it that new shape, indeed, conflict will have a negative character because of the great deal of damage violence itself generates. Conversely, if pacific means are utilized, they will be an opportunity to pacifically relate and their positive condition will prevail.

Owing to this, transformation praises the reconstruction of pacific competences such as active listening, empathy, integrative power, cooperation, nonviolent communication, recognition, responsibility, and empowerment. It is a series of competences or pacific means that favor those other interrelation forms conducive to transformation, while at once, they allow advancing to the better humanization the 21^st century needs so badly, against the violent modes of interaction.

In the sphere of peace research, for some decades now, the importance of practicing the transformation of conflicts by pacific means has been stressed, and due to its force, become used to coexisting with its positive nature ^{(París Albert, 2019)} . In point of fact, as of the 1990’s there has been work on ways to adapt such positive regulation according to each individual and culture, with a view to safekeeping its intercultural disposition ^{(Ross, 1995)} . So much so that transformation retains the contextual nature of conflicts in a way that each situation has to be faced from their own circumstances, culture, and according to the experiences of people who experience them ^{(Lederach, 1995)} . Owing to this, this is not supported on models, instead it intends to reinforce pacific competences to reach linguistic agreements that enable rebuilding relationships from each particular scenario, according to the interests and needs of the people affected in each moment.

If conflicts are inherent to human relationships and one must not escape from them, but to learn to coexist with them, education in pacific regulation shall be a must, nevertheless, always bearing in mind the behavioral patterns of each place (^{(Bolaños Carmona and Acosta Mesas, 2009}; ^{París Albert, 2019)} . Only so will the fact of living conflicts make it possible to advance other forms of being, at once, it will produce changes in social conjunctures.

Rejecting the conflicts or resolve them violently frequently entails denying things may change. However, conflict situations are instances of disagreements between individuals and/or discrepancies with social structures. Therefore, they are the beginning of change and when positively regulated, make people and circumstance advance and modify in order to accomplish an improvement in human and natural wellbeing. Hence, the endeavor to regulate them by pacific means; on the contrary, as previously expressed, they become totally destructive situations, which break relationships, increase the spirals of violence and cause suffering, owing to this it is pressing to stop them at all costs ^{(París Albert, 2019)} .

The goal is to face them from the earliest indications in order to prevent violence and misunderstandings or incidents from becoming major crises ^{(Cornelius, 2017)} . For such end, the transformation has to pay attention to all the causes that originate conflicts, as well as the implicated actors and their dynamics ^{(Fisas, 2004)} for the purpose of establishing dialogues propitious for understanding ^{(Fisas, 2021)}. That is to say, the more information about the conflict and evolution, the better its positive regulation, because in the end, the transformation affects the very individual, but also relationships between the parties and in culture; this is, the transformation of a conflict with pacific means entails changes at all levels: individual and collective ^{(Lederach, 1995)} . Because of this, it goes beyond direct violences, while addresses structural and cultural violence, as it conveys modification that try to suppress present and future barbarities, and also to work in favor of more promising tomorrows.

The emphasis of peace research on the methodology of conflict transformation by pacific means has had repercussions in other methods previously used ^{(París Albert, 2019)} ; for example, in resolution and conflict management. In fact, resolution was the first technique to appear, concurring with the beginning of studies for peace, when the importance of finding solutions for every conflict situation was heavily stressed, by thinking all of them were harmful and had destructive effects. Indubitably, it was a methodology whose interpretation was the outcome of negatively looking at conflicts, in which it was believed that unavoidably they came hand in hand with violence.

Critiques to the continual search for solutions to conflicts by resolution, years later, made room for management, which by the way, was not overly successful because of the influences received from entrepreneurial management^{(París Albert, 2019)} . Indeed, management stated that conflict situations were manageable with regulations and/or models, as though they were not human issues. A notion that in spite of the positive vision that seemed to display regarding conflicts made it receive harsh criticisms. Moreover, as in the case of resolution, the demolishing consequences were still at the forefront; therefore, conflict remained related to violence.

Needless to say, this set of ideas sketched an ideal road for the appearance of the pacific transformation of conflicts which, as already stated, quickly took over the sphere of peace research. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that its presence did not and does not have any noticeability outside this sphere. So much so that, by and large, public policies multiply their efforts with conflict resolution approaches, by means of which, mainly, concentrate their attention on direct violence and because of this, on the harmful consequences conflicts produce ^{(París Albert, 2019)} . On the contrary, the option for pacific transformation aims at the causes of conflicts, which makes it address structural and cultural violence.

As a matter of fact, if what is intended is that the pacific transformation of conflicts becomes a habit, as well as its positive notion, it will be absolutely necessary to deepen into the causes of each conflict, and following, devise pacific alternatives that comprise all violences (direct, structural, and cultural). Especially because the ultimate goal is that changes are permanent, not only immediate, as well as sustainable and lasting over time ^{(Lederach, 1998)} .

Of course, the above is an essential aspect to bear in mind when facing conflicts from other more pacific perspectives; likewise, it makes reeducation in the methodology of transformation necessary. Such reeducation will draw closer to the humanization which has been emphasized early in this section, since with the setting into motion of transformation values and means indispensable at present are applied, namely: cooperation, integrative power, active listening, and empathy. In this way, reeducation in the pacific transformation of conflicts becomes a 21^st-century challenge in favor of the re-valorization of what seems to be forgotten, in addition to strengthening individuals so that in their daily lives they are able to regulate any conflict, moments of crisis, and/or tension resorting to pacific means.

As a result: the challenge of reeducation in the pacific transformation of conflicts by means of dialogical pedagogies

The interpretation of the pacific transformation of conflicts as a challenge of the 21^st century makes us think of the weight of reeducation, with a view for its practice to become a habit and people to become accustomed to it so that when facing conflicts, it is their first option. Indubitably, this reeducation makes education, mainly formal education, one of the essential tools that societies have to cultivate nonviolent relationships and values that enable the reconstruction of cooperative empathic cultures, in which subjects are capable of considering the other side of the conflicts and communicating with solidarity, establishing solid bonds to accomplish communication agreements ^{(Martínez Guzmán, 2001)} . Moreover, it is reeducation that displays the strength of other types of didactic practices, which increasingly tend to dialogical and participatory pedagogies, where there are noticeable synergies with the spheres of nonformal and informal education ^{(García Moriyón, 2006)} .

As regards formal education, the reeducation advocated in these pages goes hand in hand with dynamical pedagogies, which certainly have been working, progressively, in the earliest education levels. Though, it is also undeniable that its incorporation decreases to the extent schooling progresses. Owing to this, in the present study, we intended to defend that the aspiration shall be to maintain these alternative lines of work at all levels. The purpose is to gradually make them visible, for these will allow transforming classrooms into spaces more connected with daily life’s actual problems, consequently, in these places, work on values and contents alien to the classic curriculum will take place ^{(París Albert, 2017)} .

When in this article we refer to dialogical didactics, we refer to a clear influence from ^{Freire (1970}, ^{1993, 2001, 2009 and 2015)}, who in his studies made harsh critiques to traditional education systems, which he called banking pedagogy. For Freire, this model bases mainly upon knowledge transmission that goes from professors to students, in a way that reproduces the roles they have been historically allotted; that is to say, professors teach while students learn. Then the function of professors has to basically be the transference of knowledge to the students, who, for their part and passively, have to grasp the content, learn it and later reproduce it. So much so that it is believed that the more the students are capable of reproducing what has been learnt to the letter, the better they will be.

For Freire, it is a pedagogy that heavily restricts the possibilities of both professors and students. The former because, by and large, their teaching function reduces to teaching a lesson, which is the most utilized resource. The latter because efforts have to be made to reproduce the messages from the professors, whom end up being seen as statuary authority ^{(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1967 , 2001 and 2009)}, as the ponderous issue of education falls upon their figure. Certainly, in banking pedagogy, professors exercise most of the power, which for Bourdieu and Passeron (2001) makes the existence clear, in the classrooms, of a series of hierarchical structures that cause a large number of inequalities at social level. A hint of this, for example, is the traditional distribution tables and chairs, which are usually placed so that all attention is paid to the professor, or even the possibility that the professors stand on a raised platform to improve their visibility.

Therefore, there is no doubt that banking pedagogy consists in a methodology thought, in particular, to work with traditional contents in a very specific manner and leaving a small margin to deal with other issues, with different procedures and activities. In fact, their way of acting makes them treat all the students in the same manner, with no distinction for their peculiarities or differences.

As regards the above, for ^{Perrenoud (1990 , 2006 and 2007)} there is an imaginary line applied to everyone identically and ends up distinguishing good students from bad ones; that is to say, an imaginary line that defines the basic knowledge to apprehend and also the minimum grade to approve. Hence, those capable of grasping such content, who end up over the line are defined as good students, unlike those below. Of course, as a result, the system goes on to stating that the more capable the individual is to transcribe the contents and to be above the line the more an excellent student they will be, and by doing so, great importance is conferred to numeric grades.

Fed up with this system, ^{Freire (1970 , 1993 and 2001)} thought of a new pedagogy with which he intended to overcome the deficiencies he found in the most traditional banking model. This new proposal he called problematizing pedagogy or libertarian, as his new goal was the subversion of student and professor roles produces a liberalization of each of the agents, while at once is a problem as it makes them leave their usual comfort zone. In this way, ^{Freire (1970, 1993 and 2001)} defends his conviction that students not only have to attend school to listen, but also to be active part of their own learning process, being able to teach. In like manner, he states that professors, adding to teaching, may be educated, in such manner that the weight of teaching is not exclusively placed on them.

This is indeed the goal of libertarian or problematizing pedagogy; that is to say, revolutionize the roles of students and professors so that both teach and learn at once ^{(Freire, 1970 , 1993 , 2001}, ^{2009 and 2015)}.

In order to reach this goal, the libertarian or problematizing pedagogy uses a whole series of resources that took them beyond the magistral lesson, so that lessons nourish from a wide variety of activities, practices, dialogues, and reflections, with which, the voices of all the agents involved are recognized in equality and liberty. Because of that, professors start to be interpreted as facilitators of learning, while students, participants of themselves, to do so, magistral lessons are moderately used and have noticeable balance with other teaching, dialogical, and participatory techniques, which highly consider the students’ knowledge, interests and needs.

Owing to this, students are dealt in the same manner in this pedagogic model, though not obviating their differences, which overwhelmingly influence their learning ^{(Perrenoud, 1990 , 2006 and 2007)}. Hence, each subject’s abilities are identified and their contexts and circumstances distinguished in order to find out what facilitates their learning and what makes it difficult. Needless to say, this brings to mind that the fact of relating with all the students in the same manner does not imply to give everyone the same means, but else to consider that their learning stages depend on their realities, at once, they are influenced by their own peculiarities.

Therefore, libertarian or problematizing pedagogy provides students and professors with a highly active role; mainly, as regards the former, they are made to feel responsible for their learning; whereas for the latter, to design conversing with the class other teaching methods which they are not well used to and from which, thereby, much can be learnt. Hence, for instance, the distribution of tables and chairs in the classroom changes ^{(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1967 and 2001)} in order to make this task easy; in this way, they start sitting in U shape, or in a circle. This is a clear symbolism of the recognition everyone receives for it is a format that makes all people visible and help them feel valued.

It is then undeniable that problematizing or libertarian pedagogy stimulates innovative methodologies, with which many more spaces are created with a view to working creatively in the classroom ^{(París Albert, 2017}, ^{2018a and 2020b)}. In this sense, it is much more open to the incorporation of various contents with different materials. In point of fact, escaping from the classic curriculum contents has many more options with this pedagogy, as it generates more moments, for instance, for work on values, to reflect on various daily-life situations, also to think up alternatives to face crises and tensions. In this regard, it allows approaching the analysis of day-to-day conflicts as well as those at international level, and by doing so, come up with proposals for their pacific transformation, with which it is possible to include cooperation means, active listening, integrative power, and empathy, among others ^{(París Albert, 2022a)}.

All in all, libertarian or problematizing pedagogy enables deepening into the study of the propitious tools for pacific action and positive conflict regulation, offering elements to find out more about their embryonic roots and ideas to face them pacifically. It is a pedagogy that habituates the method of pacific transformation and, at once, encourages practicing it as a routine, fostering it and becoming used to it. In this regard, indubitably, this changes in favor of reeducation for the previously mentioned better humanization, as it advances the cultivation of the more than necessary critical, ethical creative thinking

As a result: the advance of creativity in libertarian pedagogy for pacific conflict transformation

Critical, ethical and creative thinking is necessary in the transformation of conflicts by pacific means. In these pages, critical thinking refers to the one that enables looking at the world with a wide perspective, according to which one can go beyond the purely apparent, by means of comments and assessments on the basis of solid argumentations, as well as on proper personal opinions and judgement ^{(Pritchard, 1998)} .

Ethical thinking comes from critical thinking, by virtue of the latter there is more capability to access what surrounds people from various perspectives, broadening the possibilities’ horizons, which at once, helps escape from interpretations and be in positions not well accustomed to.

So much so, that with ethical thinking there is much more potential to wear someone else’s skin and develop empathy; likewise, as a consequence, one learns to understand better other individuals’ standpoints, needs and interests. Therefore, this situation entails different perspectives, while allowing their fusion at once, not for the purpose of forgetting what is own, but else to understand that which is strange. Then, it is a way to recognize other visions of the scenarios they find in life, which, it is clear, do not have to be as our own nor do they have to be shared, but at least, recognized and valued ^{(Martínez Guzmán, 2001 and 2005)}.

Finally, critical thinking and ethical thinking are stimulated by creative thinking, which here is understood as the capability to think up more, better new ideas, in this case regarding the positive regulation of conflict situations ^{(Csikszentmihalyi, 1998}; ^{París Albert, 2018b and 2021)}. More because they will be more numerous and will include a wide variety of alternatives from various stances to the extent of being strange as they are unknown and never thought of previously. Better because they will be the agents of change and advance, at once, they will provide space for certain progress in favor of the growth of human and natural wellbeing and, thereby, of the overcoming of any sort of suffering, injustice and violence. In this way, they will be ideas propitious for the flowering of peacemaking cultures, as they set opportunities into motion to design creative alternatives for conflicts, which have to lead to different beings, as well as thinking and acting differently from the usual, and also propose unknown scenarios from which to face each problem or dispute, each fight or clash ^{(París Albert, 2018b)}.

Problematizing or libertarian pedagogy works these three thoughts and, in this way, feeds the critical, ethical and creative ethos for the transformation of conflicts by pacific means. In this regard, it acts in favor of that reeducation for better humanization which is being stressed in these pages. In this regard, here we want to call attention especially to creative thinking, as it is the one that stimulates critical and ethical thinking and since fostering it is absolutely necessary day to day, if what is intended is to think, to feel and to act differently from the usual, and to escape from the spirals of violence. There is no doubt that libertarian or problematizing pedagogy fosters creative thinking inside the rooms, due to doing contributes and with this, it contributes to make it a habit outside them. In point of fact, XXI-century citizens need to be creative to face, critically and ethically, these times’ challenges and thus transform their conflicts by pacific means ^{(París Albert, 2018 b and 2021)}.

Being a creative individual, thinking critically, and ultimately, being creative, go hand in hand with fantasy, ecstasy and dreams. It keeps a relation with improvisation, spontaneity, the unforeseeable and unthinkable, plus it relates to the unusual, uncommon, unique, singular, extraordinary, and sometimes, extravagant. It is full of surprises and differences, at once, it invites to narration and fable with large doses of illusion and imagination. Interpreted thus, it may be thought that creativity is not at everyone’s reach, but only a few individuals may have it. Indeed, it has been the conception that has traditionally defined creative people who have made great contributions to humanity such as Picasso or Edison ^{(Csikszentmihalyi, 1998)} . However, in these pages, it is advocated that it is necessary to go beyond in order to naturalize creativity; that is to say, it is essential to underscore its common character and glimpses that everyone may be creative, since all are able to express more, better new ideas, which have an aura of difference, and presented as interesting, fascinating and suggestive.

So much so, that in the transformation of conflicts by pacific means, every individual may practice their creative ethos. An essential ethos to become used to looking at conflict situations with different eyes and exploring alternative exits far from violence. A fundamental ethos to become used to coexisting in peace and thinking and acting emphasizing values conducive to the construction and establishment of peacemaking cultures. A basic ethos to familiarize with critically and ethically thinking of the past and present events, of social injustice so that other ways to escape from them are conjured, which have to be, moreover, propitious for the transformation of human suffering and nature.

Needles to say, peace and conflict pacific regulation require creativity. Because of this, peaces may be identified as creative peaces^{(París Albert, 2018 b and 2021)}, which also nourish from large doses of motivation to be able to do things without violence. In this regard, formal education strongly contributes to accomplish such motivation as necessary by means of, for example, alternative pedagogies such as libertarian or problematizing pedagogy. This last, owing to its way of doing and focusing learning, fosters creative thinking on its own, in addition to offering a series of tools to work in dialogue with imagination. It is worth bearing in mind the previous comments as regards its dialogical and dynamical nature, with practices that stir critical and ethical reflection by means of participatory methodologies ^{(Freire, 1970}, ^{1993 and 2001)}.

Imagination is competence that furthers creativity, thereby, it must not be forgotten when speaking of pacific conflict transformation. Thus, it was pointed out by ^{Lederach (2007)} in defense of the role of moral imagination in the nonviolent resolution of conflict situations and in peacebuilding. For this author, peacemaking entails thinking up unknown scenarios and from there, roads toward peace. In this way, the author does not hesitate to claim that even in the most violent contexts, moral imagination is needed because with it one is capable of fantasizing about escaping from such conditions. It is the one that makes us curious to find out the reasons of the conflicts, their consequences and possible solutions. Even, it exhorts to be curious, paradoxically speaking, because this enables imagining oneself wearing the skin of those considered enemies. Finally, it is the one decided to risk so as to be willing to leave violence by means of pacifically acting and thinking behind.

Fantasy, paradoxical curiosity, and risk capacity, ^{Lederach (2007)} states, make room for such creativity much in need in peacebuilding processes, pacific conflict transformation and reconciliation. In this same sense, García ^{González (2014)} notices that peace deserves ethical imagination, since peacemaking invites us to go beyond the expected, to be in strange horizons from which to transform conflict, tension and crisis situations. In point of fact, the same author warns us about a series of challenges and demands ahead of us with a view to eradicating injustice situations that produce exclusion at present ^{(García González, 2018)}.

To sum up, ethical imagination boosts creativity and guidance to see the world through different eyes and understand that things may be made in many different ways. It helps recognize peace is possible, and consequently, it is also that greater humanization fruit of a reeducation in dialogue with libertarian or problematizing pedagogy. A pedagogy from which cultivate creative ethos in pacific conflict transformation.

Limitations and conclusions about the potentiation of the creative ethos in pacific conflict transformation

As a conclusion drawn from these pages, an urgent change is needed at present. As mentioned in the first section, present-day societies are overly absorbed into the accelerated pace of production, which demand to be economically profitable at all times, and also support the pillars of consumption attributed to capitalism. At least in Occident, people come and go with little attention paid to what one does and ceaselessly reproduces: the slavery of a system that makes us believe we are free ^{(Han, 2017)} .

It is so to such an extent, that despite living the dramatic experience of the pandemic, which changed our ways as never before ^{(París Albert, 2022b)}, people have been following once again the pace of hastened times, in a dynamic of fastness. Such speed is noticed even in the use of technology via social media, in which there is continuous construction of preferred information, akin to proper interests, in a completely expedited manner. Jumping from an item of news to another is a matter of seconds, hence, there is little attention to them, in this way, individuals turn into clear representations of hasty times imposed by societies. Certainly, ^{Han (2017)} believes that this is proper to the performance society, which, at once, is defined as a transparence society, where the likes received in a day because of publicly exposing on Facebook, Instagram, etc. become valuable ^{(Han, 2021)}.

Therefore, present times are overly affected by the economic precepts of capitalism, by means of which attitudes based on opulence, pretension and individualism are reinforced. Owing to this, all the values, miscalled soft, as they move away from these canons, hold the second place. In other words, that which has closer links with pacific conflict transformation and with peace such as cooperation, empathy, nonviolent communication, active listening and integrating power, does not fit as well in societies where violence prevails.

Considering such situation, these pages intend to further pacific conflict transformation by means of reeducating in order to advance toward better humanization, where critical, ethical and creative thinking prevails. To do so, and as a result, it is understood that this may be advanced by means of formal education, with a problematizing or libertarian pedagogy, which is also a proposal that stimulates the trace of creativity. However, in many contexts, these times are not sufficiently propitious for new teaching methodologies suggested by libertarian pedagogy, and in this way, other limitations which complicate their practice takes place. As a consequence, banking pedagogy still enjoys widespread dominance and the application of any change in this regard is usually minimized; plus, their acceptance entails large efforts.

Then, certainly there is a great challenge ahead. Indeed, great efforts should be exerted to change, gradually, the minds to accomplish sensitization and the revitalization of the values closest to coexistence in peace and the transformation of conflict by pacific means. Specific actions shall be promoted to create new structures that approach such better humanization, with which the merely economic and violences start to lose primacy. The creative ethos has to be stimulated to foster the critical and ethical with dialogical pedagogies, which raise awareness of peacemaking competences and allow resisting the utilitarianism, which has harmed education so much ^{(Ordine, 2018)} . All in all, an environment of confidence to hope that a reeducation for the reconstruction of resilient, pacific and creative humanity in the transformation of conflicts is possible.