Abstract
The philosophy for children curriculum was specially written by Matthew Lipman and colleagues for the teaching of philosophy by non-philosophically educated teachers from foundation phase to further education colleges. In this article I argue that such a curriculum is neither a necessary, not a sufficient condition for the teaching of philosophical thinking. The philosophical knowledge and pedagogical tact of the teacher remains salient, in that the open-ended and unpredictable nature of philosophical enquiry demands of teachers to think in the moment and draw on their own knowledge and experience of academic philosophy. Providing specialist training or induction in the P4C curriculum cannot and should not replace undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in academic philosophy at universities. However, although for academic philosophers the use of the P4C curriculum could be beneficial, I will argue that its use poses the risk of wanting to form children into the ideal ‘abnormal’ child, the thinking child—the adult philosopher’s child positioned as such by the Lipman novels. The notion of narrativity is central in my argument. With the help of two picturebooks—The Three Pigs (2001) by David Weisner and Voices in the Park (1998) by Anthony Browne—I illustrate my claim that philosophy as ‘side-shadowing’ or meta-thinking can only be generated in the space ‘in between’ text, child and educator, thereby foregrounding a ‘pedagogy of exposure’ (Biesta 2011) rather than ‘teacher proof’ texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a further discussion see below.
It does not follow that the activity is therefore not educationally worthwhile in e.g. teaching important thinking skills and tools, such as making distinctions, giving examples, offering good reasons, asking probing questions, but for teaching to be philosophical more is needed, i.e. a necessary condition is thinking about thinking (meta-thinking). This is what Lipman calls complex thinking (see below in the main text) and what he claims the novels make possible.
For many decades Lipman’s Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State College organises regular international teacher training courses for educators and philosophers in their retreat in Mendham, New Jersey.
This in contrast to socratic dialogues in the Leonard Nelson and Gustav Heckmann tradition. Meta-dialogues are an integral part of the philosophical work. See: Draken (1989), Nelson (1949, 1993, 1994) and Heckmann (1981, 1989). In my own work I introduce meta-dialogues with the help of the ‘joker-card’ from a pack of cards (an idea from Roger Greenaway; see: www.reviewing.co.uk). Everyone in class can pull the joker when they want to discuss the dialogue itself: its procedures, strategic decisions and facilitation moves by the teacher. The dialogue itself only resumes when the meta-issues have been resolved. The device helps to make the practice more democratic and encourages higher-order thinking.
Rather than giving a definition of a community of enquiry, Laurance Splitter and Ann Margaret Sharp invite their readers to visualise a P4C classroom. They describe it as: ‘We would see a physical configuration which maximises opportunities for participants—notably, students and teachers—to communicate with one another; a round table format or perhaps a collection of smaller groups… We would see participants building on, shaping and modifying one another’s ideas, bound by their interest in the subject matter to keep a unified focus and to follow the enquiry wherever it may lead, rather than wander off in individual directions. We would hear, from students and from teachers, the kinds of questions, answers, hypotheses, ponderings and explanations which reflect the nature of inquiry as open-ended, yet shaped by a logic which has features which are both general and specific to each discipline or subject. We would detect a persistence to get to the bottom of things, balanced by a realisation that the bottom is a long way down. This means, for example, that the members of a community of enquiry are not afraid to modify their point of view or correct any reasoning—their own or that of their fellow members—which seems faulty; and they are willing to give up an idea or an answer which is found wanting’ (Splitter and Sharp 1995, pp.18, 19). For practical advice on the establishment of a community of enquiry—physical arrangements, length of sessions, how to set the agenda, and how to conduct philosophical enquiries—see, for example, Murris and Haynes (2002, 2010).
There is no space in this paper to explore what Biesta (2010, p. 496) describes as the assumed simplistic relationship between cause and effect in educational interventions. For Biesta, a representational epistemology is a closed system that assumes a particular deterministic causality between an educational intervention and its effect. A transactional epistemology, on the other hand, is an open system that is relational and not isolated from its environment and the exchange of meaning. A semiotic system that is open to children’s own perspectives and to the possibility that children can bring something new into the world cannot rely on texts that model, i.e. represent ideal speech, alone to produce a particular effect.
The conceptual confusion is based on the conflation between children’s intellectual development and their biological maturation and the mirroring of the development of the species (from ‘savage’ to ‘civilised’) with the development of the individual child (Matthews 1994).
People with an education in academic philosophy are not necessarily good P4C teachers. The issue is complex as the pedagogical skills that are inseparable from the philosophical praxis are also an expression of a particular philosophical position. The book Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Philosophy (Haynes and Murris 2012) is structured around this complexity.
References
Biesta, G. 2006. Beyond learning. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. 2010. Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. 2011. Philosophy, exposure, and children: How to resist the instrumentalisation of philosophy in education. In: N. Vansieleghem and D. Kennedy (eds) Special Issue Philosophy for Children in Transition: Problems and Prospects Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 305–321.
Browne, A. 1998. Voices in the park. London: Doubleday.
Burbules, N. C. 2000. The limits of dialogue as a critical pedagogy. P. Trifonas (ed). Revolutionary pedagogies. New York: Routledge. www.faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/.
De Marzio, D.M. 2011. What happens in philosophical texts: Matthew Lipman’s theory and practice of the philosophical text as model. Childhood & Philosophy 7(13): 29–46.
Draken, K. 1989. Schulunterricht und das Sokratische Gespräch nach Leonard Nelson und Gustav Heckmann. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Philosophie. Schroedel 11: 46–49.
Dunne, J. 1997. Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press.
File, N. 2012. The relationship between child development and early childhood curriculum. In N. File, J. Mueler, D. Basler Wisneski (Eds.). Curriculum in early childhood education: Re-examined, rediscovered, renewed. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–42.
Fisher, R. 1996. Stories for thinking. Winsford: Nash Pollock Publishing.
Gaarder, J. 1994. Sophie’s world: A novel about the history of philosophy; trans. Paulette Moller. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Haynes, J. 2008. Children as philosophers. London: Routledge.
Haynes, J., and K. Murris. 2012. Picturebooks, pedagogy and philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Heckmann, G. 1981. Das Sokratische Gespräch; Erfahrungen in Philosophischen Hochschulseminaren. Schroedel: Hannover.
Heckmann, G. 1989. Socratic dialogue. Thinking 8(1): 34–38.
Janks, H. 2010. Literacy and power. New York: Routledge.
Johansson, V. 2011. ‘In Charge of the Truffala Seeds’: On children’s literature, rationality and children’s voices in philosophy. In: N. Vansieleghem and D. Kennedy (eds) Special Issue Philosophy for Children in Transition: Problems and Prospects Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 359–379.
Kennedy, D. 2011. From outer space and across the street: Matthew Lipman’s double vision. Childhood & Philosophy 7(13): 49–74.
Kohan, W.O. 2011. Childhood, education and philosophy: notes on deterritorisation. In: N. Vansieleghem and D. Kennedy (eds) Special Issue Philosophy for Children in Transition: Problems and Prospects Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 339–359.
Lewis, D. 2001. Reading contemporary picturebooks: Picturing text. London: Routledge.
Lipman, M. 1969. Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1976. Lisa. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1978. Suki. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1980. Mark. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1981. Pixie. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1982. Kio & Gus. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1987. Elfie. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1988. Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. 1991. Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. 1996. Nous. Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. 1997. Philosophical discussion plans and exercises. Critical and creative thinking. pp 5.1–17. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.
Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in education, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M., A.M. Sharp, and F.S. Oscanyan. 1980. Philosophy in the classroom, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Matthews, G. 1978. The child as natural philosopher. In Growing up with philosophy, ed. M. Lipman, and A.M. Sharp, 63–77. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Matthews, G. 1994. The philosophy of childhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Murris, K. 1992. Teaching philosophy with picturebooks. London: Infonet Publications.
Murris, K., and J. Haynes. 2002. Storywise: Thinking through stories. Newport: Dialogue Works.
Murris, K. and Haynes, J. 2010. Storywise: Thinking through Stories. International e-book version. Johannesburg: Infonet. www.infonet-publications.com.
Nelson, L. 1949. Socratic method and critical philosophy; selected essays; transl. by T. K. Brown III. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nelson, L. 1993. The socratic method. In Thinking, children and education, ed. Matthew Lipman, 437–444. Kendall/Hunt: Montclair.
Nelson, L. 1994. De Socratische Methode; inleiding en redactie Jos Kessels. Amsterdam: Boom.
Nodelman, P. 1999. Decoding the images: Illustration and picture books. In Language and Ideology in Children’s Fiction, ed. J. Stephens. London: Longman.
Nussbaum, M. 1990. Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pandya, J.Z., and J. Avila. 2014. Moving critical literacies forward: A new look at praxis across contexts. New York: Routledge.
Sprod, T. 1993. Books into Ideas. Cheltenham Aus: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Taylor, A. 2013. Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge Contesting Early Childhood Series.
Vansieleghem, N. and Kennedy, D. 2011. Introduction: What is philosophy for children, what is philosophy with children: After Matthew Lipman? In: N. Vansieleghem and D. Kennedy (eds) Special Issue Philosophy for Children in Transition: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 171–183.
Vasquez, V.M. 2004. Negotiating critical literacies with young children. New York: Routledge.
Weber, B. 2011. Childhood, philosophy and play. In: N. Vansieleghem and D. Kennedy (eds) Special Issue Philosophy for Children in Transition: Problems and Prospects Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(2), 235–251.
Wiesner, D. 2001. The three pigs. New York: Clarion Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Illustrations from THE THREE PIGS by David Wiesner. Copyright (c) 2001 by David Wiesner. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murris, K. The Philosophy for Children Curriculum: Resisting ‘Teacher Proof’ Texts and the Formation of the Ideal Philosopher Child. Stud Philos Educ 35, 63–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9466-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9466-3