pp 1–18 | Cite as

Destabilizing stereotyped concepts in childhood: Some opportunities and risks of philosophy for children as an aid to PVE

  • Natalie M. FletcherEmail author
Open File


This article explores how the philosophy for children (P4C) pedagogical model might be well positioned to support the educational strategies associated with the prevention of violent extremism, through early intervention in children’s concept development. Specifically, it considers how the stereotyping of concepts risks interfering with children’s reasoning by engendering relationally problematic views that skew what they might consider valuable, resulting in epistemic rigidity and reduced opportunities to practice responsible autonomy. In response to such risks, the article proposes promising avenues for P4C facilitation, with an aim to cultivate flexible thinking in children and thereby support their evolving competence as emerging agents.


Philosophy for children Prevention of violent extremism (PVE) Values Violence 



  1. Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Boydston, J. (1990). The collected works of John Dewey: Early, middle and late works. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Curley, E. (Ed.) (1996). Spinoza’s ethics. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Curtis, M. (1991). Walter Lippmann reconsidered. Society, 28, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Festenstein, M. (2001). Inquiry as critique. Political Studies, 49, 730–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fletcher, N. M. (2014). Body talk, body taunt: Corporeal dialogue within a community of philosophical inquiry. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 35(2), 10–25.Google Scholar
  7. Fletcher, N. M. (2016). Negotiating the pseudo-environments of childhood. In D. Kennedy & B. Bahler (Eds.), Philosophy of childhood today: Exploring the boundaries. Landham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
  8. Fletcher, N. M., & Oyler, J. M. (2016). Aspirational eros: Curating an aesthetic space for argumentation. In M. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), Routledge international handbook on philosophy for children. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, M. (2003). Autonomy, gender, politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.) (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gregory, M. (2007). Normative dialogue types in philosophy for children. Gifted Education International, 22(1), 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregory, M. (2008). Philosophy for children: Practitioner handbook. Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, M. (2011). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Presentation at the Annual Summer Seminar. Mendham, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy, D. (2010). Philosophical dialogue with children: Essays on theory and practice. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, K. J. (1986). Doing Mark in a juvenile correctional facility. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 6(3), 9–16.Google Scholar
  16. Lenoir, F. (2016). Philosopher et méditer avec les enfants. Paris: Michel Albin.Google Scholar
  17. Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygotskian dialogues. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (Eds.) (2000). Relational autonomy: Perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Peirce, C. S. (1997). The fixation of belief. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader. New York, NY: Vintage.Google Scholar
  23. Sharp, A. M. (1993). Peirce, feminism, and philosophy for children. Analytic Teaching, 14(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  24. Sharp, A. M. (1997). The aesthetic dimension of the community of inquiry. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 17(1), 67–77.Google Scholar
  25. Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking. Sydney: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, B. (1973). Five public philosophies of Walter Lippmann. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information


Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Montréal, Institut Philosophie Citoyenneté JeunesseMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations