Philosophy for Children: An International Handbook

..
p. V ll
CONTENTS
Aboll! (he edltors

Lis! o(con!rihlltors
•
6dltorlallntrodllctlotl
PARTI
The democratic nature of Philosophy for Children
1 The cOl11l11unity of philosophical inquiry (P4C) : a pedagogical

proposa! for advanc ing democracy
Eugenio Echeverria and Patricia Harm am
. .
mqUlry
Danen Chetty and Judith Suissa
3 A citizen 's education: the Philosophy fo r C hildren H awai'i

approach to deliberative pedagogy
Amber Strong Makaiau
4 Authority , democracy and philosophy: the nature and role of
Copyllghted material
authority in a co ml11unity of philoso phical inquiry
Olivier Miehaud and Riku Viilitalo
PARTII
Children and childhood in Philosophy for Children
5 Philosophy for Children and developmental psychology: a

historical review
Lena Creen
p .Vlll
6 Childhood, education and philosophy: a matter of time

David Kennedy and Walter Ornar Kohan
7 Philosophical play in the early years classroom

Sara Stanley and Sue Lyle
PART III
What is philosophical about Philosophy for Children?
8 Gerting berter ideas : a framework for understanding epistemic

philosophical progress in Philosophy for Children
Clinton Colding
9 Q uestioning the qu estion: a herm eneutical perspective on th e 'art

of qu estioning' in a comlTlunity of philosophical inquiry
Barbara Weber and Arthur Wolf
]O Back ro basics: a philosop hical analysis of philosophy in

Philosophy wirh Children
Catherine C. McCall and Ed Weijers
11 Dimensions oC the sumphilosophefn: the community of

philosophical inquiry as a paJimpsest
Stefano Oliverio
PARTIV
The cornrnunity of inquiry in action: episternology and pedagogy
12 Philosophy for/ w ith Children and the development of

epistemically virtuo us agents
Renia Gasparatou
13 Pragmatist epistemology, inqu ity values and educatio n for

thinking
Peter El/erton
14 Changing minds: the professional leaming of teachers in a

classroom community oC inqu iry
Vivienne Marie Baumfield
15 Thinking as a community: reasonablen ess and emotions

Magda Costa-Carvalho and Dina Mendonfa
.
p.LX
PARTV
The aesthetics of Philosophy for Children: bodies and spaces
16 Guemica comes to scl1ool: art, philosophy and Jife

May Leckey
17 Drama, gestures and philosophy in the classroom: playing with
philosophy to support an education for Jife
Laura D'Olimpio and Christoph Teschers
18 Curating an aesthetic space for inquiry

Natalie M . Fletcher and Joseph M. Oyler
PARTVI
Philosophical texts and Philosophy for Children
19 From Harry to Philosophy Park: the developme nt ofPhilosophy for

Children ma terials in Australia
Gilbert Burgh and Simone Thornton
20 Readings and reade rs of texts in Philosop hy for Children

Joanna Haynes and Karin Murris
21 Education, identity construction and cultural renewal: the case of

philosophical inquiry with Jewish Bible
J ennifer Glaser and Maughn Rollins Gregory
PARTVII
Philosophy in schools
22 Philosophizing with children in science and mathematics c1asses

Kristina Calvert, M attlúas Fiirster, Anna Hausberg, Diana Meerwaldt,
Patricia N evers, Stefanie Paarmann artd Tim Sprod
23 Teaching philosophy and philosophical teaching

Liz z y Lewis and Roger Sutcliffe
24 What's philosophy got to do with it? A chieving synergy between
philosophy and education in teach er preparatio n
Sarah Davey Chesters and Lynne Hinton
p. x
PARTVIII
Research directions and methods in Philosophy for Children
25 W ho talks? W ho listens? T akin g 'positionality' seriously in

Philosophy for C hildren
Amy Reed-Sandoval and Alain Carrnen Sykes
26 El11powering global P4C research and practice through self- study:

the Philosophy for C hil dren H awai'i Intern ational Jou rnalin g and
Self- Study P roject
Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sz e Wang, Karen Ragoonaden
and Lu Leng
27 D ialogical cri tical thinking in kindergarten an d elel11entary school:

studies on the il11pact of philosophical praxis in pupils
lvfarie-France Daniel, Mathieu Gagnon and Emmanue/e Auriac-
Slusarcz yk
28 R econstructio n of thin king across the curricu lum through the

cOl11munity of in Quiry
Kim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh and Liz Fynes-Clinton
29 Philosophy for teachers: between ignoran ce, invention and

• ••
1111prOvIsatlOn
Walter Omar Kohan, Marina Santi and Jason Thomas Wo z niak
Index
Copyllghted matarial
p.X1·
ABOUT THE EDITORS
Maughn Rollins Gregory is Professor of EducationaJ Foundations at

Montclair State University (USA), where he succeeded Matthew
Lipman as the director of the rnstitute for the Advancement of
Philosophy for Children (rAPC) in 2001. He holds a JD and a PhD in
philosophy. He publishes and teaches in the areas of philosophy of
education, Philosophy for Children, pragmatism, gender, Socratic
pedagogy and contemplative pedagogy. He has edited a number of
speciaJ journaJ issues on Philosophy for Children.
Joanna Haynes holds a PhD in Philosophy for Children and is

Associate Professor in Education Studies at Plymouth University
Institute of Education (UK). Her research interests include democratic
and conmlUnity education. She is author of Children as Philosophers
(2002; 2008), which has been published in Spanish, Greek and Korean,
and co-edited (with S. Gibson) Engaging Education: Perspectives on
Participation and Inclusion (2009). She co-authored (with K. M urris)
Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Philosophy (2012) and (with K. Cale and M.
Parker) Philosophy and Education: An Introduction to Key Questions and
Themes (2014).
Karin Murris holds a PhD in Philosophy with Children and is
Professor at the School ofEducation, University of Cape Town (South
Africa), where she convened the 16th ICPIC Conference in 2013. She
studied with Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp in the US, is
currently president of rCPIC and leads the Southern Africa n P4C
network. Karin is the author of Teachirtg Philosophy with Picture Books
(1992), The Posthumart Child: Educatiortal Trartsfonnatiort through
Philosophy with Picturebooks (20 16) artd (with J. Hayrtes) Storywise:
Thirtkirtg through Stories (2002) artd Picturebooks, Pedagogy artd Philosophy
(2 012).
CopYll9hted materiaJ
·.
p.Xll
CONTRIBUTORS
Enlluanuele Auriac-Slusarczyk is Full Professor of Psyehology of

Edueation at the University of Clermont Ferrand (Franee) and has
wOIked in the field of teaeher edueation for twenty years. She is a
researeher at the Laboratory ACTE (Aetivity, Knowledge,
Transmission and Edueation), where she studies oral and written
interaetions between teaehers and students. She is interested in
researching the pedagogical experiences of Philosophy for Children at
sehools to identif)r good factors to improve students' reasoning and
reflection.
Vivienne Marie Baurnfield is Professor of Professional Learning and

eo-leader of the Centre fOI Researeh in Professional Learning at the
University of Exeter (UK). She holds a PhD in Politieal Science and
studied with Matthew Lipman whilst direeting the Thinking Skills
R esearch Centre at the University of Neweastle . Her research focuses
on the role of inquiry in professional learning and the ereation of
pedagogical knowledge in school-university research partnerships. She
is the co-author (with C. MeLaughlin, P. COIdingley and R. Mclellan)
of Making a Difference: Tuming Teacher Leaming [mide Out (2015) and
Action Research in Education (2012).
Gilbert Burgh holds a PhD in Philosophy. He is a senior lecturer in
Philosophy in the School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry at the
Universiry of Queensland (Australia), where he teaches political
philosophy, philosophy and education, environmental philosophy, and
philosophy as a way of life. His interests indude demo cratic education
and citizenship, conmmniry of inquiry in educational discourse, and
the theory and practice of collaborative inquiry-based philosophy. He
is co-author (with M . Freakley and L. Tilt MacSporran) of Values
Education in Schools (2008), Ethics and the Community of Inquiry (2006),
and Engaging with Ethics (2000).
Kristina Calvert holds a PhD in education and is a freelance

educational consultant and author. She trains teachers in Philosophieren
mit Kindem und Jugendlichen (PmK] I P4C) and Philosophizing with
Children about Nature (PhiNa) at the state teachers' training institute
in Hamburg, Germany. She also trains artists, pre-school teachers and
educators in theatre and museum pedagogy in Germany and
Switzerland. A significant book publication in addition to those listed
in her contribution is (with C. Solzbacher): 'Ich schaff das schon.' Wie
Kinder Selbstkompetenz entwickeln konnen (2014).
. ..
p.Xlll
Darren Chetty is a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Education,

University College London (UK). He taught in London primary
schools for almo st 20 years, integrating Philosophy for Children into
his classroom practice. His research interests include Philosophy for
Children, racism and education, children' s literature, hip-hop
education, and teacher identiry. He won the Biennial Award for
Excellence in Interpreting Philosophy for Children from the
lnternational Council for Philosophical Inquiry with Children in 2013.
Magda Costa-Carvalho holds a PhD in Philosophy and teaches at
the University of the Azores (Portugal). She coordinates a post-
graduate course in Philosophy for Children and offers Philosophy for
Children sessions in a private schoo!. She holds Levels 1 and 2 of P4C
certification from the Society for the Advancement of Philosoprucal
Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE) in the UK. Presently,
her main research focuses on the etrucal dimension of Prulosophy for
Children, as well as on Environmental Philosophy.
Marie-France Daniel is a philosopher of education and Full Professor

at the University of Montréal (Canada). She is a member of the
, ,
Research Group on Etrucs in Education and Educative Ethics (GREE).
Her research focuses on critical and dialogical thinking and her research
projects are regularly financed by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC) of Cana da and disseminated in Québec,
Europe and the USA.
Sarah Davey Chesters is a Lecturer in Education at Queensland

University of Technology (Australia). She holds a PhD from the
University of Queensland. Her research interests include Socratic
pedagogy, multi-dimensional thinking and kindness education. She is
the au thor of The Socratic Classroom: Reflective 17únking through
Collaborative lnquiry (2012) and (with L. Fynes-Clinton, L. Hinton and
R. Scholl) Philosophical and Ethical Inquiry in the Middle Years and Beyond
(2013).
Laura D'Olimpio is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University

of Notre Dame (Australia). She completed her PhD, The Moral
Possibilities of Mass Art, at The University of Western Australia. Laura
has published in aesthetics and ethics, philosophy, and education, and is
a regular contributor to The Conversation and Radio National's
Philosopher's Zone. She is Chairperson of the Association for Philosophy
in Schools (Western Australia) and co-editor of the open access Joumal
of Philosophy in Schoo/s.
Eugenio Echeverria is Director of the Latin American Center for

Philosophy for Children (CELAFIN). He holds a PhD from Michigan
State University, an MA in Philosophy for Children from Montclair
State University and a Postgraduate Certificate in Counselling in
Educational Settings from Aston University. Eugenio has over 40 years'
experience with P4C and particular expertise in P4C with adolescents.
He writes in several languages, has published widely in international
journals and is the author (with P. Hannam) of Philosophy with
Teenagers: Nurturing Moral Imaginationfor the 21st Century (2009).
Peter Ellerton is Director of the Critical Thinking Project and a

lecturer in Critical Thinking at the University of Queensland
(Australia). He also teaches preparatory teaching programs in Physics
and in Philosophy. Peter spent many years as a high school teacher of
science and philosophy, and is involved with the International
Baccalaureate Organisation and the Queensland Curriculum and
Assessment Authority in curriculum designo He holds a Master's
Degree in Science and his research focuses on understanding effective
thinking and how to teach it.
p.X1V
N atalie M. Fletcher is a philosophical practitioner and res earcher

from Montreal, Canada, where she works in the philosophy
department at John Abbott College and as the founding director of
Brila Youth ProJects (www.brila.org). an educational charity that
•
fosters m u ltidime nsio n al thinking m young people through
•
philosophical dialogue and creauve projects. She is pursuing
interdisciplinary doctoral research at Concordia University, fusing the
fields of ethics, political philosophy, dialogic pedagogy and aesthetics
education.
Matthias Forster received a Master's Degree in special education,

specializing in the fields of learning, hearing, chemistry and
mathematics. He is a lecturer for special education at a state teachers'
training seminar in Braunschweig, Germany, and a teacher in special
edllcation at a comprehensive school in Brallnschweig, where he works
on incorporating PmKJ /P4C in science and German classes in grades
5-10. His Master's thesis is the basis of his contribution to this
Handbook.
Liz Fynes-Clinton is H ead of Curriculllm and Literacy/Philosophy

Coach at East Brisbane State School (Australia), where she has led the
Philosophy in Schools program for the past seven years. Liz is
undertaking a PhD at the University of Queensland and is a co-author
(with P. Cam, K. Harrison, L. Hinton , R. Scholl and S. Vaseo) of
Philosophy with Young Children: A Classroom Handbook (2007) and (with
S. Davey Chesters, L. Hinton and R. Scholl) of Philosophical and Ethical
Inquiry for Students in the Middle Years and Beyond (2013).
Mathieu Gagnon is Associate Professor at the University of

Sheerbrooke (Canada). He is a member of the Centre of Research on
,
Teaching and Learning Science (CREAS). He publishes in the field of
improving critical thinking through the practice of the dialogi cal
community of inquiry at primary and secondaly schools.
Renia Gasparatou is Assistant Professor at the Department of

Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education at the University
of Patras (Greece). She holds a PhD in Philosophy and her research
foclls es on epistemology, philosophy of education and Philosophy for
Children. She has implemented P4C sessions in schools and has also
supervised teachers' training programs in P4C.
]ennifer Glaser is Founder and Co-Director of the Israel Center for
Philosophy in Education - 'Philosophy for Life', and Founder and
Director ofEngaging Texts, a crass-communal network developing the
educational practice of philosophical inquiry in Jewish education (USA;
www.engagingtexts.co m). She holds a PhD in Philosophy and a
teaching degree. In the 1980s she was a leader of the Philosophy for
Children movement in Australia. She is a past president of the
International Council of Philosophical Inquiry with Children (ICPIC)
and currently serves on the ICPIC executive committee. Her research
interests include personal identity and group membership, pluralism,
hermeneutics, and children's philosophical thinking.
Clinton Golding co-founded P4C New Zealand and had different

positions in New Zealand schools, including Philosopher in Residence,
Thinking Coordinator and Head of Thinking. Originally fram New
Zealand, he lectured at the University of Melbourne School of
Education and is now Associate Professor in Higher Education at the
U niversity of Otago (N ew Zealand). His research interests include
thinking, philosophical learning and episternic progress. He holds a
PhD in Philosophy and Education and is the author of Connecting
Concepts (2005), Designing a Thinking Classroom (2005), and Thinking
with Rich Concepts (2006).
p.)""V
Lena Green was Professor of Educational Psychology at the

University of the Western Cape (South Africa), where she is currently
Extraordinary Professor. She qualified as a teacher and psychologist
before studying cognitive development at Exeter University (UK). Her
research interest is cognitive development and its enhancement. She
spent time with Matthew Lipman in 1995, has attended several
Mendham retreats, is an accredited trainer and has published P4C-
related research. She recently edited Schools as Thinking Communities
(2014), which reviews a range of approaches to developing thinking,
including P4C.
Maughn Rollins Gregory is Professor of Educational Foundations at

Montclair State University (USA), where he succeeded Matthew
Lipman as the director of the lnstitute for the Advancement of
Philosophy for Children (IAPe) in 2001. He holds a JD and a PhD in
philosophy. He publishes and teaches in the areas of philosophy of
education, Philosophy for Children, pragmatism, gender, Socratic
pedagogy and contemplative pedagogy. He has edited a number of
special journal issues on Philosophy for Children.
.
Patricia Hannam IS County Inspector! Adviser for religious
education, history and philosophy in Hampshire (UK). She holds a
PhD in Education, an MA in Education, and a BA in philosophy. She
educates teachers in Philosophy for Children from teaching novices to
mentoring new teacher-educators. Her research interests include
educational theory, religious education in plural contexts, and P4C in
the public sphere. She is the author (with E . Echeverria) of Philosophy
with Teenagers: Nurturing Moral Imagination for the 21st Century (2009).
Anna Hausberg obtained a PhD in education at the Universiry of

Hamburg (Germany) with a thesis on how creativity can be promoted
by philosophizing with children. She is a teacher at an elementary
school in Hamburg and a consultant for creative philosophizing. She
has been philosophizing with children at various primary and middle
schools in Hamburg since 2007 and also trains teachers, preschool
teachers and pre-service teachers in PmKJlP4C, including courses at
the state teachers' training institute. Significant book publications are
listed in her contribution to this Handbook.
Joanna Haynes holds a PhD in Philosophy for Children and is
Associate Professor in Education Studies at Plymouth University
Institute of Education (UK). Her research interests inelude democratic
and community education. She is author of Children as Philosophers
(2002; 2008), which has been published in Spanish, Greek and Korean,
and co-edited (with S. Gibson) Engaging Education: Perspectives on
Participation and Inclusion (2009). She co-authored (with K. Murris)
Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Philosophy (2012) and (with K. Gale and M.
Parker) Philosophy and Education: An Introduction to Key Questions and
Themes (2014).
Lynne Hinton, MEd, is Adjunct Professor at Queensland University

of Technology (Australia). Originally from N ew Zealand, Lynne spent
15 years as a primary school principal, successfully implementing P4C
across a Brisbane school. She currently leads the same process in a
seco ndary schoo1. Lynne is author (with P. Cam, L. Fynes-Clinton, K.
Harrison, R. Scholl and S. Vaseo) of Philosophy with Young Children: a
Classroom Handbook (2007) and (with S. Davey Chesters, L. Fynes-
Clinton and R. Scholl) Philosophy and Ethical Inquiry for Students in the
Middle Years and Beyond (2013).
David Kennedy is Professor of Educational Foundations at Montelair

State University (USA) and Fellow at the Institute for the
Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC). His research and
scholarship are dedicated to the philosophy of childhood and to the
practice of philosophical dialogue with children in educational settings.
H e is the author of The Well of Being: Childhood, Subjectivity, and
Education (2006), Changing Conceptions of Childhood fr0111 the Renaissance
to Post-Modernity: A Philosophy of Childhood (2006), Philosophical Dialogue
with Children (2011) and My Name 1s Myshkin: A Philosophical Novel for
Children (2013).
p.XVl
Walter Ornar Kohan is Full Professor at the Childhood Studies

Department of the State University of Rio de ]aneiro (UER]; Brazil)
and Researeher of the National Couneil of Researeh of Brazil (CNPq)
and the Foundation for Support of Researeh of the State of Rio de
Janeiro (FAPERJ). His PhD dissertation was mentored by Matthew
Lipman and he eompleted postdoetoral studies at the University of
Paris. He is author of Philosophy and Childhood (2014), Childhood,
Education and Philosophy (2015) and The Inventive Schoolmaster (2015).
May Leckey is Honorary Fellow at the Faeulty of Edueation,

University of Me!bourne (Australia) . She has a MEd in Philosophy for
Children. She is a founding member of the Vietorian Assoeiation for
Philosophy in Sehools (V APS) and past ehair of the Federation of
Australian Philosophy for Children Assoeiations (FAPCA). She is
originally from Northern Ireland. Her researeh interests include
historieal literacy, art and aesthetics. She co-authored (with P.
Beekman) A Sense 01 History: Celebrating Melboume Education (2003).
Lu Leng is Assistant Professor at the School of English Education,

]inan University (China). She holds a PhD in educational psychology
and is the author of the dissertation The Role 01 Philosophical Inquiry in
Helping High School Students Engage in Leaming and Find Meaning in Life
(2015). Her publications and research interests lie in the area of
application of P4C-Hawai'i in English classes in Chinese universities,
English teaching pedagogy and the implication of traditional Chinese
culture in modern education.
Lizzy Lewis is Deve!opment Manager for SAPERE (UK), Partner of

A-Leve! Philosophy, and Secretary of ¡CPIC. Lizzy is a qualified
teacher with a Master's Degree in Education and a BA (Hons) in
Philosophy/English. In 2001 she was awarded a Best Practice Research
Scholarship to research P4C and how children learn. Her other
research interests include whole school P4C, including philosophy
through the curriculum. Lizzy co-edited (with N. Chandley) Philosophy
jor Chíldren through the Secondary Currículum (2012) .
Sue Lyle holds a PhD in Education and has been a teacher and teacher
educator for 42 years. She is a senior trainer for SAPERE in the VK
and has led an extensive programme ofP4C in South Wales. Recently
retired fron"! Head of Continuing Professional Development at Swansea
Metropolitan Vniversity, where she continues to supervise PhD
students, she now leads her own company, Dialogue Exchange, to
promote dialogic approaches to leaming and teaching in schools. Her
research interests indude dialogic talk, teaching as storytelling and
children's rights.
Amber Strong Makaiau is the Director of Curriculum and Research

at the Vniversity of Hawai'i Vehiro Academy for Philosophy and
Ethics in Education (USA). She holds a PhD in Curriculum and
Instruction and is a former high school social studies teacher. The
author of several artides on education and P4C, Dr. Makaiau's current
projects include a secondary course in Philosophical Inquiry,
experiments with deliberative pedagogy, an intemational self-study
research collective and working with pre-service teachers.
p.XVll
Catherine C. McCall holds a PhD in philosophy and has been an

international teacher educator for 36 years. She is the founding director
of EP IC: the European Philosophical Enquiry Centre and former
President of SOPHIA: the European Foundation for Philosophy with
Children. A former Associate Professor of Philosophy at Montclair
State University with Matthew Lipman, she later created the MPhil
and PhD in Philosophical Tnquiry at Glasgow University. She authored
the Guided Socratic Discussion Curriculum (2005- 2011) and Transforming
Thinking: Philosoplúcal Inquiry in Ihe Primary and Secondary Classroom
(2009) .
Diana Meerwaldt received a Master's Degree in Elementary and

Middle School E ducation and sp ecialized in mathematics and history.
She teach es mathematics, social studies and art at a comprehensive
school in H amburg, Germany, where sh e uses her training in
PmKJ / P4C to deal with the philosophical questions stud ents pose in
her classes. The results of her M aster's thesis are discussed in her
contribution to this Handboo k.
Dina Mendon«;a is a research m ember of TFTLNOVA (N ew

University of Lisbon , Portugal). She holds a Master's Degree in
Philosophy for C hildren (with Mathew Lipman and Ann Margaret
Sharp) and a PhD in Philosophy from the U niversiry of South Carolina
(USA) . She is the author of the book Brincar a Pensar? [Playing lo
Think?] (20 11), as well as a variery of articles on developing a
pragmatist (Deweyan) approach to emotions. She develops and
promotes Philosophy for Children in Portugal.
Olivier Michaud is Professor of Educational Foundations at the

Université du Québec a Rimouski (Canada). He studied philosophy of
edu cation , Philosophy for Children and qualitative studies for his
doctoral degree at Montclair State Universiry. His do ctoral thesis was a
qualitative study on interrelationships between authoriry, dem ocratic
education and philosophy for children as lived in a kindergarten
classroom in an American public schoo1. His current research is to
study how the practice of philosophy in K-12 edu cation fosters
dem ocratic edu cation.
Karin Murris holds a PhD in Philosophy with C hildren and is
Professor at th e School of Education, University of Cape Town (South
Africa), where she convened the 16th fC PIC Conference in 2013. She
studied with Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp in the US, is
currently president of ¡C PIC and leads the So uthern African P4C
network. Karin is the author of Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books
(1992), The Posthumarl Child: Edu cational Transformation through
Philosophy with Picturebooks (20 16) and (with J. Hayn es) Storywise:
Thinking through Stories (2002) and Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Philosophy
(20 12) .
Patricia Nevers is originaJly from the United States and holds a PhD
in Molecular Genetics. She worked in research in ge netics and the
sociology of science before switching to education. She is a retired
professor of biology education from the University of Hamburg
(Germ any), where she specialized in both environmental educatio n and
incorporating PmKJlP4C into science classes. She and her colleagu es
also investigated children' s m o ral attitudes towards nature using
philosophical disc ussions as a research too!.
Kim Nichols is Senior Lecturer in Science Education in the School of

Education at the University of Queensland (A ustralia), w here she
coordinates Secondary Science Teacher Education programmes . H er
research interests include the impact of community of inquiry on
classroom-based scientific inquiry and communication skills, and
practical and theoretical development of pedagogies and curriculum
that support classroo m-based scientifi c inquiry. She has authored
several internatio nal publications in these areas.
p.XVlll
Stefano Oliverio holds a PhD in Education and is a post-docto ral
researcher at the SInAPSi Centre at the University of Naples Federico
II (rtaly). Since 2013 he has held the post of vice-president of rCPIc.
The author or co-editor of several books, his main areas of research are
the educational implications of the epistemological debates within the
Vienna Circle; the tradition of American Pragmatism, with a special
focus on Dewey's reflection on education, community and science; the
curriculum of Philosophy for Children; and education and
cosmopolitanism.
Joseph M. Oyler is Senior Research Associate in Dialogic Teaching

at Montclair State University (US). He holds an MEd in Philosophy for
Children and an EdD in Pedagogy and Philosophy. Joe has worked
with the lnstitute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children
(IAPC) for over 13 years, serving in various roles including
Coordinator of Teacher Services, P4C Practitioner Coach and
Director. Joe currently coordinates the rAPC Summer Residential
Workshop at Mendham. His research interests include dialogue
facilitation, facilitation and argumentation quality, and philosophical
education.
Stefanie Paarmann received a Master's Degree in Elementary and

Middle School Education specializing in mathematics and history. She
has been a teacher at an elementary school in Hamburg, Gennany,
since 2000. She received training in PmKJlP4C and Philosophizing
with Children about Nature (PhiNa), which she incorporates into her
teaching in grades 1-4 as well as in remedial classes. She regularly
conducts training sessions for other teachers in PmKJ/P4C.
Karen Ragoonaden, PhD, is a member of the Faculty of Education

of the University of British Columbia's Okanagan Campus (Canada).
Her publications and research interests lie in the area of the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning. She is the author of two books, Contested
Sites in Edueation (2014) and Mindful Teaehing and Learning (2015), as
well as several articles examining equity and parity in pedagogical
contexts.
Amy Reed-Sandoval is Assistant Professor in the Department of

Philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso (USA). She is
founding director of two Philosophy for Children outreach
programmes: the Oaxaca Philosophy for Children Initiative, and
Philosophy for Children in the Borderlands (located at the Mexico-
USA border). Originally from the United States, she cOl11pleted her
PhD in Philosophy at the University ofWashington. Her book, Illegal
Identity: Raee, Class and Immigration Justiee, is in progre ss with Oxford
University Press for the Critical Philosophy ofRace series.
Marina Santi holds a PhD in Educational Sciences and is Professor in

Didactics and Inclusive Education at the University of Padova (Italy).
Her research deals with dialogue, argumentation and social interaction
in learning. An expert in Philosophy for Children, she has carried out
el11pirical studies on the effectiveness of philosophizing on cOl11plex
thinking, and on COl11munities of inquiry as inclusive environl11ents.
Her recent publications include Improvisation Between Teehnique and
Spantaneity (2010), (with S. Oliverio) Educating far Camplex Thinking
through Philosophieal Inquiry (2012), and (with E. Zorzi) Education as Jazz
(2016).
Tim Sprod obtained an MSc with research on the efficacy ofP4C in

science teaching, and a PhD in Philosophy. For thirty years he has
taught secondary science and philosophy in Australia, PNG, the
Bahal11as and the UK, as well as working as a volcanologist. In addition
to the publications Iisted in his contribution to this Handbook he has
published Discussions in Scienee (2011), Philosophical Diseussion in Moral
Education (2003), Books into Ideas (1993) and (with F. Partridge, F.
Dubuc, and L.J. Splitter) Places foy Thinking (1999).
.
p.X1X
Sara Stanley has spent 26 years in the Foundation Stage classroom as a

teacher, leader and teacher educator. She has worked as a P4C teacher
trainer in the UK and South Africa. Since 2013 she has be en involved
in Early Years proj ects for the development of literacy and
philosophical story play with the Project for the Study of Alternative
Education in South Africa and the University of Cape Town. When
not in the southern hemisphere Sara is a philosophical story consultant
and volunteer in the refi.1gee camps of northern France.
Judith Suissa is Professor in Philosophy of Education at the Institute

ofEducation, University College London (UK). Her research interests
include libertarian and anarchist theory, the control of education, social
justice and the parent-child re!ationship. She has taught philosophy for
over 20 years, in school, adult education and university settings, both
in Israel and in England. Her books include Anarchism and Education: a
Philosophical Peyspective (2006) and (with Stefan Ramaekers) The Claims
of Parenting; ReasortS, Responsibility and Society (2012).
Roger Sutcliffe taught at both primary and secondary leve! for halfhis
career, before spending the second half as a consultant specializing in
Philosophy for Children and the teaching of thinking. H e is an
Associate Lecturer in Teaching Philosophy at Heythrop College,
London (UK). He was a co-founder, and subsequently Chair, of
SAPERE, and served two terms as President of ICPIC. He was co-
author (with S. Williams) of The Philosophy Club (1994) and of
Newswise: Thinking thyough the News, a current affairs resource.
Alain Carmen Sykes is the Social Studies Department Chair at the
American Overseas School of Rome (Italy), where she teaches theory
of knowledge and history. Originally from the United States, she
completed a PhD in Education at the University of Washington and
served as Philosophy for Children fellow at the University of
Washington's Center for Philosophy for Children. Alain's research
interests indude critical mixed race studies, critical race theory,
Philosophy for Children and multicultural education.
Christoph Teschers is Senior Lecturer at the New Zealand Tertiary

College. His PhD in Philosophy ofEducation is from the University of
Canterbury (New Zealand). Originally from Germany, he completed a
Master of Arts in Education, Psychology and Philosophy at the
Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen. His research interests
indude education and the art of living, well-being in education,
educational aims, and Philosophy for Children. He is author of
Education and Schmid's Art of Living (forthcoming) as part ofRoutledge's
NeUJ Directions in the Philosophy of Education series.
Simone Thornton is a doctoral candidate in the School of Historical

and Philosophical Inquiry at the University of Queensland (Australia).
Her research applies Val Plumwood and the logic of domination and
Albert Camus and the absurd to issues in the philosophy of education.
Her current focus is on the development of an ecologicalJy rational
pedagogy. She has published artides on the history and development of
philosophy in schools in Australia; Camus, pragmatism and the
community of inquiry; and the role of genuine doubt in collaborative
inquiry-based philosophy.
Riku Valitalo teaches at a primary school in Oulu (Finland) and has

practised Philosophy for Children pedagogy for almost ten years. He is
also a postgraduate student at the University of Oulu, where he delivers
courses for teacher educators on teaching ethics. His PhD thesis deals
with the agency of teachers in the practice ofPhilosophy for Children.
p.xx
Jessica Ching-Sze Wang is Associate Professo r at the School of

Education, National Chiayi University (Taiwan). She is the author of
John Dewey in China: To Teach and to Learn (2007). She learned about
Philosophy for Children through visits to Hawai'i and has since been
involved in various projects to implem ent 'p4cHI' in teacher education
and in elementary schooling in Taiwan.
Barbara Weber is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education,

University of British Columbia (Canada) . She holds a PhD in
Philosophy. Originally from Germany, Barbara studied with Matthew
Lipman, Ann Margaret Sharp and Ekkehart Martens. H er research
interests inelude phenomenology and herm eneutics, P4C, human and
children's rights , and philosophies of embodiment and empathy. She is
the author of Philosophieren mit Kindern z um Thema Menschenrechte
[Philosophizing with children about human rights] (2013) and co-
editor (with E. Marsal and T. Dobashi) of Children Philosophize
W orldwide: [nternational Theories and Practical Concepts (2009).
Ed Weijers, Master of Arts in Philosophy, is consultant at EPIC

International, coordinator of the Dutch Philosophy with Children
Centre and honorary board m emb er of SOPHIA: the European
Foundation for Philosophy with Children. He has published several
articles about Philosophy with Children and trained people in PwC for
more than 25 years in the Netherlands and abroad (e.g. Belgium,
Turkey, Latvia). He initiated th e Professional PwC Course and is
lecturer/ trainer at the Intemational School of Philosophy (ISVW
Leusden) and the University of Antwerp (Belgium) . H e developed the
'Philosophical Compass' co urse for PwC facilitators .
Arthur W 01f, Master of Arts in Education, is a PhD candidate at the
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia (Canada),
Associate Director of the Vancouver InstÍtute for Philosophy with
Children, and Associate Director of the Think Fun P4C Summer
Camps. Originally from the Netherlands, he worked at the P4C
institute in South Korea and at UNESCO on teaching philosophy in
education and the Asia-Arab philosophical dialogues. He is the author
of several artides and his research interests include GiUes Deleuze, art
and pedagogy, P4C, and cultural analysis.
Jason Thomas Wozniak is Co-Director of the Latin American

Philosophy of EducatÍon Society (LA PES) at the Center for the Study
of Ethnicity and Race (CSER) at Columbia University (USA). His
research interests include Latin American philosophy and the role that
financial debt has in shaping subjectivity.
p.XXl·
EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Philosophy for Children: an educational and
philosophical movement
Maughn Rollins Gregory, Joanna Haynes and Karin

Murris
A rich and diverse field of scholarship
This collection of scholarly work offers a range of critical accounts of th eori es,
persp ectives and practices of Philosophy for Children (P4C) 1 Now half a century
old, the influ en ce and reach of P4C has become a significant educational and
philosophical movement. Today, Philosophy for Children is practiced, interpreted,
debated, researched and recreated in more than 60 countries around the world.
Since Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp established the Institute for the
Advancement of Philosophy for Children (JAPC) at Montclair State University in
1974, P4C and the associated p edagogy of 'community of enquiry /inquiry' have
been taken up in nurseries and kindergartens, secular and religious schools,
children's shelters, yo uth groups, teacher education departments, universities, and
government edu cation departments around the world. P4C has become
in creasingly popular as an approach to community, adult, higher, further and
informal education. It has spawned a considerable literature on theory and practice;
it has been the focus of research studies and impact evaluatiol1S. As well as having
interna tional networks, su ch as the International Council of Philosophical Inquiry
with Children (ICPIC), P4C is grounded in the existen ce of many national and
regional centers that train, support and bring practitioners, philosophers and
teacher educators together to share and theorize practice. P4C has caused quite a
stir in the media as the voices of children philosophizing are broadcast. In the
documentary seri es Th e Transformers (1990), Lipman was presented by the BBC as
a major pioneer in education, alongside Feuerstein and Vygotsky. Academics and
educators have som etimes reacted with hostility to the idea that children can do
complex, abstract reasoning and 'real' philosophy. On th e other hand, the
movem ent has been a major contributor to the em ergin g field of Philosophy of
Cmldhood, as children's philosophical practice has given rise to new
understa ndings of the m eanin gs of childhood, adulthood and, indeed, of
philosophy.
This b ook sets o ut to pro vide insights into the key pmlosophical and edu cational
debates that ha ve been provoked by bringing pmlosop hy to school classrooms and
other learning co ntexts, and bringing children 's voices into moral and political
arenas and to philosophy. The book olfers a wide variety of criti cal perspectives o n
this diverse and controversial field, in order to gen erate new discussions and to
identifY emerging questions and themes. The existen ce of P4C in so many places
and contexts around the globe makes a genuinely international reader on
Philosophy for C hildren possible. Tms collection on communities of philosopmcal
inquiry is accessible, engagin g and provocative for establish ed practitioners and
scholars of P4C around the world, as well as for new students, postgraduates,
researchers and critics. In tms volume, P4C is presented as creative, dynamic,
complex, problema tic and socially critica!. It is shown to be a growing field of
inquiry that poses deep questions about teaching, learning and sch ooling, and that
has a profound contribution to make to broader debates about childhood,
education, community and democracy.
..
p _XXIl
Discourses of P4C and the community of pmlosophical inquiry both inform,

and are informed by other fields of scholarship and practice such as cognitive
psychology, pragnlatism, critical theory, critical pedagogy and critical literacy,
posthumanism , democratic and alternative philosophies of education , moral and
social education, argument literacy, and contemporary childhood studies. Equally,
these chapters are shaped by the di verse positi ons and p ersp ectives of their authors:
by pla ce, embodied situation, identity and philosophical outlook. Contributors to
this volume include tcach ers and infornlal educators, postgraduate students,
researchers, teac her educators and university- based lecturers and professors.
A ccordingly, the chapters are written in different styles and voices and they seek to
put P4C to work in many different ways.
Historically, P4C h as offered a distinctive and critical take on broad areas of

teaching, su ch as , for example, thinkin g skills, global citizenship , children 's
litera ture, emotionalliteracy, inclusive edu cation , and distance and onlin e leaming,
and in subj ects su ch as science, m athem ati cs, language arts, literacy, religio us
studies, social studies, environmental education , gifted edu cation and special
education. It has been taken up in all phases of educatio n. The next section of this
editorial introduction provides an overview of the genealogy of Philosophy for
C hildren , and the last section contains an assemblage of concepts and questions,
rhizom atically connected across philosophi cal topics and various subj ect and
learning areas, indicating how the Ha ndbook might be used to infol111 all kinds of
phil osophical, empiri cal, eval uati ve and actio n-orientated research , as well as to
help guide practice.
Philosophy fo r C hildren offers a distin ctive perspective in a number ofkey areas

of inquiry and provides a counter- narrative to psychological and sociological
perspectives that often do minate educational disco urse . Its radical m ove, in
bringing chi ld and philosophy together, has made a uniqu e contribution to the
blurring of disciplinary boundaries and open ed up new avenu es for sch olarly
inquiry. P4C is a field in its own right thro ugh its articulation o f philosophy in,
rather than of education. The integration of philosophy, inquiry and community
creates tension and haml0ny between [01111 and content and positio ns P4C as a
ground- breaking and imaginative critical pedagogy and m ethodology, not only of
teaching but also as a m ode of general inquiry and research .
There is a stron g need fo r this collection of writing at this point in time . In the
last few years, th e increased interest in P4C theory fro m practition ers, students,
research crs, professional edu cators and academics in diverse fi elds h as been evident
in a number of areas of activity:
1 The publicatio n of theoretical and research-based b ooks su eh as D avid

Kennedy's Phi/osophical D ialogue witl! e hildren (201 0) and Th e W ell 01 Beil1g:
Childhood, Subjecti"ity and E duca tion (2006); Michael H and and Carrie
Winstanley's edited book Phi/osophy in Sehoo/s (2008); C laire Cassidy's Th inking
Children: Th e Concept of Child frO/ll a Philosophical Perspective (2009); Ca therin e
MeCall 's Transforming 77únking (2009); Eva Marsal, T akari Dobaslu and
Barbara W eber's edited book Children Phi/osophiz e Wor/dwide: Th eoretica/ and
Practica/ Concepts (2009); Peter Costello's edited book Philosophy in Chi/drm's
Literature (2012); Jana Mohr Lone's Tile Phi/osophical Child (2012); Joanna
H aynes and Karin Murris's Picturebooks, Pedagog)' and Phi/osoph)' (20 12); Nancy
Vansieleghem and David Kenn edy's edited book Phi/osophy fo r Children in
Transition: Problems and Prospects (2012); Jana Mohr Lone and Roberta
[sraeloff's edited book Phi/osophy and Education: Introducing Philosoph)' to Young
People (2012); Sara Goering, Nicholas Shudak and Thomas Wartenburg's
edited book Philosop")' in Schools (2013); Monica Glina's edited book Philosophy
fo r, with and of Chi/drm (2013); El ena Theodoropoulou's edited book
<D1'\ooo<pia, q>1'\ooo<pia, Eioal EKEi; KávovlOC; q>1'\oooq>ia flE lO llQlBlá
[Philosoph)', philosoph)', are )'ou there? Doing philosoph)' ",ith chi/dren] (2013);
Walter O. Kohan's Philosoph)' and C hildh ood: Critical Perspectives and Affi,mative
Practices (2014); Mari e-Pi erre Grosjean's edited book La phi/osop/tie au c",ur de
/'éducation auto,,, de Matthe", L'jmran [Philosophy at th e heart of education
according ro Matthew Lipman] (20 16); Jana Mohr Lone and Michael D.
Burroughs' Phi/osoph)' in Education: Questioning and Dialogue in Schoo/s (20 16);
Karin Murris The Posth",,,an Child: Educational Transfomwtio n thmugh Philosoph)'
with Picturebooks (2016); and Maughn Gregory and M egan La verry's
forth coming anthology, In Co,."",unit)' of Inquiry with Anll Margaret Sharp:
P/tilosophy, Childhood and Education.
.. .
p .XXlll
2 The publi catio n of special issues of academic journals focu sing exdusively on
P4C or including pap ers on P4C and guest edited by leading scholars in P4C.
Th ey indude: Special [ssue: Philosophy for C hildren (2000), InquÍly: C ritical
17únking Aaoss the Disciplines 19(2); Special lssue: Philosophy for Children
(2006), Cifted EducatÍon International 22(2/3); Special [ssue: Philosophy for
C hildren (2009), Farhang, Journa/ of the Iran Institute fo r Humanities and C ultural
Studies (IHCS) 22(69); Special [ssue: Philosophy for C hildren in Transition:
Problems and Prospects (20 11), J ournal of Phi/osophy of Education 45 (2): ii, 171-
397; Special Issu e: Educating Philoso phically: Educational Theory of
Philosophy for Children (2011 ), Educationa/ Phi/osoph )' and Til eo,y 43 (5): 413-
548; Special ¡ssue: The Child as Educator (2013), Studies in Philosoph)' and
Education 32(3); Special Issue: John D ewey and the C hild as Philosopher
(2012 ), Education and Culture: TheJ ournal oJtheJo /1I1 D ewey Society 28(2); and
Special Section: Precollege Ethics Education (2014), Teaehing Ethics 14(2): 19-
96.
3 International conferences, symposia and seminars, such as: ICPIC conferen ces
since 1985 and then every two years, most recently in Italy (2009), Korea
(2011 ), South Africa (2013) and C anada (2015); other international
conferences in Graz, Austria (annually) and Rio de J an eiro (annually); M exico
C ity (annually); the biennial conference of the North American Associati on for
Community o fInquiry (NAACI); the IAPC symposium at M endham, New
J ersey (annually); a strand on P4C at World Philosophy conferen ces held in
Paris (2009) and Tehran (2011 ); and IAPC sessions at the American
Philosophical Association Annual M eeting (2008 to present). M any of the
national and regio nal centers also organize regular conferences and seminars. In
addition, P4C has been taken up in initial teach er education and in philosophy
departments in many institutions and there is a hu ge demand for courses for
practicing teach ers. Scares of masters and doctoral dissertations on P4C have
been publish ed, including empirical and philosophi cal studies.
4 The publication of empirical research funded by majar scientific and
educational grantors, su ch as th at of SAPERE 2014
(https:/ / educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ evaluation/ proj ects/ philosophy-
for- children/ ); K.J. T opping and S Trickey (2007) Collaborative Philosophical
Enquiry for School C hildren: Cognitive Gains at Two-year Follow-up, British
Journal of Educational Psyehology 77: 78 1- 796; Anna O. Soter et al. (2008) What
the Discourse Tells Us: Talk and Indicators of High -Ievel C omprehension,
IntemationalJ ournal oJ Educa/ional R eseareh 47: 372- 391; P . Karen Murphy, et al.
(2009) Examining the Effects of C lassroom Discussion on Students'
Comprehension of T ext: A M eta-Analysis, Journal oJ Educational Psyehology
101 (3): 740-764; and A. R eznitskaya, M . Glina, B. Carolan, O. Micha ud, j.
Rogers and L. Sequeira (2012) Examining Transfer Effects &om Dialogic
Discussions lO New Tasks and Contexts, Contel1lporary Edueational Psyehology
37: 288-306.
In a signifi cant fi eld such as this, there is enormollS valu e in produ cing landmark
collections as the theory and practice is developed over time and in different
settings, and as it responds and interacts with other ideas and practices . Though
there ha ve been a few internatio nal antholo gies of sch olarly essays on P4C in the
p ast, none has attempted the kind of comprehensive overview of issues and
p ositions published in this In temational Han dboo k, the first of its kind in the field of
P4C. It is particularl y time!y at this mo m ent, when the deaths of leadin g fi gures
M atthew Lipman, Ann Sharp and Gareth Matthew s have led to deep reflection o n
their influen ce and gi ven rise to n ew thinking. ¡n their introdu ctio n to th e specia!
issue of the Journal of Philosophy of EducatioY! on the them e of philosophy for
childre n in transition , Vansielegh em and Kennedy (20 11) talk abOllt fi rs t and
second gen eratio n thinkers in the fi eld of P4C. That an alysis und erlin es the value
of capturing this momentum by creating a landmark collection of writing at this
. . .
pOlt1 t lt1 am e.
.
p.XXlV
A further important reason for p ublishin g this collecti on is to address the

problem of m isrepresentatio n of P4C. It has som etimes been diffi cult for students
and seh olars to aceess the variety and richn ess in the fi eld, and there has bee n a
growth in the number of postgraduate studies in P4C. D ecades of worldw ide P4C
theoty and practi ee can be challenging for th e noviee. Th e characterization of P4C
as an essentialist and unitaty m ovem ent, or even as a singular 'program ' has been
misleadin g. This unitaty view of P4C has been evident in th e work of som e, both
w ithin and o utside the m ovem ent, w ho seem no t to recognize the range and
depth of seho!arship in the field . For example, few crities properl y engage with the
work of Lipman and oth ers, o r with the edueati onal philosophy underpinning th e
practice. Som e ha ve judged the en tire P4C 'project' by w hat happens in a han dful
of classroollls or th ro ugh website sound bites. Essentialist defini tions of P4C fail to
do justice to the rich diversity of this movem ent, w hich includes genuine
theoretical confli cts. Opportunities for new kno wledge, understandin g and illlpact
o n edu catio n have som etimes been missed.
Th e eolleetion here clearly contradicts su eh essentialism and expresses

Illultiplicities of P4C. It delllonstrates a range o f dialogue within P4C and b etween
P4C and oth er fi e!ds. As editors, we wanted to encourage and prolllote a di verse
range of p erspectives in this collection. The 20 male and 37 female authors of the
chapters included here Jive and w ork in 20 different countries, incl uding Australia ,
Brazil, C anada, C hina , England , Finland , Fran ce, Germany, Greece, Israel, ¡taly,
M exico , N etherlands, New Z ealand, P ortugal, Scotland , South Africa, Taiw an ,
the USA (a ran ge of states) and Wales . The m ajority of the chapters have be en
written collaboratively in order to promote critical dialogu e in the writing process
and to include the widest possible range of authors from different edu eation
practiee settings . N evertheless, trus collection does not fully refleet the diversity of
practitioners, either in the P4C movem ent or in edu cation in general, and w e
believe th ere is still l11uch w ork to do in all sph eres of educati on to challen ge the
dominance of North over South and the exeessive prominence of some voices
over the marginalization of others.
This collection of original works was created through a complex pro eess of
recruitment and review. C ontributio ns were elicited via o pen ca lIs through all the
major P4C and Philosophy of Education international networks. C ontributors
w ere invited to work collaboratively, to engage with both early and seminal tex ts
and with crities of P 4C, in producin g ehapters that provide an overvi ew of specific
them es and refleet the enquiring and dialogieal character of P4C. W e set out to
recruit authors to a refl exive proj ect that expli citly and deliberately works with th e
tensio ns and diversity in the fi eld to make academie progress and stren gth en
thinking. Extended abstracts were subj ect to double blind peer review by an
international panel of 26 review ers. After a process of selection, draft chapters w ere
also subj eet to th e sam e blind review process. In the third phase the editors
en gaged in further review and dialogue with authors to arrive at the final seleetion.
p.XXV
As editors, w e are positioned in three different co ntinents and between us w e

are very fan"Litiar with the broad fi eld and conn ected to different academic and
practice networks and communities . It has been our pleasure and privilege to w ork
with so many outstanding scholars, and to w ork together to edit this coll ection .
A narrative history of the Philosophy for Children

movement
The ad vent of Philosophy for Children in the northeastern United Statcs in the
late 1960s and earl y 1970s w as part of a broader intensity of interest in high school
philosophy in that region, whieh was itself part of a tradition of philosophy in
secondary education in many parts of the world, dating back hundreds of years
(Morgan and Perry 1958). In the United States, a Center for High School
Philosop hy was establish ed in 1971. At the Center's first Summer lnstitute for high
school teachers in 1973, Gareth Matthews, from the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, presented a paper entitled 'Philosophy and Children's Literature,' in
which he defended the claim that '[W] hat philosophers do (in rather disciplined
and sustained ways) is much doser than is usually appreciated to what at least some
children rather naturally do' (Matthews 1976: 14-15). The Center's first Progress
Report also notes that, 'Early in the project Matthew Lipman of Montelair State
College telephoned the Proj ect Director regarding his experimental work with
philosophy for elementary school aged children. H e also sent a copy of his novel,
Han-y Stottlemeier's Discovery . . . along with an accompanying teacher's guide'
(Bosley 1975: 29).
Now widely regarded as the founder of the Philosophy for Children movement,
Lipman had begun work on his first philosophical novel for children in 1968 and
left a professorship at Columbia University in 1972 to work full- time on the new
project at Montelair State College (now University). Lipman has written about
several factors that prompted his invention of what he ca11ed 'Philosophy for
Children' (see Lipman 1976, 2008; Johnson 1995), but this story is less we11-
known:
'When dld you feel,' ¡ asked myself, ' . . . that [children] had the capacity to do
philosophy?' ... 1 thought of ane incident rhat 1 w i11 mcntion. Abaur ... cight years
befare 1 met H arry Stottlemeier, .. . [my] two year oId son was taking a bath and said ,
'Dad, \Vauld you hand me my pyjamas?' 1 said 'Sure' and 1 handed th em to him and as
1 did 1 noticed they were inside out. He raok th cm and \Vith a glint in his eye Jnd a sIy
grin said 'Ha , jypamas.' ... Tú me, 1 trunk ir was a turnÍng point. 1 had bcen [or years
interested in children's art and 1 thOllght here is a dimension of childhood power and
creativity that is completely missed by the people who think that children begin with
intellectual weakness and then gradllally mOllnt IIp to hjgher and higher echelons of
strength and undcrstanding.
(Liplllall 1991: 17)
The success of Lipman's first classroom experiment with his novel in 1970-1971
convinced him 'that philosophy can and should be part of the entire length of a
child's education. [n a sense this is a kind of tautology, because it is abundantly
elear that children hunger for meaning, and get turned off by education w hen it
ceases to be meaningful to them' (Lipman 1976: 39). In November, 1973 Lipman
convened a Conference on Pre-college Philosophy at Montelair, attended by more
than 250 educators from eleme ntary and secondary schools, colleges, and
universities. The report on this conference (Lipman 1972) was the first publication
on Philosophy for Children in an academic joumal. It was also at this conference
that Lipman m et a new faculty memb er from Montelair's College of Education,
Ann M argaret Sharp, who had recently completed her doctoral dissertatíon on
Nietzsche's view of the teacher as liberator (see Sharp 1976). The two became life-
long collaborators and co-founded the Institute for the Advancem ent of
Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montelair in 1974.
.
p.XXVI
Unlike others experimenting with 'pre-college philosophy' at the time, who

saw schools as a place to do philosop hy with yo ung people, Lípman and Sharp saw
doing philosophy as an ideal of the educational exp erience, even capable of
transfonníng educatíon more broadly. Toward that agenda they each wrote a
number of philosophical novels for children and teenagers and collaborated with
other colleagues on writing instructional manuals with con ceptual explanations,
exercises and activities, to accompany each novel. This curriculum was designed to
accomplish a complex set of objectives, ineluding to model children recognizing
ethical, aesthetic, epistemological and other philosophical dimensions of their
experience, to expose students and teach ers to diverse positions from the
philosophical tradition, to model children engaged in philosophical dialogne with
and without adults, and to illustrate philosophical inquiry m aking a difference in
children's lived experience.
An equally important part of Lipman and Sharp's approach is the m ethod of the
community of philosophical inquiry, which Lipman (2003: 101- 3) described as
having five stages:
1 Th e o.ffering of the text [Students read or enact a philosophical story togetheL]

2 The construction o.J the agenda [Students raise questions prompted by the text and
organize them into a discussion agenda.]
3 Solidifyillg the colllmunity [Students discuss their question s in a dialogue
facilitat ed by an adult.]
4 Using exercises and discussion plans [The facilitator introdu ces relevant activities
to deepen and expand the students' inquiry.]
5 Encouragingfurther responses [These include, e.g. students' self-assessment of
philosophy practice, art projects and action proj ects.]
Lipman and Sharp took the controversial position that teachers with no formal
philosop hy education could be prepared to engage their students in m eaningful ,
rigorous philosophical inquiry. The first IAPC workshops for teachers were held in
several public schools in Newark, New J ersey in 1975. The foUowing year,
workshops were held at Fordham, Rutgers, Harvard and Yale to prepare professors
of philosophy and education to work with teach ers in their areas (Lipman 1986).
At Montclair, Lipman and Sharp's professio nal development program s evolved into
undergraduate and graduate courses, and Masters and doctoral degree programs,
and today numerous universities around the world offer similar courses and
programs in Philosophy for C hildren .
Lipman and Sharp's work almost immediately attracted th e attention of

philosoph ers and edu cators aroun d the world, hundreds of w hom went to
Montclair to study, train, teach and condu ct research. Many of these then
established their own organizaríons in the U S and some 60 other co untries, to
develop new curricula, research and professional development programs, and
university courses. At th e sam e time, Philosophy for Children has never bren a unified
field. Sinee the early 1970s there have been numerous and divergent approaches.
Notable among these are Per J espersen 's approach that draws on the tradition of
story-telling in Denmark; Catherine McCaU's approach (Scotland) to the
community of philosophical inquiry that emphasizes rigorous logical
argumentation ; Ekhart Martens' 'five fin ger mode!' (Germany) of incorporating
phenomenology, hennen eutics, analysis, dialecti cs and speculation as phases of
philosophical inquiry; the approach developed in the Netherlands by Karel van der
Leeuw and Pieter Mostert, combining insights from Nelson, Lipman and C hinese
philosophy; Michel Tozzi's 'democratic-philosophical m ethod' (France) in which
stude nts are assigned specifi c functions in the co ntext of parliam entary discussion;
and Oscar Brenifier' s method of Socratic maieutics (France) that foc uses on self-
confrontaríon and the discipline of one's own thought and speech . In addition,
Gareth Matthews' 1976 essay inaugurated the study of philosophy in children 's
literature, which was the topic of the colunm 'Thinking in Stories,' h e wrote from
1979 to 2006 in the lAPC joumal Thinking. This work opened the way for
children's Iiterature and picturebooks to become an important curricular resource,
alternative to the [APC curriculum (Murris 1992; Wartenberg 2009; H ayn es and
M urris 2012). Though diverse in materials, methods and aims, each of these
approaches engages children or yo ung people in som e kind of philosophical
di alogue. In the research literature these approaches are variously referred to by
phrases like 'Philosophy for C hildren (P4C),' 'Philosophy with C hildren ,'
' ... with C hildren and Adolescents,' 'Philosophy in Schools' and 'Philosophy for
y oung P eople,' to distin guish them from text-based high school philosophy
COlmes patterned on introdu ctory college COutses.
p .:KXVll
One indication of the status of Philosophy for C hildren as a 1110vement is the

variety of overlapping and conflicting criticism it has attracted (Gregory 2011):
from religious and social conservatives who find it inappropriate to in vite children
to question traditional valu es; from psychologists who believe ch ildren of certain
ages are incapable of certain kinds of thinking; from non-philosophers who see
P4C as som e kind of therapy; from philosophers who define their discipline as
essentially theoretical and exegetical and/o r who mistrust teach ers to do
philosophy; &om criti cal theorists and pedagogues who see th e movement as
politically compliant; from philosophers of childhood and education who find its
emphasis on reasoning and traditional philosophical topics dictatorial; and from
P4C en thusiasts who fear the movement capitulates too easily to serving
contemporary educational agendas like citizenship education, character edu cation,
socio-emotionall earnin g and the standards movem ent. Many of these concerns are
taken up in this Handb ook.
Recurring concepts and questions: connections between and

across
The Handbook is divided into eight Parts, each having an organizing principie that
connects the chapters contained within it. These principies are info tmed by
scholarship in P4C and well-known strands of academic philosophy. [n Table 0.1,
som e of these connections have been made explicito
Each part contains chapters that in turn connect with other parts (and chapters).
Sonletinles th ere is a clear connection, because sinlilar questions are raised.
However, the contexts of these qu estions might be different or they might be
answered from different perspecti ves. Also , certain philosophical concepts in th ese
qllestions keep retllrning throllghout the Hartdbook. Below are som e key qllestions
that are expli citly addressed in the Handbook and are often raised in P4C training
and teacher edu cation, and by critics of P4C. Each question can be picked up in a
corresponding part of one's choi ce; no linear reading is reqllired. W e urge the
reader to regard ea eh to pic as a thread intricately interwoven with th e other
threads, together creating a rich tapestry ofP4C theory and practice.
• To what extent does P4C educate for demo cratic citizenship and pluralism?
(Parts I, IV)
• What is th e nature of allthority in the facilitation and practice of P4C? (Parts I,
IV)
• Who is responsible for important decisions in communities of inqlliry? (Parts I,
IV , VlI)
• Is th e coml11unity of inquiry about talk, actio n, or both? (Parts I, Il , V)
p.XXVIlI
Table 0.1 Correspondence of H andbook P4C topics and strands of academic

philosophy
Handbook P4C topio Acadern;, piIiJosophy
Part 1: Th~ dcmoct.1tic namre cf P4C Ethlcs

Politica/. and soci:ll
philooophy
Part 2: Childr-en .:md childhood in P4C M~bpbysic 5
OntoJogy
Ethics
PO!ltica! phl1osophy
PJ.rt]: 'Uo'lut is philruophiCJ! ::IIboUI P4C? Epist~mology
Metaph~ic s
Ontology
Pan 4: Thc cornmunity of inquiJY ln action: epistcmology lnd pedJgogy E.pisternology
Me-t:aphysio
OntoJo!.")'
Philrnophy of mind
Ethics
P:ut 5: 'fhe- 3esthebC3 of P4C: bocUes :u:Kl $p.1Cd Ac.'Ithetics
Omo1ogy
Mt"taphysio
Eputcmology
Part C: Philosophicai texts 3:nd P4C Phi Josophy of bnguagc
Acnhctia
OntoJogy
Me-bph)'l!iic5
E.pist('mology
Pan 7: Philmophy in Khooll Epistcmology
PhilO!ioph)' oflanguagc
Part 8: RC5e.Jrch dircctiom 3.nd methods in P4C Philosophy of bnguJ.gc
Epi:nemoJogy
OntoJo!,"Y
Aesthetio
Ethics
• Can, and should, politics be kept out of childhood? (Parts 1, Il)

• Can young children do philosophy and make philosophical progress? (Parts 1I,
m, VI , VIII)
• How do concepts work in a conullunity ofinquiry (Col)' (Parts Il , IlI, IV, V,
VI, VIll)
• What is the importan ce of the physical space and embodied participation in
P4C? (Parts 1I, V)
• Can fanta sy, imagination and dramatic play be 'tools' or 'texts' for
philosophical inquiry' (Parts 1I, V, VI)
• Do children have something special to olfer acad emic philosophy' (Part 11, IlI)
Copynghted material
• Do children have something special to offer education' (Part Il, JIJ)
• What is distinctive about a philosophical m ethod - as opposed to religious,
scientific, and so on ? (Palts JIJ, IV, VJIJ)
• What m akes a question philosophical? (Parts JIJ , VJIJ)
• What is philosophical progress? (Parts III, VI , VIII)
p.X-XLX
• Is P4C more about philosophizin g, th an teaching a body o f knowledge? (Parts

111, VI , VIII)
• How are knowledge and m eaning constructed in a community of inquiry'
(Parts 1, II, I1I, IV , V, VIII)
• How is the seareh for truth connected to the role of em otions in philosophical
inquiry? (Parts IV, V)
• Are certain beli efs, values and actions more reasonabl e than others in a Col?
(Parts IV, V)
• Can teachers not trained in philosophy teach P4C effectively, or do teach ers
need to be philosophers? (Parts III, VI , VII)
• Is designated subj ect time required, or could philosophy b e integrated across
the school curriculum? (Parts VI, VII, VIII)
To choose where to stan reading this Ha ndbook, th e foUowing overview of aU

eight parts might be helpfu!. For an introdu ction to each chapter and an
explanation of their order within each pan , there is a separa te Introduetion
included at th e beginning of each part (see th e Contents page) .
Part I fo cuses o n the eommunity of inquiry pedagogy of P4C. Ir explores th e

ethical and political dimensions, in particular the conditions for, and obstacles to,
democratic parti cipation in P4C. A salient obstacle explored is racism and
ethnicity, a n eglected area in P4C and a concero that re-em erges in Part VIII. The
focus on citizenship education, with its core concepts of freedom and pluralism ,
raises issues about age ; a topic further explored in th e n ext part w ith th e notion o f
children as citizens.
Part Il continues with the epistemic, p edagogical and political role of the
facilitator. lt investigates the important, as weU as controversial, influ ence ofPiaget
and Vygotsky on education and views of child:adult relationships. Opening up
distinctive ways in w hich children make m eaning throu gh fantasy and play, it pays
tribute to the distin ctive role P4C has played in estabJishing philosoph y of
childhood as a distinct fi eld of inquiry that troubles the adult/ child binary.
Part III picks up th e idea again that children are able ro do philosophy, through
the analysis of a well-known broadcast documentary of a philosophical inquiry
with six-year-olds (part of Th e Transfo rmers series mentioned abo ve) . Key to
deciding wh ether people of any age can do philosophy are the notions of a
'philoso phical attitude,' 'prulosophy as a way of Jife,' 'philosophizing' and
'philosophy as a body of knowledge' (the distinction between the last two is
picked up again in Part VI with a proposal to use academic texts for
philosophizing). Frameworks for measuring epistemi c progress are offered by some
autho", in this section, while others are critical of the lcgitimacy of the very
acti vity of developing m ethods for deciding what is, and what is not philosophical.
Part IV continues by provoking the reader to consider the ethos of a

community of inquiry and the role of emotions and epistemic virtues su eh as
autonomy and intellectual courage in creating that ethos. The authors focus on
how knowledge is constructed an d explore how students leam more meaningfully
through philosophical inquiry. One author extends this notion to argue for
professional leaming cOlllmunities using phil osoprucal inquiry. A key notion
throu ghout this section is that of reasonablen ess as aim, or regulative ideal, of the
comlllunity of inquiry.
Part V picks up again the important role of emotions by focusing on the energy
that is provoked through embodied, affective and situated engagement in P4C as a
lived experience. Broadening the scope of traditional P4C sessions as per Lipman's
five-stage model sketched aboye, philosophical inquiry that uses the arts and drama
as 'texts' offers opportunities to examine creative and expressive forms of
philosophical meaning m aking.
p.xxx
Part VI continues the theme of texts for philosophical inquiry by exploring the
various edu cational materials that can be used for inquiry, ranging from the P4C
curriculum with its specially written philosophical novels and teachers ' manuals, to
picturebooks and folktal es, canonical religious texts, and traditional philosophical
texts. Intricately linked to making phjlosophical progress and w hat it means to do
'real' philosophy, this part of the Handbook connects explicitly with concerns about
educational curriculum and how the same texts can be used for both: teaching a
school subject and doing philosophy.
Part VII continues with the difficult but rewarding relationship between
philosophy and education. T h e authors in this section d escribe and evaluate
various models that exist for bringing phjlosophy into scho ols, either through
infusion into existing school subjects, or by introducing it as a dedicated subj ect.
As in Part VI in the case of the teaching of literacy, one of the arguments here is
that P4C offers something distinctly different and makes us rethink what
'knowledge' and 'Ieaming' mean, through the notion of the philosophical teacher.
Part VIII ofrers opporturuties ro engage with examples of very different research
approaches in P4C, with research outcomes of interest not only ro P4Cers, but
also to oth er psychologists, social scientists and humanities scholars. The very last
chapter provokes us ro unlearn what we have leamed (including from this
Handbook) and to invent and improvise each educational encounter afresh.
Note
1 'Philosophy for Children ' was th e name Matth ew Lipman gave to the program he
develop ed \Vith Ann M argaret Sharp. Others have llsed that name to refer to approa ches to
doing philosophy with children and teenagers unrelated to the Lipman/ Sharp method , and
others wha use or adapt the Li pman/ Sharp method use other names such as 'philosoph y
with children,' or 'philosophy in schools.'
References
Abbott, C. and Wilks C h eltenham, S. (1997). T/úrtking and Talking T/1rough

Literature: Using the Phi/osophica/ Inqlliry Approach in the Midd/e Years of Schoo/ing 5-
8. Victoria, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Bosley, P.S. (1975). Center for High Sehoo/ Phi/osophy, 1972- 1974. A Progress
Repor!. Amherst, MA: Department of Philosophy and School of Education,
Uruversity of Massachusetts, Amherst. Retrieved 30 April 2016 from
h ttp://fil es. eric.ed. gov / fulltext/ ED 142498 .pdf
Evans, C. (1976). Philosophy with C hildren: Sorne Experi ences and Som e
R eflections. M etaphilosoph y 7 (1): 53-69.
Gregory, M. (2011 ). Philosophy for Children and its C rities: A M endham
Dialogue. Jou mal of Plúlosoph y of Education 45 (2): 199- 219.
H ayn es, J. and Murris, K. (2012). Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Plúlosophy. N ew Y ork:
Routledge Research in Education .
Johnson, T.W. (1 995). Discip/eship or Pi/grimage? The Edu cator's Quest fo r Phi/osoph)'.
Albany, NY: The State University ofNew York Press .
Lipman , M. (1 972). C onferen ce on Pre- C ollege Philosophy. Jouma l of Critical
Analysis 4 (3): 116-30.
Lipman , M . (1976). Philosophy for C hildren. Metaphilosoph)' 7 (1): 17- 39.
Lipman , M. (1986). Philosophy for Children : So m e Background Infonnation.
U npublish ed Manuscript. Montclair, NJ: In stitute for th e Advancem ent of
Philosophy for Children , Montclair State College.
Lipman, M . (1991). Dinner R emarks. COIifere/lce Report, Victoria n P!úlosoph y for
Children A ssociation, Uni versity of M elboume, pp. 17- 18.
Lipman , M. (2003). Thinking in Edu cation. C ambridge: Cambridge University
Press .
Lipman , M. (2008). A Lije Teaching Thinking. M ontclair, NJ: Institute for the
Advancem ent of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College .
Matthews, G. (1976). Philosophy and C hildren 's Literature. M etaphilosophy 7(1):
7- 16.
p.XXXl
Morgan, D.N. and Perry, C. (1958) . The T eaching of Pbilosophy in American

High Schools. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Phi/osophical A ssociation 32:
91- 137.
Murris, K. (1992). Teachil1g Philosophy with Picturebooks. lnfonet Publications Ltd.
Sharp , A.M. (1976). The T eacher as Liberator: A Nietzsch en View . Pedagogica
Hislorica 16(2): 387-422.
Wartenberg, T .E. (2009). Big Ideas f or Little K ids: Teaching Plúlosophy thmug"
Children's Literalure. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Education.
·.
p . XXXll
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The editors would like to thank the following m embers of the

international Philosophy for Children community who kindly blind
peer reviewed the abstracts and draft papers: P eter Costello, Marie-
France Daniel, Darryl DeMarzio, Edwin Etieyibo, Susan Gardner,
Darren Garside, Ann Gazzard, ] ennifer Glaser, Clinton Golding, Lena
Green, David K enn edy, Walter Kohan, Tatsuo Kono, Zosimo Lee,
Maya Levanon, Benjamin Lukey, Olivier Michaud, Richard
Morehouse, Felix Moriyon , Pieter M ostert, Michael Pritchard,
Laurance Splitter, Maura Striano, Roger SutclifIe, Barbara W eber, Rob
Wilson.
W e are also very grateful to H eather Knight, PhD student and

Associate Lecturer at Plymouth University, who administered the
proj ect for uso Heather did a superb j ob of managin g the huge volume
of abstracts, reviews, and draft papers, and of communicating with
contributors, reviewers and editors .
Finally, we wish to thank R o utledge Senior Publisher Alison Foyle

and Editorial Assistant Sarah Tuckwell for their guidance and support.
p .l
PARTI
The democratic nature of Philosophy
for Children
Introduction
The community of philosophical inquiry (Col) has developed as the

signature pedagogy of Philosophy for Children and an expression of its
democratic values. In theory, it offers a framework for collaborative
exploration of significant questions, for freedom of thought and speech,
for participatory dialogue, and for collaborative self-governance. In
practice, P4C presents major challenges. This section of the Handbook
asks: 'What claims can be made for P4C in respect of education for
democratic citizenship?, ' 'What are the conditions for, and obstacles to,
participation in communities of philosophical enquiry?,' and 'Is the Col
a community of talk or action?' The chapters here are preoccupied, on
the one hand, with the potential of P4C's methods and educational
project and, on the other hand, the limitations of the conmlUnity of
inquiry, its micro-politics, the 'blind spots' of facilitators, and the
constraints of classrooms.
In 'rhe conununity of philosophical inquiry: A pedagogical proposal

for advancing democracy,' Pat Hannam and Eugenio Echeverria draw
on John Dewey's explication of democracy as well as concepts of
freedom, plurality and action in the political philosophy of Hannah
Arendt. They argue that the co mmunity of philosophical inquiry is a
model of educational praxis which can advance conditions necessary for
democracy, because of its invitation to participants to think deeply and
listen to each other in a form of open and intentional deliberation,
understood as growing over time, and strengthening the possibility for
good judgment. They ilJustrate this argument with accounts of P4C
projects in the UK, in Mexico and in a numb er of Latin American
co untries: applications of CPI in schooling, youth and community
contexts.
In '''No go areas": racism and discomfort in the community of

inquiry,' Darren Chetty and Judith Suissa raise questions about the
practice of Philosophy for Children from the experience of teaching
philosophy in racialJy diverse school and university classrooms.
Drawing on the critical philosophy of race, critical whiteness studies
and social justice pedagogy, they argue that, despite references to
equality and diversity, there are significant omissions in P4C literature
and practice related to questions of race and racismo They propose that
engaging with, and staying with, the discomfort prompted by
discussions around race and racism is vital to any serious refle ction
and/or action on the democratic and socialjustice values ofP4C.
p.2
Students' engagement with questions of racism and conflict is also a

theme of Amber Makaiau's chapter, 'A citizen's education: The
Philosophy for Children Hawai'i approach to deliberative p edagogy.'
This chapter offers an account of the author's qualitative case study of
her practice in Hawai'i, which was informed by Myles Horton and
Paolo Freire's notion of a citizen's education. In working out the
relationship between a high school citizenship curriculum developed
through a Col approach and wider issues of young people's
participation in a democracy, Makaiau reflects on the relationships
between social justice, classroom dialogue and a community of action.
In the final chapter of this section, 'Authority, democracy and

philosophy: The nature and role of authority in a philosophical
conmlUnity of inquiry,' Olivier Michaud and Riku Valitalo consider
the paradox of educational authority in an approach such as P4C,
purporting to be related to democratic education. They ask whether,
by abandoning the traditional authoritative position in the classroom,
the Col facilitator is abandoning any form of authority or, rather,
transforming authority into something else. They are concerned to
discover the shape this takes and, following Dewey, propose a model of
shared authority.
p. 3
1
THE COMMUNITY OF
PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY (P4C)
A pedagogical proposal for advancing
democracy
Eugenio Echeverria and Patricia Hannam
Introduction
This chapter aims to make a contribution to the educational debate

about the democratic nature of th e Community of Philosophical
Inquiry (CPI) . It recognizes that there is disagreement theoretically and
in practice about what this actually means and engages with two
particular lines of argument. The authors support the proposal that the
CPI is a model of educational praxis which can enable the conditions
necessary for democracy to exist (see Sharp and Splitter 1995; Lipman
1998a). By this we mean that the CPI offers an important educative
possibility for not only advancing conm1Unicative rather than
individualistic notions of autonol11Y (Code 2006), but also for
advancing the conditions necessary for social justice and especially
freedol11 (Arendt 1998) to be possible. Lipl11an's (for example 1998a)
and Sharp's (for example 2009) view, which we support, was that
philosophy, because of its capacity to enable people to think more
deeply (Lipman 1998a: 7), would help to form the necessary social
dispositions in children and young people that would enable them to
improve their capacity to make good judgments (see Sharp 2007), and
consequently the capacity for decision making necessary in a
democracy.
Building the argument for the CPI from Lipman and Sharp and their
view that it should be understood as democratic praxis, by drawing on
Dewey and Arendt, this chapter concludes that the CPI can make a
significant difference to the Jife of a plural democracy. Through
examples, we demonstrate that the CPI can equip children and young
people with the tools to become more critical and to develop a more
social and global consciousness (Hannam and Echeverria 2009), thus
enabling thel11 to enter the world of adults to take an active role in 'the
shaping of a democratic society' (Sharp 1993: 343)
In what ways is the Community of Philosophical

Inquiry democratic?
An investigation of the literature (for example Thompson and

Echeverria 1987; Kohan 2002, 2011; Vansieleghem 2005; Biesta 2011)
reveals two broad areas of disagreement regarding the democratic
nature of the CPI. The first is about the possibilities of philosophy in
education and whether it has the capacity to 'produce an individual
with certain quaJities and skills' (Biesta 2011: 317; see also Kohan 2002:
11). The second area of disagreement is educational and around the
'instlUmentalist tendencies in the educational use of philosophy' (Biesta
2011: 317), or as Vansieleghem (2005) expresses it a possible
'instlUmentalized nature' (p. 19) of the CPI. Murris (2008: 675)
considers Lipman to have shared this concern. Although it is not
possible in the confines of this chapter to enter into the full discussion
here, the problem turns in part around whether the CPI should be
understood in instlUmentalist terms. This is because of concem that an
instrumentalized view, where outcomes are pre-determined and thus
possibly linked with coercive tendencies, cannot be congruent with an
educative process aiming to advance democratic ways ofbeing.
p.4
This chapter argues that the CPI, in the Lipman/S harp tradition (see
for example Lipman 1988, 1993a, 1998a, 2003; and Sharp 1993, 2007),
sometimes known as 'Philosophy for Children' or 'P4C,' is best
understood as an educative praxis with democratic purposes. By praxis
we mean an intervention that intentionally opens up the conditions for
change, and the deliberate change intended is to enable children and
young people to exist in the world as an integral part of a well-
informed democratic citizenry. Our point is that the process at work in
the CPI, especially the extended dialogue inquiring into a philosophical
question, can contribute to the cultivation of a well-informed
democratic citizenry. This is because of its capacity ro engage people of
all ages in conceptual controversy, through clear thinking in dialogue
with others, and ultimately it is because philosophy is a 'hom of plenty'
(see Lipman 1998a: 6) with these kinds of facets. The authors
understand citizenship as a way of existing in a plural democracy, rather
than something to be possessed in a phenomenological sense.
Democratic living is therefore understood as a way of living that
connects individuals to each other and their society, and to an
awareness of the need for social reconstlUction. The authors share
Lipman's (see for example Lipman 1998a, 2003) and Sharp's intention
for the ePI to be understood as democratic education and not only as
education for democracy. We understand education for democracy as
something with a presupposed and agreed set of values, beliefs, morals
and perceptions to be talked about and learnt in scho01 (see Burgh
2010) . The ePI we understand rather as an opportuniry for peop1e to
live and experiment with deliberative democracy, bringing it into

existen ce in a range of ways within and beyond the school walls.
Indeed, Lipman (1998a) cites Dewey's notion of deliberation as an
'imaginative rehearsa1 for future activities' (p. 7) and this idea strongly
informs the argument in this chapter.
Lipman drew on Dewey and we also highlight his posltlOn in

developing our argument here. For Dewey (see for example 1966)
democracy was more than a form of government, 'it is a mode of
associated living, of conjoint, communicated experience' (quoted in
Lipman 2003). When Dewey talks about a strong democracy, what he
means is a process of communiry formation founded on deliberative
communication. This is very similar to what we see happening in
schools that in dude the ePI within tbeir pedagogical project. Tbe
intention (see for example Lipman 1998b) of tbe dialogical discussions
is to build together, to try to understand each other and in cases when
views are opposed to try to reach a position where all benefit from the
outcome in tbe end. Tbe concern is not only for participation but also
tbe quality of participation: to recognize possibilities for tbe range of
voices botb witbin and beyond tbe community. What is often found in
situations where the ePI is at work, is development of dispositions
necessary to live well in a democracy such as a willingness to listen, to
be open to alternati ves and a readiness to reason as a means to confront
and resolve complex issues.
To be sure, in asserting that tbe 'community of inquiry constitutes a
praxis', Sharp (1993: 342) indicates she regards the 'reflective
. ,
communal actlOn itself as a 'nleans of personal and moral
transformation' (ibid.) leading to a growth in the emotional maturity
(Sharp 2007) necessary for democratic living. It is clear, however, that
Lipman also saw the CPI as representing 'education of the fnture as a
form of life that has not yet been realized and as a kind of praxis' (1988:
17). Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether this is an
intentional outcome of CPls. For if this outcome is in some way
contri ved, there remains a risk of the accusation of coercion and this
being education for a fixed idea of democracy rather than democratic
education. At this point we look to Arendt to see whether her work on
speech and action can help us explain how the inquiry itself is enabling
'political' action (Arendt 1998). Arendt develops an argument
distinguishing action from work or labour. W ork and labour, although
necessary for life, are not enough since it is 'men and not Man' (p. 7)
who live on the earth; it is action that enables each of our uniqueness to
existo For 'if men were endlessly reproducible repetitions of the same
model, whose nature or essence was the same for all and as predictable
as the nature or essence of any other thing' we would be replicas and
not human beings. So it is that she insists that '(p )Iurality is the
condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human,
in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever
lived, lives, or willlive' (p. 8). It is precisely this plurality that is found
in the CPI and because of this, action is possible.
p.s
Nevertheless, as Lipman (1993b) explains, the practicality of the CPI

owes very much to Dewey. According to Dewey an idea must be
tested and final judgment withheld until it has been applied to the
situation or state of affairs for which it was intended. Furthermore, 'no
inquirer can keep what he finds to himself or turn it into a merely
private account' (Dewey 1999: 75). Thus there is an interesting
consequence of bringing Dewey's thinking together with Arendt. It
becomes possible to conceptualize the testing of ideas through speech
in the dialogue, by the unique people comprising the plurality which is
the CPI, and understood in Arendtian terms as action. Further, since it
is action in the condition of plurality that makes the political space
possible, the CPI can itself be understood as part of the public or
political sphere.
The philosophical position of the Cornrnunity of

Philosophical Inquiry
There is broad consensus that the CPI is a proposal which has a

particular philosophical position in relation to education (for example
Lipman 1988, 1991, 1993a; Rojas (in press)). This means it has a
position not only regarding philosophy, drawing heavily but not
exclusively on pragmatism, but also and importantly, regarding the
purpose of education, enabling the CPI to bridge both worlds without
eompromising either. Our position is that philosophy, understood as a
discipline that comes out of the need to wonder about and question
reality, means our ways of understanding and knowing and existing in
that reality such as 'reflection, deliberation and action' (De la Garza
1995: 65) are central. Also that the CPI not onJy has a philosophical
position on education theoretically, but also in relation to educational
practice; that is, what actually happens in sehool and beyond. Taken
together the CPI has the potential to be both an epistemic and a
curriculum trigger, whereby the adults interacting with the children in
their CPls bring children to attend, reflect and deliberate together on
and about questions that matter to them. Here deliberation is
understood as related to action in Arendtian terms (see for example
Arendt 1961, 1998), and will result in personal and polítical
transformation (Sharp 1993) as discussed above (Sharp 2007) .
This form of deliberation needs to be understood as growing over

time between those who participate in the enquiry. An important part
of the epistemic nature of the CPI is fallíblísm, which in practiee looks
líke a willingness to be humble (see for example Gregory 2011: 207), a
kind of doubt and openness to new ideas. Theoretica1ly falliblísm is an
important part of the epistemological theory known as pragmatism, and
it underpinned Lipman's (1998b) and Sharp's work as they formulated
Philosophy for Children. In the environment of the CPI in a sehool,
this entails an ongoing process of reflexion and self-correction in the
dialogue of the CPI. Furthermore it also makes possible consideration
of how a range of solutions could be applied outside the schoo!. It
requires those involved in any particular inquiry, or sequence of CPIs
to become increasingly prepared to live with uncertainty. Were an
outcome certain there could be no possibility for new ideas to come
into the dialogue. An important consequence of this openness to new
ideas is that a conclusion is never forgone or decided at the outset. In
other words, the CPI does have democratic educative intentions sin ce
the precise outcomes are never pre-determined.
p.6
Ann Sharp (2009) recognized the contribution Arendt's

understanding of plurality brought to the CPI; this is significant in a
number of ways. It is significant first in the way it enables the CPI to
be understood as the pu blic sphere as already discussed, and second in
its introduction of a particular eoneeptualization of freedom. Arendt
(1961 , 1998) understands freedom in relation to pluralíty rather than
sovereignty. Freedom is not understood as something to be possessed
but as something that can exist in the world under certain conditions:
the criti cal co ndition necessary for fre edom's existence in the world is
speech and ac tion in plurality (Arendt 1998). This makes an important
difference to the way the individual child or yo ung p erso n is
understood in the ePI and, through reference to Arendt' s idea of
action, en ables us to give an account of why the work that philosophy
do es in the ePI is deliberate in its intentions but not coe rcive in its
outcomes. Each uniqu e child in the ePI is understood as an
irreplaceable human being who in the company of their peers can
make their beginnings in the world of others, that is, the public sphere.
The assertion we make he re is that the ePI can be a d emocratic
educative space, be it a school o r som e other place. Furtherrnore, it is a
place where freedom can come to exist in the world because uniqu e
human b eings are able to speak and act together in the condition of
plurality.
Thinking into practice
In this section we discuss four examples to illustrate some of the points

thus far made regarding the e PI as an intentional place of democratic
education and of both educational and philosophical co ncern (Hannam
and Echeverria 2009; Echeverria and De la Garza 2013). W e do this in
part to respond also to criticisms made of the eP I regarding the lack of
practical testing of political or social transforrnation, in lived experience
outside the dialogue cirele. Although we cannot enter into the
discussion in fuJl here, we do want to acknowledge it as an important
area of discussion in the area of m eaning making. (For a full
exploration of this point see Gregory 2005 .)
The first example is in Britain, which has becom e increasingly

secularized during the second half of the twentieth century, alongside
the development of an increasingly complex local and international
religious horizon. During this time, every major educational reform
through the twentieth and into the twenty-first century in England has
maintained a special position of religious edllcation as a compulsory
subject in the curriculum of all maintained schools in England for
children aged 5-18 years of age . It is to be 'broadly Christian' in nature
but not distinctive of any particular Christian denomination. Religious
education in a plural democracy lends itself to an inquiring and
philosophical approach because of the way it can open dialogue abollt
matters that are important to people, but abollt which they do not
agree. Democratic education, in a world where truth of all kinds is
contestable, needs to enable young people to dialogue, discern and
engage confidently with different points of view. Religious education
in non-religious contexts condllcted through inquiry can help yOllng
people develop their own sense of belonging and worldview. Indeed,
work in the county of Hampshire, UK (see Hannam 2012; Hampshire
County Council 2011; Hampshire, Portsmollth, Southampton and Isle
ofWight County Councils 2016) has embedded this into its practice in
aH public schools.
p.7
The second example is in the context of 'The Beast', the train that
goes from the border of Guatemala to the border with the United
States. Every year more and more children take this journey. Most of
them don't make it to the USA, falling prey to criminals for drug
trafficking or the sex trade. The trigger for democratic edllcation
throllgh the CPI with these children was a docllmentary film by
Rebecca Camisa called Whiel! Way Home (2009). The educational
centre Tanesque and CELAFIN developed a manual with discussion
plans and exercises in the Lipman / Sharp tradition to be used after
watching the documentary fUm. The project was sllpported by the
SertuH FOllndation in México, the Ford FOllndation and DIF (a
government agency for children and the family) linking closely with a
range of people engaged in social action directly and indirectly linked
with the care for the safety of child migrants. Adults were trained in
facilitating the CPI in 15 different regions of México where
unaccompanied minors are at risk. There was also work in Guatemala,
Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, all countries known to have a
high risk of children and young people migrating, due to lack of
opportunities in their region. The objective was to work with as many
at-risk children and adolescents as possible. Through engaging in the
CPI the intention was to ensure these children and young people were
better equipped ro make choices in their lives, see alternatives and
predict the consequences of those choices 1 Evaluation of this and
similar projects is ongoing.
The third example is of a British Councilf. funded project in 2001,

which brought 20 schools from Mexico City together with 20 schools
in the UK through the themes of citizenship, democracy and human
rights. Out of the 20 initial projects only rwo survived more than two
years; however one exceptional project lasted eight years. This project
linked a school in the county of Cumbria in the north of England
together with a school in Itztapalapa, one of the poorest areas of
Mexico City. It was distinctive in the way it embedded philosophy for
children into the democratic vision of the project. Although not tested
empirical1y, the longevity of this particular school linking project is
thought to have related directly to the shared democratic vision which
emerged through embedding the CPI since it was the main
distinguishing feature likely to have impacted in this way (Hannam
2009). Teachers and students in both the MeAican and UK schools in
this linking were concerned to develop a process that would enable the
young people involved to explore the issues of democracy through the
medium of both Spanish and English and agreed upon the CPI.
Teachers in Mexico accessed the Diploma training offered by the
Mexican Federation of Philosophy for Children, and teachers in UK
were trained through the UK organization SAPERE 3 During the
eight years of the project students and teachers &om both schools had
opportunities to meet in either Mexico or the VK. During each visit,
time was set aside for phiJosophical enquiries in two Ianguages,
developing the themes of the Iinking. The effectiveness of the Iinking
was monitored by the British Council, who funded continuing work in
the linking through the DFID 4 Global Schools Partnersrups, based at
the time in Scotland. Teachers working in the Jinking found students
to have been changed by these experiences, to become more confident
and self-reflective. Sorne have been able to move on and become
involved in a connected proJect of the International Y outh Congress,
which is discussed next.
The fourth example is the International Y outh congress in Chiapas,

Mexico, wruch brought young people together each year from the UK
and meso-America between 2006 and 2012 for a two-week shared
experience around the themes of peace, justice and sustainabiJity. The
original Lipman approach was adapted ro 'read' experiences of the
congress as a texto Daily Jife formed the starting point for inquiries.
e
Whether we were in our base at CELAFIN,2 San Cristóbal de Las

Casas, or staying in an indigenous community or in the rain forest,
each evening we would gather in a circle to explore questions
emerging from the day's experiences. For example, at the ecological
centre where we stayed in the Lacandon rain forest, there was an open-
sided space wruch lent itself to our evening explorations whiJe the
sound of the summer rains on the tin roof overtook the continuing
noise from the river. The philosophical questions coming &om our
visits to abandoned Mayan sites of Yaxchilan and Bonampak contrasted
with an aftemoon visiting a Lacandon community Milpa.~ Invariably
questions emerged about the survival of unsustainabl e civilizations, or
what kind of human social organization should be adopted now in the
face of globalization. The ePI was an educativ e space where
contemporary philosophical concems of a social, political and
environl11ental nature were explored. By working in community,
'doing philosophy' together, sharing and inquiring, participants
reflected deeply and rigorously about the experience of and future for
human kind. The intemational and intercultural nature of the summer
y outh eongress, where the focus issues were frequentIy those most
pressing to the well-being of p eople and the planet in different parts of
.
the world, gave umque opportunities for participants to share
democratic visions across boundaries of co ntinental perception,
fommlating considered positions on crucial matters. Vicky, who
attended the congress in 2007 and was part of the school linking
project, explains this well: 'as I have heard other people's experien ces
and ideas, these have in tum shaped l11y own and allowed me to
consider questions from many different points of view, and I have
found this a very important part of the person I am today' (quoted in
Hannam 2009).
p.S
Conclusion: what this means for democratic

education
This cbapter has sought to present a case for the ePI understood as a
del110cratic edu cative space tbat can exist in many contexts, and is
capable of advancing the conditions for democratic ways of living. W e
have substantiated Lipman and Sharp's assertion that the ePI is a form
of praxis; tbat is to say it intentionally aims to bring abo ut change . We
make two interconnected points in concluding this chapter. One is in
reJation to the relationship between education and democracy in terms
of freedom and action, arguing against instrumentalist critique of P4C;
the second is to do wirh the implications this has for the role of the
teacher in the CPI, placing attention upon teacher:child relationships
rather than skills to be leamt.
The CPI is a space where the clear intention of the teacher is to

ensure those participating have the opportunity to speak and where the
plurality of the group is taken seriously. The idea is for each child to
make their beginnings in the world of others and to do this in such a
way that freedom can come into existence in the public space. This
point makes a difference to how the role of the teacher is understood
in the CPI. The teacher is a co-inquirer and has particular
responsibilities. At least in the beginning the teacher models how to
hold the inquiry space as a place where all those participating can speak
and act in practice, understood in Arendtian terms. In so doing those
participating become interested in others who are different from
themselves, and democratic living becomes possible.
These two points make a difference to how the reJationship between

the CPI and democracy is understood. The reJationship is necessary,
entailed by the action of the community, and not accidental. This
enables us to conclude by reasserting the point made initially. The CPI
is an educative space that intends to bring about democratic ways of
living. The examples provided in this chapter illustrate these intentions.
The philosophical underpinning of the CPI ensures ir is a space of
praxis, needing constant renewal and never exactly complete,
necessarily related to a democratic hope for the present and future of
the world (see Lipman 1998a).
p.9
Notes
1 The community of philosophical enquiry has been used in a wide range of

similar contexts in the UK with vulnerable children , includin g street work
and in pupil referral units for stu dents wh ose b eha viour makes it impossible
for them to relllain in lnainstreanl education.
2 The British Councíl is a branch of the Foreign Oflice of the British
Governnle nt.
1 SAPERE is the Society for the Advancem ent of Philosophi cal Enquiry and
R eflection in Education and is the organization that accredits training in the
C PI in the UK.
-4 D FID is the UK Govemm ent Department For 1nternational D evelopment

w hi ch funded school internatio nal linking proj ects at the time through the
British Council.
-5 CELAFIN is the Latin Ameri can Centre for Philosophy for Children, and the
base for the Summer Youth Congress whilst in San Cristóbal de las Casas.
!i A ' Milpa' is a tradition al sustainable system of companion- planting
agri culture, where areas of forest are cut in rotation , planted for a fe w years
and then left to rest and regenerate. This happens in a cycle that ensures
co ntinuing fertility of the land as well as quaüty environment for other
wildlife. Regeneration of trees is rapid due to the chmatic co nditions.
References
Arendt, H . (1961). Freedom and Politics . In A. Hunoldt (Ed. ), Freedom

and Seifdom: An Anthology 01 Western Tho ught (pp. 191- 217).
Dordrechr, N etherlands: D. R eidel Publishing Company.
Arendr, H. (1998). Tite Human Condition. C hicago: University of
C hicago Press.
Biesta, G.J.J. (2011). Philosophy, Exposure and Children: How to
R esist the Instrumentalisation of Philosophy in Education. J ournal 01
Philosophy of Education. Special Issue: Philosophy for Children in
Transition: Problems and Prospects 45(2): 305-19.
Burgh, G. (20 10). Citizenship as a Learning Process: Democratic
Education without Foundationalism. In D.R.j. Macer and Saad Zoy
(Eds), Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on Globaliz ation, Democracy
and Human Rights (pp. 59-69). Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO,
R egional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the
Pacifico
Code, L. (2006). Ecological Thinking: The Politics of Epistemic Location.
New York: Oxford University Press.
De la Garza, T. (1995). Educación y Democracia. Madrid: Visor
Distribuciones.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press
(Mamullan) .
Dewey, J. (1999). Individualism Old and New. New York: Prometheus
Books.
Dewey, J. (2007). Human Nature and Conduct: An lntroduction to Social
Psychology. New York: Cosimo, lnc.
EcheverrÍa, E. and T. D e la Garza (2013). El Mundo De Filosona para
Niños. In R.A R ezola (Ed.), Otra educación es posible. Barcelona:
Laertes.
Gregory, M.R. (2005). Practicing Democracy: Social Intelligence and
Philosophical Practíce. The lntemational Joumal of Applied Philosophy
16(1 ): 161-74.
Gregory, M. (2011). Philosophy for Children and Its Critics: a
Mendham Dialogue. Joumal of Philosophy of Education 45(2): 199-
219.
Hampshire County Council (20 11 ). Living Difference Revised 2011: The
Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education in Hampshire, Portsmouth and
Southampton. Winchester: Hampshire County Council.
Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and Isle of Wight County
Councils (2016). Living Difference The Agreed Syllabus for
[JI:
Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the [sle of Wight. Winchester:

Hampshire County Council.
Hannam, P. (2009). From Inter-c ultural to Inter- relational
Understanding: Philosophy for Children and the Acceptance of
Differen ce . In E. Marsal, T. Tobashi and B. Weber (Eds), Children
Philosophize Worldwide: Theoretical and Practical Corlcepts (pp. 141-5 2).
Frankfurt and New York: P eter Lang.
Hannam, P. (2012). P4C in R eligious Education. In L. Lewis and N .
Chandley (Eds), Philosophy for Children Through the Secondary
Curriculum (pp. 127- 145). London: Bloomsbury.
Hannam, P. and E cheverria, E. (2009). Philosophy with Teenagers:
Nurturing a Moral Imagination for the 21st Century. London:
Continuum.
Kohan , W. (2002). Education, philosophy and childhood: the need to
think an encounter. Thinking 16(4): 4- 11.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy Coes to School. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Lipman, M. (1993a). Philosophy for Children and Critical Thinking.
In M. Lipman (Ed. ), Thinking Children and Education. Dubuque, lA:
Kendal/Hunt.
p.I O
Lipman, M. (1993b). Promoting Better Classroom Thinking.

Educational Psychology 13(3-4): 291-304.
Lipman, M. (1998a). The Contributions of Philosophy to D eliberative
Dem.ocracy. In D. Owens and I. Kucuradi (Eds), Teachirlg Philosophy
on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century. Anakara: International
Federation of Philosophical Societies.
Lipman, M. (1998b). Teaching Students to Think Reasonably: Some
Findings of the Philosophy for Children Programo The Clearing
Hou se, 71(5) : 277- 280.
Lipman, M . (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd edition). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Murris, K.S. (2008) . Philosophy with Children, the Stingray and the
Educative Value of Disequilibrium. JO/unal of Philosophy of Education
42(3-4): 667-85.
Rojas, V.A. (Ed). (in press). Filosofía para niiios: práctica educativa y
contexto social. Bogotá, Colombia: Corporación universitaria Minuto
de Dios.
Sharp, A.M . (1993). The Community of Inquiry: Education for
Democracy. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking Children and Education
(337- 345). Dubuque, lA: Kendal/ Hunt.
Sharp, A.M. (2007). Education of the Emotions in the Classroom
Community of Inquiry. Gified Education International 22(2-3): 248-
57 .
Sharp, A. (2009). Foreword to P. Hannam and E. Echeverria,
Philosophy with Teenagers: Nurturing a Moral Imagination for the 21st
Century . London: Continuum.
Sharp, A.M. and L.J. Splitter (1995) . Teaching fOY Better Thinking.
Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Thompson, A.G. and E. Echeverria (1987). Philosophy for Children: A
Vehicle for Promoting Democracy in Guatemala. Analytic Teaching
8(1): 44- 52.
Vansieleghem, N. (2005) . Philosophy for Children as the Wind of
Thinking. Journal of Philosophy of Education 39(1): 19- 35 .
p.l 1
2
'NO GO AREAS'
Racism and discomfort in the community of
• •
mqmry
Darren Chetty and Judith Suissa
Context
T he au thors of this chapter are racialized and ge ndered differently to one

anoth er. D arren has been philosophizing with children in primary
scho ols for almost twen ty years, whilst Judith has been teaching
philosophy in higher edu cation for over twen ty years.
Darren
A search thro ugh the literature relating to Philosophy for C hildren yields
very few pap ers with the terrns ' race ', ' racism' o r 'multiculturalism ' in
th e titl e. D espite th e frequ ent references to id entity, diversity, Justice and
equality both within the P4C literature and as conference themes, work
that dea!s explicitly with race/ racism remains rare. Tace Vigliante focuses
on the social status of Australian Aboriginal people and argues that
Australian pre-service teachers 'must engage in philosophical inquiry
with their peers into both the aim of education and the notion of socia!
justice' (Vigliante 2005 : 109). Writing in the USA and focusing on
multiculturalism, Wendy Turgeon notes that, 'Often what we mean by
"multicultural" is simply different from the mainstream. However, that
rarely, if ever, includes Caucasian or the historically dominant European
cultures and peoples' (Turgeon 2005: 97). However, neither Turgeon
nor Vigliante give attention to the racial identity of the majority of
teachers of philosophy for children in the nations in which they write .
Writing of their considerable experience of leading P4C courses for
teachers in the UK, Joanna Haynes and Karin Murris write that for
teachers on P4C courses, 'Race and racism often crop up as problematic
"no go" areas' (Haynes and Murris 2012 : 128). My experiences of
writing and presenting on Philosophy for Children and race in the UK
and internationally, as someone racialized as 'other than white', lead me
to suggest that, for many P4C practitioners, race is also a 'no go area' .
The question we focus on here is: if we are comrnitted to the view

that philosophy's value in education lies largely in its ability to 'shake the
habitual certainty with which people take for granted the meaning of
everyday abstract concepts' (Murris 2008, in Smith 2011: 221), can
teachers racialized as white avoid the tendency to reject or domesticate
the unfamiliar, a tendency that can close down the possibility of
travelling to no go areas? In exploring this question in light of the
experience of teaching philosophy in racially diverse classrooms, we draw
on theoretical resources from P4C as well as &om the critica! philosophy
of race, critica! whiteness studies and social justice pedagogy, in order to
reflect on the educational and philosophical value of going to, and
staying in, no go areas, and to begin to explore ways of doing so.
p.12
In this chapter, we wish to extend consideration of the community of

inquiry as it applies to the Philosophy for/ with Children movement to
include not only classrooms and groups of young people but also
something perhaps closer to C.S. Peirce's original use of the term (Peirce
1955). Whilst Peirce was referring to the science/ academic community,
we refer to Philosophy for/with Children practitioners, practitioner
trainers, scholars and writers, and the spaces in which they inquire
together. These spaces are both literal: room s at international, national
and regional conferences, serninars, training courses and school
staffrooms, and virtual/metaphorical: journals, websites and books.
Rather than viewing community of inquiry as a term for a clearly
delineated, procedural, timetabled 'event' in schools we take it to mean
those adults and cruldren who inquire together philosophically and those
who trunk philosophically about such a practice. This second notion of
the comJ11unity of inquiry is both useful and justifiable, in that it allows
us to think about philosophizing with children without making the
immediate move to considerations of children and childhood, but rather
giving more thought to who is philosophizing with children, how they
have learnt to do so and how they might be encouraged to enter into
conversations that have the potential to cause discomfort.
Example 1: Darren
Ten years ago, I began to raise sorne concerns about 'doing' P4C with
children in racially diverse classrooms with other P4C practitioners, al!
racialized as white. 1 offered a number of questions that 1 thought
important for considering how the community of inquiry deals with race
and racismo Sorne examples would be:
• How does a routine of voting for a question give due consideration
to minority concerns?
• What does it m ean for a fac ilitator to claim to be n eutral whilst
op erating w ithin an institution and broader society that is no t?
• Can guide!ines intended to ensure po!iteness and co-op eration
pennit expressions of anger at injustice?
• What justifies the lack of materials w ritten from a racialiy minoritized
viewpoint am ongst P 4C m aterials?
• Is there an assumption within so m e P4C !iterature that people
regarded as 'reasonable' do not p erp etuate racism ?
P eo ple resp ond ed in individual w ays, but over time 1 ca m e to notice two
broad categories of responses. The first w as a restatem ent of P4C
principIes, including often the very ones 1 h ad referred to as po tentially
problematic in my exampl es. T h ese respo nses resulted in m e feelin g
increasingly fru strated as they tended n ot to connec t directly with my
voiced concerns and presented a P4C orthodoxy as a 'barrier' to having
to engage with th em . Looking back , m y interlocutor m ay h ave assumed
that my concerns w ere m erely due to a lack o f understanding o n my
part, althou gh 1 som etimes thou ght that they were aware that 1 already
knew many of the things th ey we re telling m e. T he seco nd response was
ve ry diffe rent. It was simply an invitation for m e to continu e to talk,
alo ng th e lines of 'Tell m e more . . . ' . T his resp onse tended to lead to a
rich er, shared philosophical inquiry into the qu estio ns 1 w as raising.
p.13
Over th e past ten years, m y decision to go to the 'no go area' of

racism w ith fellow P4C practition ers, and to bring to attentio n th e
racia!ized identities of th ose o f us in the communi ty of inquiry, has
elicited m an y o ther types of respons es, including silen ces, angry
interruptions, rapid changes of topic and w ithdrawal from th e inquiry.
W e su ggest that th e range of responses might b est be understood as
differen ces in dealing with the discomfort caused by disc ussions around
.
raCIsm o
'Whiteness'
M any of the resp onses from exp erienced P4 C praCtltlOners are in line
w ith depictions of ' white talk ', whi ch criti cal whiten ess sch olars have
theorized as discursive strategies for avoiding such disc omfort. Mclntyre
(1997) offers as examples of 'white talk' : 'derailing the conversation,
evading qu estions, dismissing counter arguments, withdrawing from the
discussion , rem ainin g sil ent, interruptin g sp eakers and topics, and
colluding with each o ther in creating a "c ulture of nicen ess" that m ade it
very difficult to "read" the w hite world.' R eviewing empirical research
into discussions around race invo lving teacher ca ndidates racialized as
w hite , Levine-Rasky (2000 : 265) concludes that 'resistan ce, denial,
hostility, ignorance, and defensiven ess are consistent thronghout the
studies.'
A key source of su ch discornfort is the consideration of the stru ctural

nature of injustice, parti cularly racial injusti ce, w hich m ay require an
'epistemological shift' akin to that whi ch Haynes and Murris (2011 )
argu e P4C requires of teach er edu caríon. In literature on socia! justice
p edagogy , critica! race theory and whiten ess studies, these ideas have
been theorized and explored in depth , esp ecially in the context o f wh at
Applebaum (2010) calls 'white complicity pedagogy' . This approach
builds on the growing academic fi eld of w hiten ess studies, in w hich
racism is understood as 'en compassing eco nomic, political , social and
cultural stru ctures, actio ns, and b eli efs that systemati ze and p erpetuate an
unequal di stribution o f privileges, resources and power b etween white
p eople and p eople of colo r' (Hilliard, in DiAngelo 2011 : 56) . Coming to
understand this involves a p o tentially un comfo rtable shift on th e p art of
white p eople - who , as DiAn gelo points out, gen erally ' m ove easily
through our society without a sense of ourselves as racialized subj ects' (p.
62) - to think about how their whiteness may involve forms of privilege
(see McIntosh 1998) th at uphold a structural system of racial injustice.
Yet as several theo rists acknowledge (see AIU11ed 2007; Applebaum
2010; Probyn- Rapsey 2007; Yancy 2012; DiAngelo 2011), a frequent
co nsequence of educa tors prompting white students, even , and
particularly, those who do not co nsciously hold racist views, to
acknowledge their own whiteness and its role in the ongoing reality of
racism , is th at they exp erience a form of discomfort, often leading th em
to adopt strategies such as those described aboye to avoid o r retrea t from
the 'interruption' (Di Angelo 2011 : 57) that has occurred.
It appears from my examples that there is no clear correlation between

exp os ure to P4C and the ability to work with discomfort in
philosophical inquiry. Thus we suggest that the claim made by Karin
Murris and Joanna H aynes (2000: 16) that '[p ]hilosophica l enquiry helps
us guard against the th oughtless acceptance of tradition, authority,
prejudices and fashion' requires further qualification. Our discussion
suggests that w illingness to experience discomfort is necessary for
engagem ent with race dialogue (Leonardo and Porter 2010) and th ere is
a need to develop what Dyan W atso n (20 14) terms the ability to 'stay in
the conversation' and, for those racialized as 'white', what Barbara
Applebaum (2013) terms 'White vigilance' (see below). Discomfort can,
and indeed should, be productive.
Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so
that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half- truths to the
unfettered reahn of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so 111U St we see
the need for non-violent gadflies to crea te the kind of tension in society that
will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
majesti c heights of understanding and brotherhood .
p.14
(King, 1996, cited in Leonardo and Porter 2010: 145)
How can teachers and p articipants in a co mmunity of inquiry travel to

' no go areas' where they might experien ce tension and a greater sense of
discomfort? W e suggest that, in line with Darren's example, when fac ed
with a marginalized p ersp ec tive and a sen se of di scomfort we might ask
som ething akin to 'can you tellme more"
'Can you tell me more?'; stepping into the 'no go area'
'Can yo u tell m e more" may indi cate a request for greater context, a
wish to empathize (we make no claims at this point about the eapacity to
empathize) and a susp ension of judgm ent. On hearin g som ething
un familiar, 'can you tell m e more?' signals a willingness ro be a listen er.
It is not a restatement of one's own position, which can b e a retreat to
["1miliarity and relative certainty, nor is it a redirecting of the line of
inquiry onto more comfortabl e terrain. It signals interest, and a
willingness to 'stay' with the subJ ect and, by extens io n, th e sp eaker.
Unlike 'why?', 'can you tell m e more? ' is not a demand for justification.
P ersons racialized as 'other than white' are often expected to justity
themselves more than w hite people: 'Why do you use sound like that,
look like that, feel like that, see things like that . . . " where 'that' is
o utside of w hite nonnativity. W e are not suggesting that su eh questions
should n ever b e asked, rather that we should consider which qu estions
are left unasked. We are also not ruling out that sometim es questions are
asked not in a spirit of inquiry or intellectual curiosity but rather as an
assertion of relative power. Who asks the questions and who answers
them is worth considering in public and classroo m dialogue. It is also
important to note the consequ ences of avoiding certain questions and
•
lssu es .
How much we need to tell in order to be recognized or
compreh ended often dep ends on the distance we need to 'travel'. In the
classroom this distan ce is informed by who our fellow students are, w ho
o ur teach er is and w hat th e subj ect of discussion appears to be to each of
uso Who speaks and w ho speaks back is important to recognize, as is w ho
sp eaks w ith 'comInon sense' and w ho speaks against 'common sen se' .
Speaking against comrnon sense may m ean sayin g something
unco mmon. This might require more time for elucidation and more
time for consideratio n. As Biesta notes (2011: 317), 'A p edagogy
focusing on exposure and interruptio n is a p edagogy that may bring
about h esitation, an experi ence of not kn owing, an exp erien ce that
makes us stop rather than that it rush es us into the pse udo-security of
qu estions , hypothesis, reasons, examples, distinctions, connections,
implications, inten tions, criteria, an d co nsistency.'
Philosophy teachers racialized as 'white' can signa! a willingness to stay

with th e h esitation and disconúort that may arise as th ey travel to th e
potentia! 'no go' areas of race . We suggest that they n eed to b e aware
not just of the urge to rej ec t the un(,rniliar, but of the tendency to fail to
recognize it as su ch and to domesticate it by refrarning it in terms of
referen ce that are familiar to them .
Example 2: Judith
As a philosophy lecturer in an HE context, there is co nsiderabl e overlap

b etween m y approach and concerns and those of P4C practitio ners. I
like to think that m y classes are spa ces in which open and critical
philosophical dialogue is nurtured and encouraged.
p.15
I was teaching a session on fe minist epistemology on an J\1A research methods

co~/YSe. 1 wanted to convey to the students the significance of the feminist project of
'putting subjectivity into the picture'. Yet J also wanted them to appreciate that
acknowledging the importance of positionality does not entail that all theoretical
concepts and daims are 'just social constructions'. To illustrate this point, J
described my experience of reading Toni Morrison's novel, Beloved. You could
say, J explained, that there is a sense in which J, a middle class White woman,
can never really know what it was like to grow up as a poor Black wOl11an in the
reality Morrisorl describes. Yet is there not some way in which Morrison can speak
to me, through her words, in which J can relate to the ideas, perceptions, truth aud
experiences captured in her writing?
At the end cif the dass, one student, a Black woman, came up to me. She
poli te/y said she disagreed with me; in spite cif what we had diswssed, it was stiU
fundamentally true that J could never, as a White woman, really understand what
it was like ta be a Black woman. J lis tened to what she was saying and tried to
difend the idea that there was something mare that we could say, samething that
reflected the significance af shared meaning, the possibility af communication across
difference, and the core feminist commitment to women's experience. We parted
anúcably and J suggested same further reading.
Now, reflecting on this incident, 1 wonder whether a certain kind of

pedagogical awareness and training could perhaps have prepared me
better for such moments. Firstly, 1 have to ask myself why the student
had felt unable to make her point during the class discussion, in which 1
had invited and engaged with comments and questions from students,
but had felt the need to come and talk to me outside the group space of
the class. Darren has had sim.ilar experiences with adults of colour who
have chosen to share their thoughts with him but not the broader
conununity of inquiry.
1 believe it is relevant he re to recall that, as Kennedy notes ' . .. we

are each of us carrying, not Just the emergent conceptual structure of our
inquiry, but the gestural, the linguistic, the personal-political (i.e.
personal and power relations), the affective and the erotic' (Kennedy
1999 : 341- 2) . This m eans that for any philosophical inquiry to engage
studen ts in a m eaningful way within a classroom setting, and for its
critical potential to b e expl ored , a level of attunem ent to these personal,
political, som atic and affective elem ents is required of the teach er. This
co uld be conceptualize d as part of the ability to listen; a p oint that plays a
central role in th e training o f P4C practitioners. Lipman , Sharp and
Oscanyan (1977: 78- 9) draw attention to the tenden cy of trained
teachers to fail to no tice the philosophical significan ce and possibilities
fo r furth er phil osophical insight in w hat m ay at first glance seem to be
m erely a throwaway or 'cute' comm ent by the child. T h e won-y here is
that the teacher will either no t really ' h ear' th e rem ark at all, or will
interpret it in terms of h er own p ersp ective. Likewise, Murris and
H ayn es have em phasized , in th eir w o rk, the imp ortan ce of fac ilitators
being abl e to 'listen w itho ut prejudice - not as th ough we already know
and understand w hat is about to b e said ' (H aynes and Murris, 2013).
Y et this requirem ent that we b e attentive in listening to o ur students

and acknowledge that we can learn f ram them is no t sufficient to alert us
to the p ossibility that, as the literature on critical w hiteness has expl ored,
'whiteness often plays a powerful role in problems th at w hite p eople do
n ot see as having anything to do w ith w hiten ess' (M acMullan 2015:
657), and that this m ay contribute to o ur urge to rej ect the unfamiliar, or
to dom esticate it by mistaking it for som ethin g m ore fam iliar, th ereby
avoidin g situati ons of p o tential disco mfort.
'Tell me more' as important but insufficient
Looking b ack o n this incident, 1 am struck by the fact that w hile

teaching a philosophy class on the relevance of embodiment and social
situatedness to claims abo ut knowledge and truth, 1 had no t stopp ed to
co nsider m y own embodiment , m y own situatedn ess, and , p articularly,
m y own w hiten ess . M y immediate response was to 'dom esticate' the
student's comments as a familiar point about standpoint epistemology;
one which I had encountered on difIerent occasions and in some of the
relevant literature, and which I had therefore anticipated in preparing for
the class. 1 did not see her cornment as mainly about who she was or
who 1 was, but rather as a general claim about knowledge. 1 thus saw it
as my role to counter this with a philosophical challenge. My attention
was not focused on considering the ways in which the entire situation
was imbued with experiential, personal, personal-political, physical and
afIective elements to do with our difIerently racialized subjectivities.
Acknowledging this during my teaching may have made me more able
to create a climate in which this student or other students in the class
were not uncomfortable raising issues to do with race. This would ha ve
required, critically, a willingness to enter a 'no go area' on my part,
foregrounding my own potential discomfort as a pedagogically fmitful
element of this move, rather than, or at least prior to, extending an
invitation to the student to 'tell me more', thereby positioning her as
knowledge holder. For as bell hooks notes, 'Often if there is one Ion e
person of color in the classroom she or he is objectified by others and
forced to assume the role of native infomunt' (hooks 1994: 43). Thus
the power asymmetry at play when we invite people to make themselves
vulnerable needs to be considered. Nicholas Burbules, in issuing a
waming against viewing dialogic pedagogy as unproblematically
emancipatory, points out that 'The point is not that these commitments
are never fair expectations to have of participants to a dialogue; it is to
acknowledge that for many parties, under specific circumstances, they
represent a kind of entrapment, a kind of co-optation, in which some
persons have more to lose than do others' (Burbules 2000: 19).
p.16
An appreciation of these points suggests that we need to be vigilant

concerning the possible ways in which difIerent aspects of our classroom
practice can reflect, re-inscribe, challenge and question social meanings
around racial privilege and oppression. This applies even when the
ostensive 'topic' of our teaching is not one to do with race or injustice
per se. We suggest that Yancy's (2012) comment that philosophical
academic spaces 'are, in so many ways, continuous with everyday,
politically invested, racially grounded, prejudicial, social spaces' may also
apply to philosophical communities of inquiry. In this sense, racial
assumptions can be left uninterrupted and undisrupted.
• •
Applebaum discusses how 'being an anti-racist white • • • IS a proJect
that always requires another step and does not end in a white person's
having "arrived" in the form of an idyllic anti-racist' (Applebaum 2015:
11). Had 1 given Morrison 's writing and the context in which it was
written due consideration, it is possible that 1 would have 'used' it in my
teaching in a different way, rather than merely referring to it as an
example of 'a novel by a Black woman writer'; for as Morrison herself
has stated on several occasions, she writes with Black audiences in mind.
And in the case of her novel Beloved, this means that 'The narrative
forces African- American readers to recall experiences so horrible that
they were not oruy omitted from the narrative of American history, but
repressed in personal memory as well (Travis 1998 : 76).
The vigilance and humility required of white educators, then, means

reminding ourselves of the moral and political context in which our
educational efforts make sen se, reflecting on our own racialized identities
and those of the people in our classroom, and thinking about what our
choice of pedagogical materials and interventions means for ourselves and
for our students.
Likewise, in acknowledging, with Lipman (2003: 261) 'how

profoundly our emotions shape and direct our thought', we have to
acknowledge the ways in which emotions such as discomfort can
contribute to a collective ethos in which open philosophical inquiry into
•
•
•
•
•
•
Children. Early Child Development and Care 183(8): 1,084- 100.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. London: Routledge.
Johnson, H .B. and Shapiro, T.M. (2003). Good Neighborhoods, Good
Schools: Race and th e 'Good' Choices. In A.W. Doane and E.
Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White Out: The Continuing Sigrtificance of Racism
(pp. 173-88). New York: Routledge.
K ennedy, D. (1999). Philosophy for Children and the R econstruction of
Philosophy. M etaphilosophy 30(4): 338-59.
Kennedy, D. and Kennedy, N. (2011 ). Community of Philosophical
Inquiry as a Discursive Structure, and its Rol e in School CurriculuI11
Design. J ournal of Philosophy of Education 45(2): 265-83.
King, M.L. , Jr (1996). Letter from a Birmingham Jail. In M. Asanta and
A. Abarry (Eds), African Intellectual Heritage: A Book of Sources (pp . 740-
50). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Leonardo, Z. and Porter, R.K. (2010). Pedagogy of Fear: Toward a
Fanonian Theory of 'Safety' in R ace Dialogue. Race Ethnicity and
Education 13(2): 139-57.
Levine-Rasky, e. (2000). The practic e of whiteness among teacher
candidates. International Studies in Sociology of Educatíon 10(3) : 263- 84.
Lipman, M. (2003) . Thinking in Education. Cambridge: C ambridge
U ni versity Press .
Lipman, M ., Sharp, A.M. and O scanyan, F.S. (1977). Philosophy in the
Classroom . Upper Montclair, NJ: IAPe.
M acMullan, T. (2015). Facing up to Ignorance and Privilege: Philosophy
of Whiteness as Public Intellectualism. Plúlosophy Compass 1(9): 646-
60.
McIntosh (1998). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. In
P .S. Roth enberg (Ed. ), Raee, Class, and Gender in the United States: An
Integrated Study (4th edition) (pp. 165-9). N ew York: St. Martin's
Press.
•
•
•
•
•
•
In this chapter 1 draw from thirteen years of teaching high school social studies to
e1aborate on connections bet\veen P4C and deliberative pedagogy, and to explain
how the Philosophy for Children Hawai 'i (p4cHI) approach aims to create democratic
experiences in multicultural schools. The chapter is organized into three sections. First 1
discuss the difference between traditional fonTIS of democratic education and Horton
and Freire's (1990) notion of a citizen's education. Second, I offer the p4cHI
approach to deliberative pedagogy as a resource for translating the ideals of a citizen's
edu catían ¡nto a working claSSrOOlTI practice. Third, 1 share findings that enlerged
from my qualitative case study on the impact of p4cHI on student learning in a high
school Ethnic Studies coUJ:se (Makaiau 2010). The conclusion reflects on my
experiences and desire to advance the pedagogy towards philosophical C0111l11ulllties of
aetioll (popp 1981).
From civics to a citizen's education
In ll1y work as a social studies educator [ am constantly re t1 ectin g on the relationship

between denl0cracy, educatían and the civic nussion of 5chool5. Inspired by the
scholars who came before me (Dewey 191 6; Freire 1970; Vinson 2006; H ess &
McAvoy 2015), 1 ha ve developed beliefs about th e connection between democracy
and educatían, and 1 have worked hard to translate my aspirations into a m eaningful
c1assroom practice. At the heart of this process of ongoing professional development
there has been one democracy-education praxis puzzle that has kept me particularly
engaged. f.,Vha t does it l1lean to experiellce democrac)' in 5(11001?
p.20
In many of the c1assrooms that I've observed the answer to this question is often
shallow and contri ved. C ivics education in the USA is typically interpreted as
instructing students about given citizen knowledge, infornlation, skills , and val ues
(Vinson 2006). Teachers typically pro vide direct instruction on political philosophies
and the bureaucratic role of citizens and elected officials in demacrarie governnl ents.
Lessons often inc1ude memorizing the three branches of government, defining the
separation of powers, and learning about how a bill becomes a law. In these lessons,
denl0cracy is presented as a set of facts that students need to 111enlorize for their civics
exam, and teaching consists of lecturing and c10sed questioning from the textbook.
With an emphasis on the transmission of factual knowledge, this approach has

created generation s of American youth who believe that government and poJitics are
•
•
•
•
•
•
Respectful and ethical civic relationships
One of the definin g features of p4cHI is students and teachers wo rking together to
co-create intellectually safe dassroom cOl11muniti es of inquiry. In Ethnic Studies, I
started this wo rk frOI11 th e outset by writing Jackson's (2001) definition of intellectual
safety (p. 460) on the board. I made m yself vulnerable and used examples from my
own !ife to illustrate why [ be!ieve dassrooms should not only be physically safe, but
intellectually safe as wel1. From there, my students and I worked collectively to think
about the type of dassroom environment that we wanted to create. We listed
exanlples and co unter-examples, [ronl our di verse backgrounds and experiences to
help us explain w hat intellectual safety would look like in the context of ollr
classroom. When our concept map was complete, we ilude the agreement to do our
best to put our words into practice.
Based on the analysis of their dass reflections, this process appeared cri tical for
students' development of respectful and ethical civic relationships.
When intellectual safery .. . is highly stressed . . . This encourages studen ts to be free

trunkers and ir allo\Vs studems [O voice their opinions based 011 their va n ous upbrin gings
and cultural backgrounds .. . This class is coo l bccause we are able ro disc uss any topic
concern ing culture or Ta ce. Ir is sa fe to discuss things here and voiee yOllr apinian, it is a
freedom that \Ve don't really have in other classes .
(Se/lior Nlalc Studcllt 2007)
These ways ofbeing with one another did not always come easy. One student wrote:
In the be!:,>inning of this Ethnic Studies class, it was one of the first times 1 became aware of
whae it feels like to be discriminated. We were going around the cirele talking aboue
eehnicity and one of my c1assmares said to me, '{ thought you were Asían.' T his borhered
me because he assumed that I \Vas just Asian when in my own mind 1 was thinking of
myself as Hawaiian. R.ight at [hat moment 1 realized it hurts to be discriminated by other
people.
(Freshllla/I Nlale St/ldC/lt 2007)
Through experiences like these, we found out the hard way that the establishment
and maintenance of an intellectually safe learning environment is an ongoing process.
This is an important take-away for p4cHI practitioners like me, w ho - in our m..ission
to create a lnore just and equitable civil society - 111USt re111ember that civic
•
•
•
•
•
•
together, we extended our thinking about this problem during final classroom
deliberations of the sem ester.
p.25
Wh en 1 reflect 0 11 these actions a I1Ulnb er of critical questions surface. Could w e

ha ve done more' Is changing one's thinking good enough' What about the collective
and sustained actían neede d for institutional change? Sh ould classroom teachers be
responsibl e for orgaruzing thi s sort of action w ith their students' As time has go ne by,
I' ve C0l11e to believe that the answers to these qu estions are yes, and in lny efforts to
improve upon p4cHI , I want to push th e deliberati ve pedagogy further.
Strengths, limitations and directions for future research
In the full report of this study (Makaiau 20 10) I offer an in-depth look at the impact
of p4cHI 0 11 student learning in a lluinstreanl high sehool so cial studies CQurse and the
w ays in w hi ch this approach w orks to realize Horto n and Freire's (1990) na tia n of a
citize n's educatian. Th e research aims to provide a window 1nto the w ays in whi ch
philosophy, when conceptuali zed as an activity rather than a school subj ect, can be
used by teach ers to establish deliberative and democratic procedures for m aking
classraam decisions, and engage students in philosophical inquiry as pan of their
regular educati a n coursework. It is a strong case that adds ta th e scholarship of
previo us researchers w ho questione d practitioners' abilities to incorpo rate P4C into
the pre-set curriculum (H aynes 2007), integrate P4C into a11 stages of the civic action
process (Gregory 2004), and use P4C as a method for th e democratic reconstruction
of class room managem ent (p. 171 ). Ba und by a 'snapsha t' (Makaiau 2010: 37)
l11e thodology, this study is limited because it does not exam.ine whether or no t p4cHI
had a lasting in1pact on students in their lives beyond the classroom. Longitudinal
research in this area is needed.
Concluding thoughts
On th e role of philosophy in demacratic education, Lipman (1988) writes,
O ne of ehe mose valuable contribueions philosophy has ro make ro che conversation of

mankind with rega rd to civic educatío n is the model philosophers offer of a conul1unity of
inquiry in which rhe parricipanrs are profoundly aware of how much rhey can learn frO l1l
•
•
•
•
•
•
p.27
4
AUTHORITY, DEMOCRACY AND
PHILOSOPHY
The nature and role of authority in a
community of philosophical inquiry
Olivier Michaud and Riku Valitalo
Philosophy for Children (henceforth P4C) is systematically presented as

having among its main goals to democratize education and foster
democratic citizenship. Some of the reasons supporting that claim are
that in P4C children are invited to choose the topie they want to
discuss, to practise the skills and habits of inquiry, and to learn to
respect each other (Sharp 1993; Gregory 2004; Sasseville 2009) . One of
the central elements that P4C shares with democratic education is a
certain perspective on authority. On the one hand, this perspective is
obvious and clear by what it rejects, that is, a certain idea of what
authority in an educational relationship should be, namely that teachers
should not envision themselves as the absolute authority in the
•
•
•
•
•
•
telling him what to do and not to do, what to think and not to think.
Authority is the antithesis of proper education, which aims to create a
virtuous and free human being. Education without authority is the
only worthwhile option, as promoted in the Summerhill school
experiment (Neill and Lamb 1996). The teacher, by refraining from
directly shaping students, gives them the opportunity to make
decisions, learn to use their autonomy and be invested in their learning.
If the traditional model may be labelled as teacher-centred, this one
may be seen as radically student-centred.2.
p.29
The last model used to understand authority in the classroom is

constructed on the basis of a rejection of both aforementioned models.
According to this model, authority should not be understood as a
possession of the teacher alone, nor should it be completely rejected. A
classical representative of this perspective is seen in the works of John
Dewey. In Experience & Educatian (1938), Dewey reJects the problem of
educational authority as expressed through an 'either-or' paradigm, that
is, that it is about eithey accepting the traditional view of educational
authority ay rejecting it completely. For Dewey, this is a false
dichotomy: it forces us to choose between two options, when there is a
third option through which the necessity to choose disappears. In this
case, the third option in vol ves being able to grasp how authority in the
traditional and anarchist models are, at one and the same time, both right
and wrong. Consequently, he proposes a new vision of authority built
on the positive aspects of the first two models while elirninating their
defects.
From the traditional model, we should keep the idea that the teacher
has a role to playas an authority figure in the classroom, and from the
anarchist model, the fact that education has to start from children' s
•
•
•
•
•
•
effacing' (Gregory 2008). Splitter and Sharp emphasize and develop this
point by stating that the teacher should be 'a model of the tools and
procedures of inquiry and what might b e called scholarly ignorance,
that is, the self-conscious display of genuine curiosity and puzzlem ent
rather than a sense of always being "right'" (1995: 140). This
procedural authority of the teacher in CPI is also related to a certain
subject, for CPI is not in fact an inquiry into just any so rt of matter,
but rather into matters of a philosophical nature. In its content and
practice, philosophy, at least as it is understood in P4C, is based on a
p eculiar relationship to authority because it values uncertainty and
fallibility. Since philosophical concepts are ilTemediably open to
discussion , it is impossible to reach a final answer on th e subjects
discussed (Castoriadis 1991; Hadot 2002; Gregory 2008). This idea is
transmitted in P4C through the notion that philosophical concepts are
by nature contestable; we may reach sorne temporary agreement on
them, but they may be reopened to inquiry with time or on the basis
of new arguments or evidence (Lipman 2003). The prerequisite of CPI
is that the subject of discussion is open to inquiry. Neither teacher nor
student can ever claim to have the 'ultimate' or 'complete' answer and
therefore n either can hold authority in such a way. Consequently, the
procedural authority of the teacher is not only bound to the format of
the community of inquiry, but also to its content (philosophy), which
must not be closed authoritatively.
p.3!
The teacher's authority in P4C is finally working toward a goal: its

own disappearance. Hence, P4C theorists (Sharp 1993) have argued
that with time the teacher would have a diminishing role in structuring
discussions as students would internalize th e skills and norms necessary
to the inquiry. In that ideal CPI, the community of students would be
in charge of CPI, and authority would then be shared among a
•
•
•
•
•
•
edll eation of these two allthors and the kind of alltho rity linked to them is
mll eh more complex than we have olltlin ed here. H owever, this a reading of
them that has been often made (Rosenow 1993; Tubbs 2005; Miehaud
2012).
3 H ere we can o n1y refer to the gllalitative stlldy by Olivi er Miehalld (20 13).
References
Arendt, H. (1961a). Crisis in Education. In Between Past and Future.

N ew York Penguin Books.
Arendt, H. (1961b). What ls Authority? In Between Past and Future.
N ew York: Penguin Books.
Biesta, G. (2011). Philosophy, Exposure, and Children: How to R esist
the Instrumentalisation of Philosophy of Education. Joumal of
Philosophy of Education 45 : 305-19.
Castoriadis, C. (1991). Philosophy, Politics, Autonorny: Essays in Political
Philosophy. N ew York: Oxford University Press.
D ewey, J. (1938). Experience & Education. New York Touchstone.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. N ew York: Continuum.
Gallas, K. (1998). 'Sometimes 1 Can Be Anything': Power, Cender and
Identity in a Prirnary Classroom . N ew York: Teachers College Press.
Gregory, M. (2004). Practicing D emocracy: Social Intelligence and
Phüosophical Practice. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18:
161- 74.
Gregory, M . (2008) . Philosophy for Children: Practitioner Handbook.
Upper Montclair, NJ: lnstitute for the Advancement of Philosophy
for Children.
Gregory, M. (2011). Philoso phy for C hildren and Its Critics: A
Mendham Dialogue. Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 : 199-219 .
•
•
•
•
•
•
mediates and models the process of philosophical enquiry. H er chapter
also indicates philosophical critiqu es of the very notion of
developmentalism as a deficit disco urse which positions children as
lacking skills or knowledge.
A popular argument in P4C is that the combination of education

and philosophy is the b est preparation for children' s political
participation, but do es this not also imply that the child is Jormed by the
adult, in order to rem edy a lack? This tensio n is explored by Walter
Kohan and David Kenn edy in their chapter 'Childhood, edu cation and
philosophy: A matter of time', which provokes us to think differently
about child and childhood and beyond deficit models, taking the
philosophy of childhood into new direc tions. They acknowledge their
indebtedness to Matthew Lipman's and Gareth Matthews'
revolutionary role in establishing philosophy of childhood as a distin ct
field of academic enquiry, but are critical of the developmental view of
childhood extant in that field, which presupposes a particular concept
of time and a reductionist notion of potentiality. Drawing on
philosophers Agamben, Lyotard and Deleuze, Kohan and Kennedy
argue that edu cation should not form childhood, but nurture and
restore the experience of childhood itself
p.36
The chapter by Stanley and Lyle co uld be se en as an exemplification

of Kohan and Kenn edy's argument that time spent at school should be
freed from adult temporality (khronos) and instead exemplify childhood
as 'a dimension oflived exp erienc e' (a ion). In 'Philosophical play in the
early years classroom', Stanley and Lyle show, through extracts from
teacher diaries of children's (aged 3- 5) philosophical wonderings, how
the P4C prac titioner can bring philosophy to the early years classroom.
They do this through observation and philosophical listening to
•
•
•
•
•
•
as agents in the process of their own development. The teacher's role
was no longer to stamp in knowledge, but to provide a suitably
challenging learning environment likely to elicit developmental
growth. The nature of students' thinking, and the demands that co uld
be placed on it at difIerent ages, were defined som ewhat rigidly
accorcling to the sequence of stages in the development of reasoning
outlined by Piaget, and considered by him to be innate.
p.38
Lipman, like Piaget, had no formal background in education. Like

Piaget, his starting point was the observation of his own children. The
two men' s intentions were, however, very difIerent. Piaget wanted to
create a theory to explain the development of logico-mathematical
reasoning in the human species. Lipman wanted to create a practice
that would be capable of changing human thinking and behaviour. His
ideas about education were influenced by Charles Peirce's description
of a co mmunity of scientific enquiry and by the work of the
philosopher John Dewey, who argued for enquiry as th e kind of
education appropriate to the development of a democratic community
(Cam 201 1). Lipman's bold proposal was that philosophy be
introduced as a regular practic e in classrooms ±rom the first years of
elementary school onwards. In order for that to be possible, he and his
colleague Ann Margaret Sharp (1995; Splitter and Sharp 1995)
develop ed a p edagogy and materials (the Philosophy for Children
programme) designed to enable teachers in ordinary classroom s to
engage their pupils in philosophical enquiry (Lipman, Sharp and
Oscanyan 1980; Lipman 1988, 2009). Lipman's first text, Harry
Stottlerneier's Discovery, was written in 1969 and piloted in schools in
1970. Lipman was well aware that his proposal challenged Piaget's
(1959, 1971 ) contention that young children were not capable of
reasoning about abstract concepts. His fellow philosopher, Gareth
•
•
•
•
•
•
too question the dominant educational discourse based on
developmental psychology, which is assumed to represent universal
'scientific' truths about human development. Like Burman (2008), they
are concerned about its potential for structural domination, oppression
and inJustice. Other possible discourses, they maintain, should be
considered, asking, for example, 'What would it mean if pedagogical
practice was to embody the ethics of an encounter, treating the Alterity
of the Other with respect, rather than making the Other into the
Same' (Dahlberg and Moss 2004: viii).
pAO
Piaget's stage theory was not only a concern for philosophers. For
many psychologists, the reality ofPiaget's stages was always in question.
Well known examples related to early cruldhood are Bruner (1966) and
Donaldson (1978) and there have been several others. Flavell (1977:
115) wrote that 'the higher the Piagetian stage, the less inevitable its
full attainment by normal individuals al1 human
across
environments ... '; Gage and Berliner (1988: 120) claimed that 'Only
a small percentage of the general population appears to have formal
operational abilities as Piaget defined them'. The notion of invariant
age-related developmental stages determined by human biology is now
generally rejected in psychology. Since the 1990s, if not before, it is the
aspect of Piaget's theory that is considered the least valuable by most
psychologists. With regard to younger children, Meadows (1993: 29-
30) writes that: 'It seems likely that ... the difference between younger
and older children will turn out to be that the former can do what the
latter can; but only sometimes, only under favourable conditions, only
with help, only without distractions, only up to a point, without so
much efficiency, without so much self-control, without so much
awareness of the implications, without so much certainty ... '. As a
science, psychology can do no more than offer provisional theories and
•
•
•
•
•
•
community of enquiry pedagogy (Lipman 1991a, 1991 b).
Thearists of education have, since the 1980s, looked increasingly to

Vygotsky for an understanding of how thinking develops and how it
can be facilitated in c1assrooms. The reasoning processes that Piaget
c1aimed were innate are considered by Vygotsky to be socio-culturally
constructed. Human beings, he says, possess innate 'lower mental
processes', such as attention, perception memory and simple reasoning.
Higher arder reasoning and abstraction, however, are 'higher mental
processes' that have been created by human communities in arder to
extend their genetically determined mental abilities. These
'psychological tools' have been constructed in language within social
contexts and are appropriated by each new gene ratio n through a
process of social mediation. All higher mental processes (psychological
tools), according to Vygotsky, develop within social relations. Logical
argumentation, for example, is said to appear first in children's
conversations and is only later internalized as a conversation within the
individual mind of one child .
Appropriation involves both the acquisition and the possible

modification of previous generations' cognitive accomplishments. For
Vygotsky, cognitive development is not only an initiation into an
existing culture of thinking but also a process by which thinking itself is
reconceptualised. Key insights from Vygotsky tbat are currently valued
in western education are the importance of social interaction and
mediation, the importance of oral language, the learned nature of
thinking and reasoning and the existence of a 'zone of proximal
development' .
p.42
Pbilosophy for Cbildren tbinkers and practitioners bave incorporated

and developed several practices that are consistent with Vygotsky's
•
•
•
•
•
•
the community is considered essential. Both the facilitator and the
participants will be changed by the encounter.
When Feuerstein and his colleagues speak of transcendence, or

bridging, they refer to active efIorts by the mediator to draw attention
to how learning from the current experience can be applied in other
spatial or temporal contexts. For example, the mediator might say,
'Y ou found it helpful when thinking abou t this problem to be very
careful to be accurate, or to sort your ideas into groups, or to consider
the consequences of difIerent answers. Can you think of other times
when this might be helpful to you?' Lipman and his col!eagues would
undoubtedly want participants in an enquiry to apply their thinking to
everyday Me, although they might not favour such a didactic approach.
In Harry Stottlemeier' 5 Discovery (1974), for example, Harry discovers
sometrung about the use of 'all' and 'some' and applies his new insight
to a remark made by a neighbour. Feuerstein would label the text a
mediational tool but would emphasize the need for intentional expJicit
bridging to everyday Jife by the facilitator.
Feuerstein's other criteria for MLE, not al! of which are necessarily
present in all situations, indude: the generation of feelings of
competence and optirnism, the encouragement of self-regulation, goal
setting and sharing, the recognition of individual differences and
perspectives, the creation of a sense of belonging, and of being a
modifiable entity capable of enjoying and responding to challenge. In
the best of enquiry dialogues, most of these criteria would be met,
although the facilitator might not frame her behaviour in trus way.
The mediated learning experiences that Feuerstein advocates focus

on developing awareness of the process of thinking and learning
(metacognition) and on the abiJity to select appropriate cognitive tools
to accomplish a particular task. MLE is usually a more directed
intervention than a philosophical enquiry, but a philosophical enquiry
•
•
•
•
•
•
In ]. Russell (Ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Developmental
Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Matthews, G.B. (1994). The Philosophy of Childhood. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Matthews, G.B. (2009). Philosophy and Developmental Psychology:
Outgrowing the Deficit Conception of Childhood. In H . Siegel
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Meadows, S. (1993). The Child as Thinker. London: Routledge.
Murris, K. (2000). Can Children do Philosophy? J ournal of Philosophy of
Education 34(2): 261- 76.
Murris, K. (2016). The Posthuman Child: Educational Transformation
through Philosophy with Picture Books. London: Routledge.
Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary
Scientist. London: Routledge.
Peirce, C.S. (1877). The Fixation ofBelief. In]' Buchler (Ed.) (1955)
Philosophica1 Writings of Peirce (pp. 5-22). N ew York: Dover
Publications.
Piaget,]. (1959). The Language and Thought of the Child (3rd edition).
London: Routledge.
Piaget,]. (197 1). The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child.
London: Longman.
Piaget, ]. and Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. New
York: Basic Books.
Sharp, A.M. (1995). Philosophy for Children and the Development of
Ethical Values. Early Childhood Deve/opment and Care 107: 45- 55.
Splitter, L. and Sharp, A.M. (1995). Teaching for Better Thinking.
Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) . Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
•
•
•
•
•
•
rest of his days w hispering in a com er w ith three or four lads, and never
u tter anything free or high or spirited.
p.47
(Plato 1989: 485a-d)
Callicles claims that it is beautiful to dedicate oneself to philosophy to

the extent that it serves edu cation (paideia). Not that h e professes any
appreciation for either philosophy or education: they can be together
o nly because they are both, by nature, unimportant, or, at best, a
preparation for what really matters: the political life of adults. In
Callicles' view, education is part of a world prior to th e real world,
which is the world of political life. There are no politics in childhood,
nor in edu cation and philosophy; therefore philosophy is appropriate
for human life during that stage of life just as play (paizo n) is, and it is
even beautiful tb ere, but it can no t last into adultbood, where play is no
lon ger appropriate, and life takes the form of seriou s parti cipation in
political institutions. Anyone who dedicates himself to philosophy in
adulthood becom es one w ho is 'unmanned' (an opposite or negation of
aman, anandrOl), m ainly because he do es not occupy the public place
(agora) and ce ntre of th e city - the places w here citi zenship is realized -
and spends the rest ofhis life 'whispering in a comer' with a few young
people.
The irony of Lipman's use of this passage is that Callicles is in fact

very fa r from Lipman' s vindication of children' s capacity and right to
philosophize. While Callicles deprecates childhood all together, and
sees edu catio n and philosophy as outside the realm of politics, for
Lipman the former are in fact th e best preparation for the latter. As
such, Lipman's use of Callicles is an ambivalent one: even thougb both
would agree that children and philosophy are found together, the
reasons for and senses of that agreem ent have nothing in commo n .
•
•
•
•
•
•
time' - the latter focuses on time as experience, duration, intensity,
lived time and non-linear directionality (see Heraclitus 2001: fr. 52).
Building on the Greek notion of aion, Friedrich Nietzsche (2003)
proposed that we think time as the etemal retum of the same, a circular
notion. In sorne Andean cultures, the past is ahead because it is what
we can see, the future is behind because we cannot see it, and the
present descends upon us from aboye. If we alJow for such different
understandings of temporality, childhood may be understood, not as a
series of stages of life but as a dimension of lived experience - specifically,
the aionic - thus deconstructing the notion of growth and
development as a steady, non-reversible process of extinguishing
childhood. This leads to deconstructing the strict binary 'adult/ child' as
well, and to reconstructing educational discourses and the institutions
over which those discourses have historically exerted hegemonic
power.
p.49
Three notions of childhood offered by contemporary philosophers -

jean-Francois Lyotard's infantia, GilJes Deleuze's becoming-child, and
Giorgio Agamben's 'infancy' - offer pathways for exploring new
possible relationships between childhood, education and philosophy,
and all of them have to do with challenging the hegemony of khrorlOs
in human experience. Deleuze's (Deleuze and Guattari 1980)
'becoming-child' or 'block of childhood' conceives childhood as flux
and intensity - a revolutionary time-space of transformation.
'Becoming-child' do es not mean that adults should attempt to convert
themselves into children, or take children as models: rather, Deleuze is
referring to a non-personal, emergent 'block' or zone that is virtual in
any human being no matter her or his age. It is a movement as much as
a space, composed of 'lines of flight' - escape-lines that cannot be
incorporated or coopted by system, which depends on fixed categories
•
•
•
•
•
•
educational discourses of childhood formation cannot but represent an
intrinsically unsuccessful attempt to forget or foreclose on our initial
debt to indeterrninacy - the inhuman from which every human being
arrives in childhood and to which our actual, chronological childhood
condition testifies. The political task of the difIerent fonTIS of human
expression, including education, is to preserve and nurture that
.
testlmony.
p.51
New beginnings for philosophy
Philosophy is, among other human fomlS of human expression, one of

the closest to that indeterminacy - the more childlike formo In keeping
with the etymology of the teml, which ineludes a form of feeling
(Philos) as a mark of its relationship to knowledge, the philosopher is an
epistemological stranger in the realm of the positive sciences. Socrates'
wisdom is perhaps the clearest testimony to this mark: he is the wisest
because he is the only one among bis peers who does not know, and
indeed, does not believe in knowing. H e is a kind of disturbing insect
in the polis, a foreigner, one with no place (atopos). H e has no positive
knowledge other than that he needs not to know in order to fee! the
real need to know, and that to learn can only mean to remember - not
precisely a knowledge, but most probably an epistemological co ndition .
As such, ever since Socrates, questions predominate over answers in the
practice of philosophy.
The 'school' of philosophy for which Socrates provided the impetus

through his radical epistemology of doubt and questioning is, we may
say, at least partially realized in the Greek idea of skhole - of school as a
site that, in its basic principie of 'free time' or 'Ieisure', honours the
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kohan, W. (2015b). The Inventive Schoolrnaster: Sirnon Rodriguez. Trans.
ViekiJones andJ.T. Wozruak. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lewis, T . and Jasinsky, 1. (201 5). The Educational Community as In-
tentional Community. Studies in Philosophy and Education 35(4): 371-
83.
Liddell, H. and Seott, R. (1966). A Creek English Lexicon. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lindsay, C. (1992). Corporality, Ethies, Experimentation: Lyotard in
the Eighties. Philosophy Today 36(4): 389-401.
Lipman, M . (1981). Developing Philosophies of Childhood. Thinking:
TheJoumal of Philosophy foy Children 2(3- 4): 4- 7.
Lipman, M . (1988). Philosophy Coes to School. Philadelphia: T emple
University Press.
Lipman, M., ed. (1993) . Thinking Children and Education. Dubuque, lA:
Kendall.
Ni etzsche, F. (2003). The Cenealogy of Moyals. N ew York: Dover.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1988a). Le Postmodeme expliqué aux enfants. Paris:
Gallimard.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1988b). L' Inhurnain . Paris: Galilee.
Lyotard, J.-F, (1992). Mainmise. Philosophy Today 36 (4) : 419- 27.
Matthews, G. (1996). The Philosophy of Childhood. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Plato (1989). Th e Collected Dialogues. Edith Hamilton and Huntington
Caims (Eds), Prineeton: Prineeton University Press.
•
•
•
•
•
•
the growing story belonging to the larger classrool11 cOl11munity. Their
conversations are embodied enactments of philosophical co nc epts that
are explored collaboratively with facilitator(s) who have sensitive
philosophical ears.
The practice of philosophy by children takes into account that

children, like adults, often play with unfamiliar concepts with an
underlying sense of puzzlement. R ecognition of the potential in
children's play does not happen without specialized training. Working
together both in the classroom as practitioners and researchers looking
at philosophy by children and drawing on Deleuzian concepts and
ideas, we argue that philosophical play creates a multiplicity of
possibilities for children 's thinking that can be thought of as emergent
assemblages (Prout 2004). The context of the play - the connections
with other human beings, living organisms and material objects -
endlessly constructs and reconstructs 'child-story-artefac t-mo ve m ent-
talk' assemblages that take on 'lines of flight' and create som ething n ew
as the process goes along (Davies 2014). Philosophy by children utilizes
this assemblage to extend th e child's capacity for philosophical play.
Inspiration for making sense of the interactive dialogues comes from

the practice of Vivian Gussin Paley. Over a career lasting more than
thirty-seven years she collected thousands of recordings of h er chiJdren
talking (see Paley 1987, 1991 ). Paley (2005) asserts that 'pretending
enables us to ask "what if?'" questions, and fantasy play should be the
foundation of early childhood education, beca use it enables children to
move from one strong el110tion (concept) to the next, 'from pleasure to
j ealousy, from power to abandonment to recovery' (PaJey 2005: 13).
An environment where philosophy is initiated and driven by children
should be saturated with fantastical stories to stimulate philosophical
play.
Classroom stories are created and collected in spaces where children
•
•
•
•
•
•
'only a game for beautiful princesses' or that an 'ogre with sharp teeth
is a baddie'. Through their imaginary play (e.g. pretending to be a
beautiful princess and what would happen if they were su eh a person)
children already express curiosity about abstract concepts such as
'beauty', 'identity' and 'power'. The children are experiencing in an
embodied way concepts that are recognized as philosoprucal problems
(when philosophers try to define them). The children play different
philosophical positions out in the stories they create and in their
interactions with each other. For example, they experience that you
can be beautiful, but find out that even as a princess you can have very
little power over the ogre with sharp teeth.
Edminston (2007) argues that children can be authoring selves in

dramatic playing as much as, if not more than, they can be when they
act in everyday life . Story and play is at the heart of the process as
children project into the consciousnesses of characters to create and co-
experience events with them. At the same time, they are called upon to
give reasons for their judgements about the morality of those
characters' actions by the facilitator who challenges children to make
sen se of and be accountable for the thinking that happens in imaginary
worlds. Philosophical play therefore needs an experienced philosophical
listening ear from adults who can connect with cruldren's imagination.
U nless children are offered opportunities to play with imagination they
cannot be expected to engage contextually with moral imagination.
And unless teachers can engage with their own imagination there is a
likelihood that children will not be challenged. As Guroian (1998: 26-
7) asserts, 'When the moral imagination is wakeful, the virtues come to
life, filled with personal and existential as well as social significance'.
The following transcripts from Sara's story diaries illustrate the

progression from overheard play to help children 'step inside' the
philosophical concepts their stories have identified. The facilitator
•
•
•
•
•
•
adds the vocabulary of philosophical concepts in the same way she
might introduce words such as 'triangle' or 'ochre'. Her interactions
challenge children to think about such things as power: 'Can you have
leadership in an ant colony? Who decides the rules for ant society?'
The fac ihtator works to challenge binaries through the exploration

of the concepts, offering alternatives to the 'good goodie' or the 'bad
baddie'. Facilitating the blurred boundaries of play (between real and
fantasy) allows us to stretch the boundaries of philosophical possibility
through extended provision to explore the 'what ir and the '1 wonder'.
Opportunity for further facilitation is provided through a range of

strategies that are detailed elsewhere (Stanley 2008, 2011) and follow
on from the philosophical concepts the children are enacting or talking
about. For example, a reculTing puzzlement played out by the children
in the castle was that of 'the Boss'. To further extend opportunities for
philosophical play the picture book 1 am the King (Timmers 2010) was
introduced, which raised the idea of leadership. The story explores
which of the animals in the story should claim the lost crown and
become king. Sara wrote the following dialogue in her diary after the
class had shared the book together.
Sara: Why did hon get to be king?
james: Because he thought he was the king.

Laura: Because the crown fitted his head.
jessica: He can make a crown if that one doesn't fit.
Holly: He's king because he's a lion.
jessica: Lions are always the king.

Poppy: Not in our country.
james: King of Mrica isn't in charge of me.
•
•
•
•
•
•
p.60
We have considered in this chapter what is different about

philosophical playas a means to identif)r what distinguishes philosophy
in the early years. Drawing on transcripts from Sara's classroom ,
theoretical persp ectives that influence this practice ha ve been clarified .
Challenges and barriers to this way of working have be en identified,
both from mainstream education and mainstream philosophy for and
with children.
Our examples show how philosophy is generated by the children's

conversations in the first instance and then through the practice of
adults listening in to th e philosophical concepts to create more
philosophical opportunities through facilitation or provision of further
resources. Sometimes the children' s recorded dialogues are the starting
point for a facilitated enquiry; at other times furth er play opportunities
are planned to build on co ncepts and ideas . Adults' ears must be tuned
into the philosophical potential arising out of play in order to be able
to identify concepts em erging that demand to be explored further:
philosophy by children with adults.
References
Brown, I. & Patte, M. (20 13) R ethinking C hildren's Play. London:

Bloomsbury.
Davies, B. (2014) Listening to Children: Being and Becoming. London:
Routl edge.
Edminston, B. (2007) Fo rming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play.
London: Routledge.
Egan, K. (1983) Education and Psychology: Plato, Piaget, and Scientific
Psychology. New York: Teachers College Press .
•
•
•
•
•
•
p.63
PART III
What is philosophical about
Philosophy for Children?
Introduction
.
Grounded m different analytical, pragmatist and continental
philosophical traditions this section engages with philosophically
conflicting ideas about not only what counts as 'philosophy' and
'philosophical progress' in P4C, but also what provokes researchers and
practitioners to (re)consider the dominant focus and desire to develop
methods for establishing the essence of a philosophical question.
In his chapter, 'Getting better ideas: A framework for understanding

epistemic philosophical progress in Philosophy for Children', Clinton
Golding offers a framework for measuring 'epistemic philosophical
progress' - the development of philosophical ideas in communities of
inquiry. With detailed reference to the P4C literature, Golding
explains how the problem of deciding on progression keeps
(re)emerging, but also lacks clarity.
This chapter introduces important questions for readers of this

section to consider. For example, how do you decide what counts as
better philosophical understanding when exploring philosophical
•
•
•
•
•
•
(rather than scientific, economic, psychological or historical progress).
For the rest of this chapter 1 will use 'epistemic philosophical progress'
and 'epistemic progress in P4C' interchangeably.
My preliminary claim is that children can and sometimes do make

epistemic philosophical progress in P4C (not that they certainly will).
When children treat P4C as an inquiry, rather than as a chat (as
Gardner 1995 might put it), they can make epistemic philosophical
progre ss by articulating a troubling problem, suggesting resolutions,
making connections and distinctions, agreeing and disagreeing, offering
examples and counter-examples, seeing things in new ways, and
suddenly realising new insights. My aim is to illuminate this vague
sense of epistemic philosophical progress.
Epistemic philosophical progress is often mentioned as an important

goal of P4C, though not by this name, and usually only briefly and in
passing. For example, P4C writers argue that a Community of Inquiry
should show 'discernible movem ent and growth' (Splitter and Sharp
1995: 79), 'successive increments of understanding' (Lipman, Sharp and
Oscanyan 1980: 112), a 'progressive elaboration of ideas' (Lipman,
Sharp and Oscanyan 1980: 175), or a 'movement or development of
ideas and arguments' (McCall 2009: 12). The inquiry is cumulative
(Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyan 1980: 112) and should build (Burgh,
Field and Freakley 2006: 165; Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyan 1980:
104), grow, em erge and develop (Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyan 1980:
104). We make epistemic progress in P4C by following the inquiry,
argument or reaso ning where it leads (Lipman 1988, 2003; Splitter and
Sharp 1995); and the goal is 'progress in coping with the philosophical
questions' (Gregory 2008: 11 ) or to 'arrive at one or more reasonable
philosophical j udgements regarding questions or issues that occasioned the
dialogue' (Gregory 2008: 19). My aim in this chapter is to elaborate
and systematise these suggestive hints about epistemic progress in P4C.
•
•
•
•
To understand epistemic progress in P4C we also need to understand
the kind of knowledge , meaning or understanding that is sought by
addressing a philosophical problem; we must understand the epistemic
aim of P4C. What sort of epistemic improvement do we seek? Do
participants seek better ideas or truth? Do they want to clarify,
understand or solve? This episternic aim gives their inquiry a direction
and a purpose, and they can make epistemic philosophical progress from
the problem and towards this epistemie aim. My foeus here is on the
specific episternic aim of P4C, rather than the epistemology of P4C in
general. Others have diseussed the nature of knowledge and truth
involved in the collaborative philosophical inquiry of P4C (for
example, Bleazby 2013; MeCall 2009; Rollins l 1995).
p.67
Different authors in the broad P4C tradition (and their philosophieal

precursors) advocate different epistemic aims for P4C. 1 will outline
five illustrative positions, and the conception of epistemic philosophieal
progress that each implies.~ 1 ehose these five because they illustrate
five distinctive positions about philosophieal progress in P4C, and 1 am
not attempting to be eomprehensive of all possible aeeounts. 1 have not
situated every P4C author on this list beeause 1 do not want to unfairly
pigeon-hole anyone, especially because many accounts of P4C simply
suggest a position about epistemic philosophical progress, and
sometimes suggest more than one. Some of the positions 1 identifY
come from outside the P4C tradition, but 1 include them because they
are key to understanding eollaborative dialogue, because they are
influential on the practice of P4C, and because they have been
explieitly discussed by P4C authors in relation to epistemic
philosophical progress.
1 Socratic dialogue and the epistemic aim of seeking true
•
•
position without also advocating some other epistemic aim.
However, many seem to be influenced by this tradition of dialogue,
and we can better understand the other four positions by
contrasting them with this tradition.
My purpose is to outline a range of possible positions. So even though

1 refer to specific authors, 1 do so mainly to illustrate the possible
positions and 1 will not attempt to give an accurate, precise account of
what these authors actually meant. 1 acknowledge that 1 have given
simplified, possibly simplistic, descriptions of these positions.
p.68
In order to further clarify the range of epistemic aims possible for

P4C, 1 also situate the five iIlustrative examples in a continuul11 (see
Figure 8.1), which is developed from Rollins (1995), Bleazby (2013)
and Golding (2011b) . This continuum does not capture every
epistemological nuance. It is designed purely for the purpose of
highlighting some il11portant similarities and differences between the
epistemic aims frol11 various conceptions of philosophical inquiry.
1 argue that any account of P4C could be placed somewhere on this

continuul11 (after teasing out the implied epistemic aim and conception
of epistemic philosophical progress). At the extreme left of the
continuum is any inquiry with the epistemic aim to get the absolu te,
objective truth. Socratic dialogue tends towards trus end. In the middle
of the continuum the epistel11ic aim of an inquiry is to develop
epistemically better conceptions (without seeking one absolute, right
conception). One conception can be better than another in a variety of
different ways: a Deweyan might aim for more warranted conceptions,
conceptions that improve lived experience, or more congruous and
adequate conceptions (Golding 2009), while further to the right, a
You have either reached a page thal is unava ilable for viel'iing or reached your viel'iing limil for lhis
book.
1 2 3 5
.------------------------------.
On9 absolute e ",stemic aim No apislemic aim
Right aod wrongoonceplions Befiar and worse conceptions. Equafly good conceplioos
Absolute , final, certain ReasoneG:l, rellective PersoooJ, rélative cooceptions
judgerntlnts
Utteral dBscription 01 wortd Answerable lo lile worId Private co-ncep oons
Objacti"" InlBrsubjoclive Subjective
Concaptioos corrnspond to tha Public, social o:::l' I'mrainls on No external oon:41 aints on ttua
one mality lusually seeking conc9ptions Ibu! no! necessarily privale ,co/lCeptions (and nol
consenslJS) seeldng conser.sus) seeking canser.sus)
Figure 8.1 Continuum of epistemic aims in P4C, or what we seek

through inquiry, with the five illustrative examples
indicated by numbers
p.69
In most accounts of inquiry in P4C we seek answers and resolutions

beca use these are better than the questions and problems we start with,
and we seek better and better answers and resolutions. We can use
objective standards to distinguish the better from the worse answers or
resolutions. Lipman suggests we use standards such as impartiality,
comprehensiveness and consistency (Lipman et al. 1980: 174), or
preeision, relevanee, aceeptability and sufficieney (Lipman 2003: 233-
4) . More specifically, one answer or resolution is better than another if
it has greater consensus to support it, has survived more attempts at
falsification, has stronger reasons in support and fewer plausible
alternatives, and so on. For example, an answer to a philosophical
question which has objectively strong reasons to support it, and which
has survived all attempts to falsity it, is better than an answer that has
weaker reasons to support ir and which can b e falsified. Although we
might say that we have reached the 'truth' with this answer, in practice
what we have achieved is doser to what Dewey (1938) would call a
book.
The direction of inquiry (the paths we can take)
As we progress towards our epistemic aim, we folJow different paths

through an inquiry process,Jrom the stimulus for inquiry, and towards the
end goal. For example, as we move along a path we are epistemicalJy
better than where we started because we have progressed from the
question or problem and moved doser to a solution or answer or some
other epistemic aim.
There are several distinctive features about the path an inquiry

follows when we progress from OUT question or problem and towards
OUT resolution (or towards whatever is the epistemic aim of the
inquiry). We progress into uncharted territory and so have to create
our paths rather than folJow established trails (Cam 1995: 52- 3; Burgh,
Field and Freakley 2006: 190). The paths we crea te tend to be indirect,
and we make progress like a 'yacht tacking this way and that into the
wind, rather than an arrow speeding unerringly to a fixed and
predetermined target' (Splitter and Sharp 1995: 25). There may be
false-leads, and we might cirde back to a previous point, but this can
be part of the indirect progress of the inquiry. Also, there need not be a
single path in the inquiry, because we tend to progress by branching
out into multiple paths like 'building a spider's web' (McCall 2009:
101), or like a plant sending forth new shoots (Dewey 1933: chIS, §3).
We can make progress by folJowing multiple lines of inquiry.
p.70
As an aside, it is important to find a balance between sticking to the

emerging path and going off on tangents. Sticking to a path too
rigorously can mean the teacher controls the inquiry, and may miss
unexpected paths forward. Going off on too many tangents wilJ mean
the inquiry doesn't get anywhere - the topic keeps changing, and the
book.
•
•
a milestone, even though there is rarely agreement about whether we
have reached the epistemic aun. For example, it is often clear whether
we have given a plausible reason or a counter-example, even though it
is rarely clear if we have resolved the problem we were inquiring
about.
Reaching an inquiry miles tone only indicates epistemic philosophical

progress if it indica tes we have moved further along the path of
inquiry. For example, just giving a reason for the sake of it would not
indicate epistemic philosophical progress. Giving a reason is only
progress if it moves us from our philosophical problem and towards a
resolution of this problem (or, using a different epistemic aim as an
example, towards a greater understanding of the different possibilities).
Giving a reason to support one possible answer to our initial question
can indicate progress if we next go on to evaluate the reason, to
consider possible objections, and then to make a conclusion about
which answer is best. However, if we instead get bogged down in a
debate, with both sides doggedly giving reason after reason to support
their view without listening to the 'opposition', this would not indicate
progress.
The following five steps indicate a simple and general path of inquiry
in P4C, and the series of milestones for making progress along this
path.J. Other accounts ofP4C with different epistemic aims may have a
different account of the path of inquiry and different milestones, or
they may emphasise some milestones over others. We make progre ss by
articulating a problem as a question, then hypothesising resolutions,
then elaborating these possible resolutions and then evaluating the
possibilities, before judging which best resolves the problem. For some
of the steps 1 have also indicated some more specific miles tones from
the different accounts of P4C 1 illustrated aboye, and 1 give more
details about these specific milestones (described in brackets) in the lists
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
the painting. Can we just take a moment and come back
to ]ack's co mment earlier about Rachel 's metaphor of a
'sad' circus. jack, do you want to add anything here?
Jack: W eU, maybe there' s something in it, but 1 still think it
miss es the point. 1 partly agree with people's
comments ... it's kinda sad, but sad's not a good word
here. I'm stiU bothered by the idea of a circus.
Teacher: Can you say why?
Jack: It's too distracting, it can take us off the topic.

Ben: l disagree, when you put the word 'sad' it makes sense, I
think it helped us get into the picture more.
Jack: Y ou mean painting ... yes 1 suppose it did , but th ere's a
lot more to discuss.
W e discussed jack's point here about staying focussed and how when
we use analogies and metaphors, sometimes we can go in different
directions with our thinking. Sorne students were keen to point out
that this wasn't ne cessarily distracting and there was agreement that we
moved forward in our thinking. Lipman (1988: 180) reminds us of
P eirce's claim that ampliative reasoning, of which metaphor is an
example, corresponds to an 'evolving world': 'it bursts the bounds of
the known and breaks the barriers that our literal knowledge imposes
on us'. This is what art can do for us when we are open to it beyond
the restraints of representation.
An experience with art, like aU experience 'is aesthetic in the degree

in which the organism and the environment co-operate to institute an
experience in which the two are ... fuUy integrated' (Dewey 1934:
249). There was a sense of this demonstrated in this extract,
consunmlated, unified and complete in itself. In subsequent sessions
•
•
Madrid. Available at
http: // www. museoreinaso fi a.es/ en/ collection/ artwo rk/ guernica.
Sharp, A.M. (1997a) The aesthetic dimension of the community of
inquiry. Inquiry: critical thinking across the disciplines 17(1) , 67- 77.
Sharp, A.M . (1997b) The sacred as relationship in the community of
inquiry. In: Palsson, H. , Siguroardottir, B. and Nelson, B. (Eds)
Philosophy for Children on top of the world. Akureyri , Iceland:
University of Akureyri, 5- 19.
Sharp, A.M. (2007) The classroom co mmunity of inquiry as ritual :
how we can cultivate wisdom. Critical and Creative Thinking: the
Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education 15(1), 3- 14.
Shusterman, R. (2006) Thinking through the body , edu cating for the
Humanities : A plea for somaesthetics. Th e Journal of Aesthetic
Education 40(1), 1-21.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
book.
p.260
INDEX
absolutism 114-15
academic j o urnals xxiii, 167
Academy 94
Achinstein, B. 223
acti on 5., 13.; deliberati ve pedagogy 23- 5., 25- Q; warrants for actions
113- 14, 115, 116
active m eanin g making 35 , 40
Adam s, P . 165
adu lt epistemic privilege 54
adulth ood 48
aesth eti c edu cati on 145- Q
aesth etic experi ence 135, 137- 44, 146
aestheti c space fo r inquiry 135- Q, 153- 60
Africa n Ameri can students 223 , 224
Agamb en, G . 49- 50
aiol1 49
akhem y 194-5.
anarchist model of authority 28- 2, 32
App lebaum , B. 16
Arendt, H . 5., Q, 181
argum entati on, logical 41
Aristotle 172; philosophical friendship 94- ,}
art, as experience 135, 137- 44, 146
art ofliving 148- 51
aspirational eros 135- 2, 153 , 155- 2.
assemblages 54, 59
Australia 204, 246- 2.; development ofP4C materials 161 , 163- 70
Australian Council for Educational R esearch (ACER) 165
Australian Institute ofPhilosophy for Children (AIPe) 165
autarchic theory 96- 2
authority 2, 27- 33; shared 29- 32
Baccalaureate 204
Baehr, J. 104, 106
Bandura, A. 156
Baumfield, V. 119, 245 , 246
Beardsley, M . 237
'Beast, The' 7
becoming 155
becoming-child 49- 50
behaviourist learning theory 37
beliefs 105; warrants for 113- 14, 11 5, 116
Beloved (Morrison) 15 , 16
Bereiter, C. 194
Bible 183- -6
Biesta, G. 14, 175
Bildung 149
biology 192-4
Black, M . 237
Blackwell, D.M. 223
blessing 184- ,}
Bohmian dialogu e 67 , 68
brain 85- -9
Brenifier, O. 130
bridging 43
British Council schools linking project Z
Buranda State School, Brisbane 168- 2
Burbules, N. 16
Burgh, G. 245- 2 , 246-~
Burman, E. 39
Callicles 46- -8
Calvert, K. 192
Cam, P. 75 , 167, 168, 170
Camisa, R. 7
Canada 231- 2
canon 183
canonical text 162, 183- 2
caring thinking 128 , 129, 130, 148
cats 192
Center for High School Philosophy xxv
p. 26 ¡
Central America Z
chemistry 194- 2
Chetty, D. 222- 3
child blindness 54
child migrants Z
childhood: developmental psychology 35 , 37-45; education,
philosophy and 35 , 46-52; majoritarian and minoritarian views of
48- 50
China 232
citizen' s education 2 , 19- 26
citizenship :1:
civic relationships 22- 3
civics educarÍon 20
closed questions 76, 78
cognitive dissonance 245- 2 , 248
collaboration 121 ; collaborative problem-solving 195- 7
Collins, C. 202- 3, 211 , 214
common understanding 67
communication 96- .8.; non-verbal 148 , 224
communities of action 25
community 96- 8 ; reasonableness as thinking as a community 127- 9
community ball 23
community of gestures 148
conllilUnity of inquiry (Col) 42, 219- 20 ; aesthetic education 145- 2 ;
citizen's education 2, 19- 26 ; intellectual safety and academic
challenge 231 ; racisl11 and discol11fort in 1, 11- 18; teachers'
professional learning in a classrool11 Col 102, 119- 26
cOl11l11unity ofphilosophical inquiry (CoPI or CPI) xxvi, 1, } - 1O , 41 ,
47 , 67; Chair 84- 91 , 92 ; democratic nature of } - 5.; herl11en eutic
perspective on questioning in 63, 74- 82; nature and role of authority
2, 27- 33 ; as a palil11psest 64, 93- 100; philosophical position 5- 6;
Socrates fay Six Yeay Olds 63- :1:, 84- 91
cOl11pulsory subject, philosophy as 204
conceptual analysis 7 1
con ceptual understanding 206
Confucius 230
co nstructivisl11 206
construcrÍvist developl11ental theory 37- .8., 38- 41
content, philosophical 213
Convention on the Rights of the Child 120
co-philosop hizing 94-5
creative thinking 128 , 150, 237, 238- 2., 242- ;2
creativity 232- 3; promoting 192- 4
Critical & Creative Thinking 167
critical dispo sition 75
criticalliteracy 176- 2
critical posthumanism 173--1
critical thinking 107, 128, 176- 7, 248 ; in kindergarten and e!em entary
school 217- 18, 236- 44; model of the developmental process of
238- 41 , 242- ;2; nature of 237-~; programs 106; Siege!'s
epistemology 113- 15
culture: acknowledging or deconstructing 231- 2; cultural renewal
161- 2, 180- 8
curation of aspirational eros 157- 2.
curriculum: early years 59- 60; models for including philosophy 189,
201- .5.; national curricula 59, 201 ; P4C curriculum xxvi, 17 1- .5.;
philosophical teaching across the whole curriculum 189- 90, 205- 7
curriculum and supporting materials 16 1, 163- 70
Dahlberg, G. 39
Dalai Lama 23
Darwin, C. 193
Davis, M . 258
de Bolla, P. 138
de Haan, C. 167
dedicated P4C / philosophical inquiry sessions 203- 1
deep learning 203
deep reflectiv e thinking 249- 51
Deleuze, G. 49- 50
deliberation 1 , .5., 23- .5.
deliberative pedagogy 2., 19- 26
democratic education 19- 20, 25 , 27 , 47 ; CPI 1, ;2- 10
Descartes, R. 85 , 11 2, 114
developmental psychology 35 , 37--45
developmentalism 172
developmentality 172
Dewey,]. 125 , 145, 151, 206, 208, 248; art as experience 137- .8., 140 ,
146; authority in education 29; community/conununication 96- 1 ,
131 ; demo cracy 4; dialogue 98; human individuality 180; inquiry 5,
38 , 250; pragmatist epistemology 11 1, 11 2- 13, 114, 115, 122;
psychologizing the subject 124; refl ective m ethod 237
Di Angelo, R. 17
dialectics 95 , 97 , 98
dialogical critical thinking (DCT) 217- 18, 236--44; model of
developmental process of 238- 41 , 242- 2
dialogue 48, 83- :1, 258 ; Bohmian 67, 68; deliberative pedagogy 23- 5.;
h ermeneutic 67, 68, 69 ; inquiry dialogue 41 , 153- :1; Socratic 67, 68,
69
didactical questions 79
Diotima 77 , 1 54
direction of inquiry 69- 70
discomfort 1 , 11- 18
discovery learning 40
discursive symbols 192
distan ce 255- -6
disturbance, valuable 122- 2
D'Olimpio , L. 167
p.262
dominant view of childhood 48

Donaldson, M . 40
doubt l1 2, 250- 1
drama 135, 145- 52
drama tic play 55- 2.
dualism 85- 6
early years classroom 36 , 53- 61 ; see also kin dergarten

Edminston, B. 56
education: authority in 28- 2.; childhood, philosophy and 35 , 46- 52;
identity construction and cultural renewal 180- 1 ; synergy with
philosophy in teac her education 190 , 2 11- 14
education for democracy :1
Educational Endowment Foundation 201
Egan, K. 56, 194
egocentricity 239- 40, 242
Elder, L. 116
elementary school 217- 18, 236- 44
Elmer (McKee) 222
embedded philosophy 163
embodied commitment 130
embodiment awareness 156
Emile (Rousseau) 28
emotional temperament 130
emotions 105; reasonableness and 102, 127- 34
empathic engagement 147
empathic thinking 130
empathic unsettlement 143
English, L. 197
Ennis, R . 237
epistemic aims 66- 9, 105- 7
epistemic goods 105- Z
epistemic heritage 11 1- 13
epistemic philosophical progre ss 63, 65- 73
epistel11ic responsibility 106- 1
epistel11ic-scientifie stan ee 95
epistel11ically virtuous age nts 101 , 103- 10
epistel11olo gical perspee tives 239- 40 , 241, 242-~
epistel11ology, pragl11atist 10 1, 11 1- 18
equality, axiol11 of 255 , 256 , 258
equilibratio n 41
eros 154-5; aspirational 135- fi, 153 , 155- 2.
essen tialisl11 xxv
ethical civic relationships 22- ~
ethnic studies course 21- .5.
ethni eity 217 , 220, 22 1- 4, 225
experience: art as 135, 137- 44, 146; philosophieal 77- 9
exp ert readers 176- 1
eye contact 231- 2
faeilitator 31 , 42, 95 ; eurating aspirational eros 157- 2.; faeilitation of

play 55- 8; p4cHI self-study projec t 217, 227- 35 ; teacher or student
230- -1
fallibilism .5.- fi, 112, 11 4- 15, 251
falsehoods, rej eeting 67 , 69
fal sifica tion 71
fantasy play 54- 9
Federation of Australasian Philosophy in School Associatio ns (FAPSA)
163, 167
Federation of Australian Philosophy for C hildren Associations
(FAPCA) 166
Feldl11an, N . 149- 50
Feuerstein, R . 43- 1
Forster, M. 194-.5.
Franee 204
freedom Q, II
Freire, P. 20, 26
fri endship: groups 24-5 ; philosophical 94-5
fu sion of horizons 78
Fynes-Clinton, L. 248- 2
Gadamer, H.-G . 74, 76- 2 , 80

Gardner, S. 69 , 75
General Teaching Council in Wales 120
genuine doubt 250- 1
Germany 189 , 191- 2
gestures 135, 148- 51
giving reasons 70-1
Glaser, J. 163 , 166
goodjudgment 104-.5., 130, 237; see also reaso nable ness
Good Thinker's Tool Kit (GTTK) 23- 1:
Gregory, M . 129
grounded theory (GT) 238
growth, aspirations for 154, 155- 2
Guernica (Picasso) 135, 137, 140- 1:
habituation 150- 1
Hamrick, W. 146
H arry Stottlemeier's Discovery (Lipman) xxvi, 38 , 43 , 147, 166
Hattie, J. 121
Hausberg, A. 193-1:
Hawai'i 2., 19- 26
Haynes, J. 11 , 13, 122, 145
hermeneutic dialogue 67, 68 , 69
hemleneuti cs 162, 182- 2
higher-order questioning 247- 11
higher-order thinking 41 , 173
Hispanic students 223 , 224
historicallayers 64, 93- 100
hooks, b . 16, 159
horizon 77- 8
horizontal conversations 162, 182
Horton, M. 20, 26
Hull, K. 157
humanism 175
I am the King (Timmers) 58- 2

ideas 63 , 65- 73
p.263
identity construction 161 - 2., 1 80-~
ignorance 218, 253- 4, 255- !i, 258

illustrated materials 168; picture books 161, 165- 6, 167, 168, 171- 9,
222
imagination 150
imaginative play 54- 2
improvisation 218, 256, 258- 9
indigenous p eoples 221- 2
infancy 49- 50
infantia 49- 50
infusion model 205
inhuman, the 49 , 50
inquiry 41 , 122; aesthetic space for 135- 6, 153- 60; deliberative
pedagogy 23- :i; direction of 69- 70; milestones 70- 2.; as sociallife
96-~; see a/so co mmunity of inquiry, co nmmnity of philosop hical
• •
mqmry
inquiry-based science 246- 8
inquiry dialogue 41, 153- 4
inquiry values 101, 115- 16
Institute for the Advancement ofPhilosophy for Children (IAPC) xxi ,
xxvi, 95 , 132- 3, 187; curriculum materials 145, 164, 166, 169
institutional racism 24, 224
integration of philosophy into the curriculum 202
intellectual challenge 231
intellectual courage 106- 1, 108
intellectual safety 21, 22- 3, 231
intellectual standards 116
interactive online learning Journal 217 , 227- 35
intercultural tension 231- -2
internalization 173
International Academy ofEducation 122
international conferences xxiii
International Council ofPhilosophical Inquiry with Children (ICPIC)
.
XXl
International Y outh Congress 7- 8

intersubjectivity 156, 239 , 243
intertextuality 185
intervention 231
invention 218, 256- .8.
jackson, T. 228
Jacotot, J. 255 , 257
Japan 233
Jewish education 162 , 182- 2
Journal of Philosophy in 5chools 167
judgment: emotions and 130- 1 ; good 104-5, 130, 237; mediating
judgments 70
kairos 49
Kennedy, C. 246- .8.
Kennedy, D. 15, 39, 96 , 148 , 200
khronos 48- -9
kindergarten 21 7- 18, 236- 44
King, M.L.,Jr 13- 14
KIUght, S. 202- } , 211 , 21 4
Kugel, J. 185
Kuhn, T.S. 115- 16
Landsberg, P. 94
Langer, S. 192
Latin America 256- -7
Laverty, M. 204
Law, S. 182
leadership 58- 9
learning/ study skills 205
Lech ¡'cha 186
Lift Off 166
Lindop, C. 166, 167
Lipman, M. 35 , 93, 96, 115, 121, 153, 158, 165, 174, 180, 203 , 205,
208; approach ro education 37-~ , 40; art 138, 139, 143; childhood
and philosophy 46, 4 7-~; Col 119, 124, 146, 219- 20; CPI xxvii , 41 ;
critical thinking 237; democratic education 25 ; democracy 256;
emotions 131 ; Harry Stottlemeier's Diswvery xxv, 38, 43, 147, 166;
¡APC xxi, xxiii, 145 , 164; invention 257- 8; Lipman and Sharp's
synthesis 96, 98; mediating judgments 70; metacognition 44, 156;
origins of the P4C movement xxiv- xxv, 200- 1 ; P4C curriculum
164, 171- 2., 173 ; philosophical dialogue 83 ; Pixie 129; progress of
inquiry 70; questions 75 ; reasonableness 104 , 127- 8, 130, 157;
religious education 182; standards 69; Suki 138, 146; teacher
education 254- .5.; translation 132
listening 14, 15
literacy 175- 2
logical argumentation 41
logical thinking 237 , 238- 2., 241 , 242- .1
loving attitude 147
Lyotard, J.-F. 49- 50
MacColl, S. 167
MacIntyre, A. 180
Makaiau, A.S. 206
manuals 171- -2
Martín Alcoff, L. 219
mathematics 189, 191- 2, 195- 2
Matthews, G. xxiv, xxv, xxvii, 38- 2., 56, 172
M cCall, C. 69
M cC utcheon, L. 167
McGaw, B. 165
McIntyre, A. 13
M cKee, D. 222
M ead, G .H. 96, 173
Meadows, S. 40
meaning 78- 2.; children as active meaning makers 35 , 40; co nceptual
understanding 206; meaning-centred nature of J ewish education
182- 6; m eaningful conceptions 67 , 68
p.264
m ediated leaming exp erience (MLE) 43- 4

m ediating judgments 70
mediation, socio-cultural 41- 2
Meerwaldt, D. 196
Melrose, A. 176
Mendonya, D. 131
Menter, I. 121
Merleau-Ponty, M. 156
metacognition 44, 107- li, 156
metacognitive growth 156
metacognitive thinking 238- 2 , 242- }
meta-emotions 129- 33
metaphor 142- }
methodological pragmatism 117
Mexico: IntemationaI Youth Conference 7- 8; schools linking project 7
midrash 182- -3
milestones 70- 2
Miller, C. 206
Millett, S. 150
mind- brain relationship 85- 6
mirror effect 119, 120
modelling, mathematical 196
models ofP4C in schools 189, 20 1- ,'2
Mohr Lone, J. 75
Montclair Conference on Pre-college Philosophy xxvii
Moore, R. 145
moral development 38- 2
moral imagination 39, 56
moral order 28, 30
morality 147
Morrison, T. 15, 16
Moss, P. 39
motivation 154; aspirational eros 135- Q, 153 , 155- 2
multiculturalism 11
multidimensional thinking 128
multiple perspectives 23
MuY/eh Kids 166
Murris, K. 11, 13, 39 , 85 , 122, 123, 13 1, 166
narrative inquiry 209- 10

. .
narratIVes see stones
natality 50
national curricula 59 , 20 1
Native Americans 22 1- -2
Nichols, K. 245- .6., 246- .8.
Nietzsche, F. 49
Nikolajeva, M. 176
non-absolutism 114- 15
non-relativism 113- 14, 114-15
non-verbal cornmunication 148, 224
novels (stories-as-text) 164- 5, 167 , 169, 17 1- 2
novice readers 176- -7
Nussbaum, M. 147
Ogawa, R.T. 223

online learningjournal 217 , 227- 35
open-mindedness 106, 108
open questions 76, 78, 79
optional subject, philosophy as 204
Oyler, J. 158
Paley, V.G. 54
palimpsest 64, 93- 100
paper doubt 250- 1
participation 28
Paul, R. 116
Peirce, CS. 12, 114, 115, 237, 248; cornmunity of scientific inquiry
38 , 41 , 97; genuine and paper doubt 250- 1 ; pragmatist epistemology
11 2; sentiments oflogic 129
perfonnance 147- 51
pervasive qualities 139- 40
P eterson, A. 167
phenomenolo gical growth 156
philosophical attitude 76, 77 ; cultivating 79- 80
philosophical experience 77- 2.
philosophical fri endship 94- 2
philosophical play 36, 53- 61
philosophical problem 66, 71
philosophical qu es tions 75, 76- 2.
philosophical stories-as- text (novels) 164- 2, 167, 169, 171- 2.
philosophical teaching 189- 90, 205- 1
philosophizing 63- :,L 84-91 , 177 ; in maths and science classes 189,
19 1- 9; philosophizing-together 94- 5
Philosophizing w ith C hildren about Nature (PhiNa) program 197
philosophy: childhood, education and 35 , 46- 52; epistemic
philosophical progress 63 , 65- 73 ; philosophical analysis of in
philosophy with children 63- 4, 83- 92; synergy with edu cation in
teacher education 190, 2 11- 14
philosophy by children 53- 1
Philosophy for Children (P4C) xxi-xxxi; historical development of
xxv-xxvii; rnisrepresentation of xxiv
Phil osoph y for Children (P4C) curriculum xxvii, 171- 5
Philosophy for Children Hawai'i approach (P 4cHI ) 2, 19- 26, 228 ;
International Journaling and Self-Study Proj ect 217 , 227- 35
philosophy with children 63- 1 , 83- 92
Philo50phy with Kids series 167
Philoso th on 163
phronesis (practi cal w isdom) 108, 148- 2.
Piaget, J. 35 , 37- 41
Picasso, P. 135 , 137 , 140- 1
picture books 161 , 165- Q, 167, 168, 171- 2 , 222 ; selection 174-2
Pixie (Lipman) 129
p.265
Plain Vanilla 23
Plato 28 , 46- 2 , 77 , 80, 164, 172, 253 ; Academy 94
PLATO (Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization) 204
play 36, 53- 61
plurality 2 , Q
Popp, lA. 25
positionality 217 , 219- 26
positive dissonance 122- 3
post-egocentricity 239- 40, 242
post-relativism/ pre-intersubJectivity 239- 40, 242
power 56- 2 ; distributed 23
pragmatism 67 , 101 , 146; inquiry as sociallife 96- 8; methodological
117
pragmatist epistemology 10 1, 111- 18
praxis 1- 2, ª
pre-relativism 239- 40, 242
presentative symbols 192- 3, 194
primary schools 246- ª
Pritchard, M. 128- 2
problem-solving, collaborative 195- 2
procedural authority 30- 1
process, philosophical 213
professional development 121- 2 , 233, 234
professionallearning 102, 119- 26
progress, epistemic philosophical 63, 65- 73
protectionism 181- 2
pseudo-concepts 42
psychological growth 155- Q
psychologlcal questions 75
psychologizing the subject 124
pushing for depth 71
Question Quadrant 75
questiomng 14; in a CPI 63, 74- 82 ; higher-order 247- 12
Quinn, V. 124
race and racism 2.; and discomfort in the Col 1 , 11- 18; institutional
racism 24, 224; positionality 217, 220, 221-4 , 225
Rainville, N. 221- 2.
Ranciere, J. 255- Q, 257
rational justification 114
readers 175- 1
readin ess to question 77- 9
reasonableness : aspirational eros 156- 1 ; and emotions 102, 127- 34;
episternic virtues and 103- 5.
reasons, giving 70- 1
reconstmction of thinking 249- 50
red clover 192
regulative ideal, truth as 114-15
relational ontology 176
relationships, civic 22- ;2.
relativism 113- 14, 11 4- 15, 239-40, 242
reliabiJity 103-4
religiou s education: identity constmction and cultural renewal 161- 2.,
180- -8·, UK -6- -7
"'"'"''''
resistance, teachers' 210- 11
resource materials: development in Australia 161 , 163- 70; picture
books 161, 165- Q, 167, 168, 171- 2, 222
respect 119; respectful and ethical civic relationships 22- 1.
responsibility 103- 1
responsible thinking 238- 2., 242- 1.
rhetorical questions 79
rhetorics of play 53
Ricoeur, P. 183
risk 232
Roberts, R.e. 106
Rodriguez, S. 51, 256- 7
role play 55- 7
Rortian conversation 67, 68
Rorty, R. 130
Rousseau, J.-J. 28
SAPERE 7, 201
Schmid, w. 148- 9, 150
scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) 227- ª
Scholl, R. 245- 2
school linking project Z
Schwab, J. 155 , 158
science: inquiry-based 246- ª ; philosophizing with children in science
classes 189 , 191- 2, 197
Seashore Louis, K. 122
sec urity 232
self- efficacy 155- 6
self- evaluation 132- -3
self-reflection 149, 150- 1 , 209- 10
self-regulated we 131- 1.
self-study 209- 10; p4cHI International Journaling and Self-Study
Project 217, 227- 35
Sendak, M. 53

Philosophy for Children: An International Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy for Children: An International Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

..

Aboll! (he edltors

1 The cOl11l11unity of philosophical inquiry (P4C) : a pedagogical

3 A citizen 's education: the Philosophy fo r C hildren H awai'i

4 Authority , democracy and philosophy: the nature and role of

5 Philosophy for Children and developmental psychology: a

6 Childhood, education and philosophy: a matter of time

7 Philosophical play in the early years classroom

8 Gerting berter ideas : a framework for understanding epistemic

9 Q uestioning the qu estion: a herm eneutical perspective on th e 'art

]O Back ro basics: a philosop hical analysis of philosophy in

11 Dimensions oC the sumphilosophefn: the community of

12 Philosophy for/ w ith Children and the development of

13 Pragmatist epistemology, inqu ity values and educatio n for

14 Changing minds: the professional leaming of teachers in a

15 Thinking as a community: reasonablen ess and emotions

16 Guemica comes to scl1ool: art, philosophy and Jife

18 Curating an aesthetic space for inquiry

19 From Harry to Philosophy Park: the developme nt ofPhilosophy for

20 Readings and reade rs of texts in Philosop hy for Children

21 Education, identity construction and cultural renewal: the case of

22 Philosophizing with children in science and mathematics c1asses

23 Teaching philosophy and philosophical teaching

Sarah Davey Chesters and Lynne Hinton

25 W ho talks? W ho listens? T akin g 'positionality' seriously in

Amy Reed-Sandoval and Alain Carrnen Sykes

26 El11powering global P4C research and practice through self- study:

27 D ialogical cri tical thinking in kindergarten an d elel11entary school:

28 R econstructio n of thin king across the curricu lum through the

Kim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh and Liz Fynes-Clinton

29 Philosophy for teachers: between ignoran ce, invention and

Walter Omar Kohan, Marina Santi and Jason Thomas Wo z niak

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Maughn Rollins Gregory is Professor of EducationaJ Foundations at

Joanna Haynes holds a PhD in Philosophy for Children and is

Karin Murris holds a PhD in Philosophy with Children and is

Enlluanuele Auriac-Slusarczyk is Full Professor of Psyehology of

Vivienne Marie Baurnfield is Professor of Professional Learning and

Gilbert Burgh holds a PhD in Philosophy. He is a senior lecturer in

Kristina Calvert holds a PhD in education and is a freelance

Darren Chetty is a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Education,

Magda Costa-Carvalho holds a PhD in Philosophy and teaches at

Marie-France Daniel is a philosopher of education and Full Professor

Sarah Davey Chesters is a Lecturer in Education at Queensland

Laura D'Olimpio is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University

Eugenio Echeverria is Director of the Latin American Center for

Peter Ellerton is Director of the Critical Thinking Project and a

N atalie M. Fletcher is a philosophical practitioner and res earcher

Matthias Forster received a Master's Degree in special education,

Liz Fynes-Clinton is H ead of Curriculllm and Literacy/Philosophy

Mathieu Gagnon is Associate Professor at the University of

Renia Gasparatou is Assistant Professor at the Department of

Clinton Golding co-founded P4C New Zealand and had different

Lena Green was Professor of Educational Psychology at the

Maughn Rollins Gregory is Professor of Educational Foundations at

Anna Hausberg obtained a PhD in education at the Universiry of

Lynne Hinton, MEd, is Adjunct Professor at Queensland University

David Kennedy is Professor of Educational Foundations at Montelair

Walter Ornar Kohan is Full Professor at the Childhood Studies

May Leckey is Honorary Fellow at the Faeulty of Edueation,

Lu Leng is Assistant Professor at the School of English Education,

Lizzy Lewis is Deve!opment Manager for SAPERE (UK), Partner of