britta saal - intercultural...

InterCultural Philosophy

44

PHILOSOPHIZING WITH CHILDREN – A CULTURAL TECHNIQUE

Britta Saal

Thomas Jackson at Waikiki Elementary School.

Cover picture of Educational Perspectives. Journal of the College of Education / UH Manoa,

Vol. 14, No. 1&2, 2012

ISSN: 2363-6815


45

Introduction

It doesn’t need much to do philosophy with children: a few cushions in a circle,

a philosophical question, a community ball and some time. But is this already

philosophy? Just to give a short answer: Yes, it is. This answer builds on three

pillars, the first of which is the understanding of philosophy as an activity. This

understanding was clearly formulated by Ludwig Wittgenstein who wrote in the

Tractatus (4.112, transl. C. K. Ogden): “The object of philosophy is the logical

clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.” Putting the

focus on actively philosophizing means to understand thinking as a finally

interminable process, marked by asking questions, reflecting, taking different

perspectives etc. Thus, the priority of the philosophizing subject lies in

profound reflection and not in creating a whole theory. The second pillar is the

Socratic approach, which means practicing philosophy in a community in form

of a dialogue or maybe better: polylogue. What is essentially here is the

concrete opening up of different perspectives by the individual members of

the community.

The third pillar, finally, is the amount of numerous experiences of vital

philosophizing with children since now already nearly 50 years. The

P4C(philosophy for children)-movement started in the late 1960s when the

philosophy didactic Matthew Lipman had the impression that his students were

far away from independent and critical thinking. His aim was to change this fact

by teaching already children basic thinking skills like e.g. logical reasoning,

questioning, establishing connections, developing arguments and hypotheses,

etc. Thus, in 1974 he founded the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy

for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State University, New Jersey. Lipman published

ISSN: 2363-6815


46

philosophical children’s books, like e.g. Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery1 (first

published 1974) or Pixie (first published 1981) as well as numerous didactic

materials. Currently, P4C is practiced in more than 50 countries worldwide.

Concerning the notion P4C, the ‘for’ does not refer to philosophy

classes for children, but to an appropriate way for children of dealing with

philosophy. In German one also finds the expression Kinderphilosophie

(children’s philosophy), first used by Karl Jaspers in his Introduction to

Philosophy in a very similar way.2 But since this notion could also imply that –

on one hand – there is a philosophy formulated by children or – on the other

hand – that it is nothing but trifles,3 the term might be less suitable than

‘philosophy with children’ or ‘philosophizing with children’ (Philosophieren mit

Kindern). I prefer these notions since they explicitly stress the philosophical

activity with and of children.

In 1984 Thomas Jackson, who studied with Lipman after receiving his

PhD in Comparative Philosophy in 1979, introduced P4C in Hawai’i. In 1987 he

became a full time specialist at the Department of Philosophy, UH Manoa and

director of the ‘Philosophy in the Schools’ project, a joint effort between the

Department of Philosophy and the Hawai’i Department of Education. By

putting a stronger focus on the community and the aspect of intellectual safety

he slightly modified Lipman’s approach. Jackson also was less didactic and

worked out a simple basic method called Plain Vanilla that can be adopted in

each context. Being active now for more than 30 years the P4C-family in

Hawai’i, supported by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education, can

record a lot of success: There is a recognizable growth of children’s and youth’s

1 The book title bears phonetic resemblance to ‘Aristotle’. 2 See in the German edition p. 11 and in the English edition p. 10. 3 See here E. Martens: Philosophieren mit Kindern. Eine Einführung in die Philosophie. Stuttgart 1999, p. 26.

ISSN: 2363-6815


47

self-confidence in their ability to judge and reflect, there is now the obligatory

P4C-training for teachers and there is the new project of ‘philosophers in

residence’ to support teachers for a special period in the P4C-practice.

Since I started to know about the practice of doing philosophy with

children in 2008 I was very much attracted by Jackson’s approach and activities.

So I was glad having the opportunity this March 2015 to visit “Dr. J.” – the way

everybody, including the children, call him – in Hawai’i. Being there, I was

impressed by the easy and natural cooperation between the departments of

philosophy and education. For my activities in philosophizing with children for

the most part I adopt the P4C-Hawaiian style and at the same time

experimenting with it. In the following I like to introduce Jackson’s main ideas

underlying the P4C-Hawaiian practice.

P4C-Hawai’i – Never in a Rush: Gently Philosophizing in

Community

P / p Philosophy

In order to answer the “monster question” of “What is philosophy?”, Thomas

Jackson avoids the trap of this debate by distinguishing “Big-P-Philosophy”

and “little-p-philosophy”. By this distinction he does not intend to play off one

of them against each other, but rather likes to counter a limited and one-sided

understanding of philosophy which is normally aligned with the Big-P-

Philosophy. The big P describes the academic philosophy and the classical –

that is to say the occidental – canon. It is, thus, what largely is associated with

the philosophy: the “big names”. For most people it is surrounded by an aloof

ISSN: 2363-6815


48

aura and seems to be difficult, sophisticated, and accessible only to a select

few. Correspondingly, philosophy studies are marked to a large part by

learning something about the philosophies of canonical philosophers.

In contrast, the little-p-philosophy is much easier to access. It directly

refers to any human being and means actively thinking by oneself. Jackson

fundamentally assumes that we are all born with a “sense of wonder” which is

the basis for independently philosophizing. By this, of course, he does not

mean the diverse pub talks or a mere exchange of opinions and ideas.

Philosophizing rather means “to scratch beneath the surface” and going deep

into a question and into the heart of things. For this kind of inquiry to happen,

one needs especially an intellectual and emotional safe community as well as

specific thinking tools: the “good thinker’s toolkit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylLnHzfwI0

The Community of Inquiry and Intellectual Safety

Concerning the importance of the community for the process of thinking,

Amber S. Makaiau, a P4C-researcher and high school teacher who received

numerous awards for outstanding and responsive teaching, stresses: “Our

ability to be good thinkers is highly contingent on our ability to work as a

community”. 4 Like already mentioned, putting a special focus on the

community has been outstanding for Jackson’s approach to P4C. He wrote:

“The survival of wonder […] requires […] a special kind of community. […] [It]

requires a refuge and safety”.5 For this idea of an intellectual safe community

there are two guiding principles: The Hawaiian Pu’uhonua, a ‘Place of Refuge’,

4 See: http://www.seeqs.org/community-building-with-p4c-hawaii.html 5 T. Jackson: Philosophy for Children Hawaiian Style – ‘On Not Being in a Rush…’. In: Thinking. The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Vol. 17, No. 1&2 (2004), pp. 4-8, here p. 5.

ISSN: 2363-6815


49

and the ‘community of inquiry’, introduced by the pragmatists Charles Sanders

Peirce and John Dewey. The notion ‘community of inquiry’ stresses especially

the interaction between scientists and the process of inquiry. Inquiry itself, like

Matthew Lipman puts it, is a “self-corrective practice in which a subject matter

is investigated with the aim of discovering or inventing ways of dealing with

what is problematic”.6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmTgPKdcKyw

For a community to be intellectual safe it must be created an atmosphere in

which each individual member feels as a part of the community and, by this,

feels safe to be able to ask any question as long as respect for the other

persons is honored. In short, it must be created a feel-good situation.

According to Jackson, the most important element is here sitting in a circle to

be able to see each other’s faces. In the further course, an effective strategy to

establish a connecting feeling is creating a ‘community ball’. This ball can be

replaced also by a cuddle toy or something like that, but is ideally made

together out of yarn in the first meeting. To do the ball, each member –

including the facilitator/teacher – is wrapping a thread on a card board while at

the same answering to some questions each person will answer in turn. Once

finished, the ball is a connectional sign of the community and authorizes the

person who holds it to speak, like a ‘talking stick’ in the Native American

tradition. However, it is also possible to pass the ball in case one receives it,

but does not like to speak.

Another strategy is the introduction of so called ‘magic words’. These

are abbreviations for longer expressions sounding, as a positive side-effect, like

a secret language and less prescriptive. English examples of those words are

6 M. Lipman: Thinking in Education. New York 2003, p. 184.

ISSN: 2363-6815


50

‘SPLAT’ (speak a bit louder please), ‘IDUS’ (I don’t understand) or ‘OMT’ (one

more time please) which correspond in German to the words ‘BIL’ (bitte lauter),

‘ISTEN’ (ich verstehen das nicht) or ‘NOMBI’ (noch einmal bitte). The list of

magic words can be varied and extended as the community feels. Each group

in any language can develop its own set. With the aid of such connecting

strategies, community building becomes the basic process for the subsequent

fruitful inquiry.

Gently Socratic Inquiry

For the feeling of emotional and intellectual safety to arise, a fundamental

attitude of sincerity, openness, and gentleness is essential. This is why Jackson

calls the philosophical inquiry with children not just ‘Socratic inquiry’, but

‘gently Socratic inquiry’. Very important is here to take time. One of Jackson’s

most favorite sayings is: “We are not in a rush to get anywhere”, because this

‘not being in a rush’ enables the sense of wonder to unfold. By this, the

children’s true own voices as well as questioning and the ability to think for

themselves are nurtured and stimulated. The children have to realize that the

posed questions are no traps they are lead into for being compromised as

stupid; unfortunately in schools this happens far too often. Encountering

children with an honest, sincere, and open gentleness let them lose their

timidity and they open up – also among one another.

Subsequently, a deep going inquiry can start, which “scratches beneath

the surface”. It is Jackson’s conviction – and the experience has confirmed –

that any deepening inquiry will fall on fruitful soil only in such an open and safe

atmosphere where true and active self-reflection is encouraged. In no way

posing questions is concerned with trapping or manipulation. This also requires

ISSN: 2363-6815


51

that the facilitator/teacher her-/himself constantly realizes that she/he as well

does neither know the course and outcome of the inquiry nor the one right

answer. What is mediated by this is the view that philosophers are independent

thinkers and no ‘know-it-alls’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNX_SvkrzjA

Scratching Beneath the Surface with the Good Thinker’s Toolkit

“[A]lthough we aren’t in a rush to get anywhere, we do have an expectation

that we will get somewhere”, Jackson wrote.7 Therefore, the “good thinker’s

toolkit” is a helpful means for giving the inquiry shape and direction – even

though not at all forced. The toolkit as a whole is called in English WRAITEC

(the letters will change, of course, depending on the language) and consists in

detail of seven (self-made) letter cards, introduced to the community little by

little. The particular thinking tools are used to ask for meanings and clarification,

to ask for reasons, to detect assumptions, to reflect on inferences, to question

what is taken for granted, and to seek examples and counterexamples:8

W – What do you mean by …? This tool indicates the need for further

clarification.

R – Reasons: Why is it like that? This tool indicates the need for

supporting an opinion with reasons.

7 T. Jackson: The Art and Craft of ‘Gently Socratic’ Inquiry. In: A. L. Costa (Ed.): Developing Minds. A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Alexandria, VA 2001, pp. 459-465, here p. 462. 8 http://p4chawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/PI-Good-Thinker%E2%80%99s-Tool-Kit-2.0.pdf

ISSN: 2363-6815


52

A – Assumptions This tool indicates the need for detecting

the underlying assumptions of the

position.

I – Inferences/Implications/

If…then…

This tool indicates the need for thinking

about consequences and conclusions of

statements.

T – Truth: Is this (really) true? This tool indicates the need for

questioning what is taken for granted.

E – Examples This tool indicates the need for proving a

claim as true.

C – Counterexamples This tool indicates the need for proving a

claim as not true.

By introducing the thinking tools, the primary objective is to encourage the

children by and by using and applying the tools themselves and, by doing so,

to lead their inquiry into depth and get some insights. Insight thereby,

according to Jackson, can happen in three ways, each of which owns its merit.

The first form of insight is to realize the complexity of a topic, even though

after the inquiry one is more confused than before. The second form of insight

is to detect connections one didn’t see before. The third form of insight, finally,

is to find an answer. In the same inquiry all three forms of insight can happen

and vary individually.

ISSN: 2363-6815


53

Plain Vanilla

Any inquiry arises out of questions. The philosophical inquiry with children is

first of all the children’s inquiry. Therefore, the questions and interests of the

children are the main sources for their inquiry. That is to say, when children

come up themselves with questions, those always should be given the priority.

In case some impulses are needed, Jackson suggests a strategy for to find

starting questions for the inquiry. This strategy, which may it also make easier

for teachers, is called ‘Plain Vanilla’. The name refers to the plain taste of vanilla

ice cream, besides one can choose also between varieties of different ice

cream flavors. This is to say, this strategy is a very basic one and can be varied

in many ways. Nevertheless, the Plain-Vanilla-process has proved to be very

useful and effective. In short, there are five steps:

1) READING a text, picture book, watching a video, hearing a song etc.

2) QUESTION: Each child creates a philosophical question in response to the

stimulus.

3) VOTING democratically on the question the children want to discuss.

4) DIALOGUE/INQUIRY: The person whose question has been voted on

explains some background. Then the inquiry starts by using the good thinker’s

toolkit.

5) REFLECTION/EVALUATION at the end of the inquiry. This can be oral,

written, blind or face to face. Important is to initiate a reflection process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqiHX_fdwqM

In all of this, the most important thing is making the children realize that the

topics come from them and that they determine the course by their interests.

ISSN: 2363-6815


54

Once the children realized this, the quality and seriousness of their thinking is

truly amazing. As written above, Jackson always stresses that p4c Hawai’i is not

in a rush to get anywhere. But in the end we always can realize that “we have,

nevertheless, gotten somewhere … and the reason we have ‘gotten

somewhere’ is because we have not been in a rush!”9 (Jackson 2004, p. 8)

9 Jackson 2004, p. 8.

ISSN: 2363-6815


55

References

(All internet sources have been accessed lastly October 13, 2015.)

Educational Perspectives. Journal of the College of Education, University of

Hawai‘i at Manoa, Vol. 14, No. 1&2 (2012), Special issue: Philosophy for

Children:

https://coe.hawaii.edu/sites/default/files/field/attachments/publications/

Vol44-1-2.pdf

Jackson, Thomas E.: “The Art and Craft of ‘Gently Socratic’ Inquiry”, in: Arthur

L. Costa (ed.): Developing Minds. A Resource Book for Teaching

Thinking. Alexandria, VA: 2001, 3rd edition, pp. 459-465.

Jackson, Thomas E.: “Philosophy for Children Hawaiian Style – ‘On Not Being

in a Rush…’”, in Thinking. The Journal of Philosophy for Children (Upper

Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for

Children/IAPC), Vol. 17, No. 1&2 (2004), pp. 4-8.

Jaspers, Karl: Einführung in die Philosophie. München 1953; Engl.: Way to

Wisdom. An Introduction to Philosophy. New Haven 1960.

Lipman, Matthew: Thinking in Education, 2nd ed. New York 2003.

Martens, Ekkehard: Philosophieren mit Kindern. Eine Einführung in die

Philosophie. Stuttgart 1999.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by C. K.

Ogden. London: 1981.

ISSN: 2363-6815


56

Links

Interview with T. Jackson: https://vimeo.com/58100033

URL P4C-Hawai’i: http://p4chawaii.org/

URL IAPC-Montclair: http://www.montclair.edu/cehs/academics/centers-and-

institutes/iapc/

URL SEEQS: http://www.seeqs.org/community-building-with-p4c-hawaii.html

ISSN: 2363-6815

britta saal - intercultural...

Documents