Re: Philosophy for Children
diane celia hodges (dchodges who-is-at interchg.ubc.ca)
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:05:07 -0800
>
>At 3:56 AM 12/11/97, Nicole Vincent wrote:
>
><snip>
>>, my interest in P4C starts at
>>Lipman's use of "the Socratic method" as the basis for P4C.
>>
><snip>
>>Anyway, I feel that the methods used in P4C do suffer greatly from some of
>>the material such as "Harry Stotlemeier" which, as you put it, seems to be a
>>little Socrates in disguise who asks questions that he already knows the
>>answers to :-) But this is precisely why I'd like to integrate Vygotsky's
>>sociocultural approach more thoroughly and tie it in to P4C. The whole idea
>>of a Community of Inquiry, the role of dialogue in learning, and so forth
>>reeks to me amazingly of the zone of proximal development, the dialogic
>>structure of individual thought (discussed by Fernyough and many others as
>>well I guess), and of Vygotsky in general. By applying Vygotsky's approach
>>in a systematic matter to P4C, I think it should actually be possible to
>>make
>>better use of P4C, and maybe even to convince educators around the globe to
>>take it more seriously than just as "another lesson" to be part of an
>>existing indoctrinatory curriculum (just my opinion), which is how P4C is
>>currently being treated in the few Australian schools which have given it a
>>try.
>
>Vygotsky... he's that Russian guy eh? (haha) -
>I am not sure how this could work, although I see
>your connection, that P4C is about learning-through-dialogue; by the same
>token, of course, P4C is so
>blatantly advacing an agenda of a very particular and privileged kind of
>"philosophy";
>
>" Critical Thinking", specifically; and as you note, it isn't really
>dialogue at all, it's just manipulative psuedo-Socratice discourse ...
>
>Oh, an anecdote ....an anecdote!! I have an anecdote!!
>As an undergrad, floudering about in liberal arts for a year, I found
>myself in a
>course on Existentialism, being taught by a nun, Sister Prudence: (oops!
>wrong anecdote! ha ha) -
>
>that is to say, my readings of Heideggar sparked a weird chord in me, and
>I literally
>fled to Early CHildhood Education, insisting that chldren needed
>philosophy in their curriculum.
>
>"What is Called Thinking", to me, articulated something quite
>profound about 'thinking'
>
>which
>was not "critical thinking" but a deeper analytical approach,
>
>tied to the linguistic relations between the thing and the "idea" of the
>thing; and the
>(anyone remember this gem?) the "thingliness" of things....
>
>ANYWAY, years later I was drawn to P4C for this reason:
> and was quite shocked by the linearity of
>the curriculum, the sexism, the masculine posturing,-
> basically, the content of the curriculum betrays its androcentric politic.
>
> How socio-culturalism could boost this failing, I don't know...
>
>the role of "dialogue" in
>learning tends to play over the school's soundtrack, which, like Harry
>Stottlemeir, prefers to
>pursue questions to which the answers are already known.
>"Dialogue", like "voice", and "narrative", is a pop song now, an artifact
>which,
>
>like Mickey Mouse, has so many manufactured versions and interpretations
>that it could mean anything. I find the same thing happening, too, with
>Vygotsky and
>the zpd - it's "taken" as an artifact, the "zpd" is a tool which schools
>can manipulate
>
>to ...what, "enhance" learning? (what the expletive does that mean anyway???)
>
>what I mean is,
>to bastardize my favourite Heideggarian crypto-idiom, "The ZPD is."
>
>I'm not trying to thunder and rain here: The issue of P4C is content.
>
>The obsessions about
>HOW to maximize learning opps in schools need also to think about the
>WHAT, obviously:
>
>P4C is so full of its HOW that the WHAT is just another extension of its
>HOWness
>(hey do I sound like Jay? ha ha - aw Jay, you know I like to tease you ) -
>
>I think philosophy for children is a great idea, but I'd rather tell horror
>stories about Neitzche's syphillis, and his mad rantings:
> that is so damned interesting.
>
>Or, what about Kierkegaard's puzzling over faith, that biblical anecdote of
>Abraham and his son - I mean, wow. That's a helluva story, and Keirkegaard's
>reading is a helluva good one. Why can't that be philosophy for children?
>
>My point is that these are damn fine examples of philosophy,
> and the HOW
>of their thinking is important, but it's related to the WHAT of the their
>thoughts:
>this is the key key key key major KEY to understanding philosophy... i
>think: not
>HOW are you thinking but WHAT are you thinking about?
>
>I think the recent discussions about "dialectical" approaches might offer
>a point of
>entry for philosophy for children, in terms of elevating the possibilities
>
>for, e.g., a children's circle discussion of what Abraham should have done
>when God told him to off his kid.
>
>diane
>
>
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."
Ani Difranco
*********************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
tel: (604)-253-4807
email: dchodges who-is-at interchange.ubc.ca