I think, therefore I don’t use P4C

Plato and Rousseau did not think children should study philosophy. Being the two most prominent philosophers of education, this is a pretty damning indictment of their own discipline. Plato argued that a philosophical education was essential for his guardians but cautioned against introducing them to philosophy too young because it risked the chance of them becoming cynical and engaging in self-aggrandising word-play rather than seeing philosophy as a noble pursuit of truth. In Emile (which may not reflect Rousseau’s views about a practical education system) Rousseau argues against introducing young children to philosophy because they should be engaging in the world of real objects rather than engaging in introspection. In colourful language he states “I see nothing more stupid than these children who have been reasoned with so much.”

I disagree with Plato and Rousseau however I think they are right that teaching philosophy in the wrong way to children can do more harm than good. Getting infants to talk about ancient paradoxes like Theseus’ Ship can be good fun. Seeing young minds thinking hard and their sudden enthusiasm for sharing an idea when they think they’ve come up with a solution is undeniably cute. However, I think teachers need to think carefully about what they are aiming to achieve by dedicating classroom time to such a discussion. Do you want them to remember the paradox? Do you want them to be able develop the ability to analyse like a philosopher? Or do you want to create a space where pupils are encouraged to listen to each other and discuss ideas constructively? I do not think any of these aims are worthless, however we should be wary of calling them all philosophy. The last aim in particular sounds a bit like glorified circle time. If we allow pupils to grow up thinking that is what philosophy is then we are misleading them.

This is a particular worry because I think lots of what is called philosophy for children (P4C) might just be a structure which could enable philosophical discussion but could also enable discussions which are irrelevant to philosophy.  Unless teachers are careful about the content being explored through P4C then we run the risk of children thinking philosophy means ‘opinion-sharing’ or ‘an opportunity for me to speak a lot’ or ‘pointless disagreement’ or ‘not writing’. Consequently, if the structure is to be used and it is going to be pitched as ‘philosophy’, then it has to be used carefully. Firstly, the issues being discussed must be either explicitly philosophical or have major philosophical themes lurking beneath the surface. Secondly, the philosophy must be at the forefront of the discussion and if pupils stray away from the philosophy then this minimally needs to be pointed out by the teacher or ideally the discussion needs to be re-directed back to the philosophical content. Thirdly (and most controversially), the teacher needs to know the answer and lead the discussion towards that answer.

Saying teachers need to know the answer to philosophical questions might seem like I’ve lost the plot. To many outsiders, the defining feature of a philosophical question is that it is unanswerable. However, the unanswerability of philosophical questions is a caricature. Philosophical questions are hard to answer and many are open. But the questions do have answers. It is simply that for most debates, those answers are themselves challenged. Furthermore, it is through understanding those answers that one can truly appreciate the brilliance of great philosophy. So, if teachers want to use structures like P4C, they need to know these answers and use the structure to push students towards these answers. To not do so detracts from the value of studying philosophy and furthermore it can breed cynicism about what philosophy is. If pupils do not experience the ability of philosophy to refine and resolve problems in their earliest encounters with the discipline, then they are likely to develop many of the vices that Plato predicted.

On a related note, without the teacher knowing the answer and guiding the discussion towards that answer, the P4C structure can give pupils an over-inflated sense of their own prowess. If there is no direction to the discussion then it can make the participants believe that each opinion is equally valid. If the pupil comes out of the lesson thinking “I’m a great philosopher because I have an opinion,” then I would argue something has gone wrong. Firstly, it is unclear they have learnt anything as presumably they had opinions beforehand. Secondly, they clearly are not thinking like a philosopher if they are not justifying their beliefs through arguments. As I unpopularly remind classes: we all have opinions, that doesn’t mean some opinions aren’t wrong. Yet an explicit aspect of the P4C method is that all enquirers are equal which can then give pupils the tacit message that their opinion is equally correct to someone else’s even if that other person has carried out better reasoning.

As is probably clear at this point, I’ve not consistently experienced P4C enquiries which I would deem storming successes. Maybe I’m just not a very good facilitator. Even in the hands of good facilitators though, I think the structure of P4C is problematic as it can allow a few children to dominate the discussion. These tend to be the most able students who enjoy the conceptual analysis and at times do seem to experience moments of genuine insight. The problem is that the structure allows other pupils to opt out. These pupils are hopefully learning by listening. But it is highly likely that these pupils will find it harder to follow the thought processes of their semi-articulate peers than they would find it to follow a careful explanation from their teacher. So instead, especially for a child’s earliest encounters with philosophy, I would suggest the teacher plays a more prominent role than just as a facilitator of a discussion. They should explain the problem/question then model the process by which a philosopher would answer the question through a dialectical refinement. Facilitating a discussion at this stage may prove fruitful but to do so before seems like an inefficient and potentially purposeless use of classroom time. Eventually, when a class is well versed in the methods of philosophy and clearly understands what distinguishes philosophy from other subjects then it may be appropriate to use a structure like P4C where a discussion is generated from a stimulus with minimal teacher guidance.

What I am not doing is criticising what is happening in classrooms up and down the country during P4C or philosophical enquiries or philosophy circles. Many of the primary and secondary teachers I know who use P4C do recognise the need to be more active facilitators. I think good work maybe happening at these points in the school day even though short-minded managers may worry about the lack of evidencable progress. However, I think that there are risks involved in using the P4C structure which means teachers should either adapt their practice or adopt other methods for teaching philosophical content.  So that these risks can be avoided, I will reiterate:

• P4C can give pupils a false impression of what constitutes philosophy if non-philosophical content is used.
• P4C can give pupils a stubborn sense of entitlement to the truth of their own opinions whereas philosophy should ideally make pupils more open-minded.
• P4C may be an inefficient method of transmitting philosophical knowledge.