Filozofia dla dzieci Wywiady

Philosophy with children (P4C) past, present and future [wersja angielska, rozszerzona]

Krzywoń Gregory filozofia z dziećmi
Po lewej Maughn Rollins Gregory, po prawej Łukasz Krzywoń
Łukasz Krzywoń talks with Maughn Rollins Gregory, successor of Matthew Lipman at Montclair State University.

Zapisz się do naszego newslettera

Wywiad ten w języku pol­skim w nieco okro­jonej wer­sji moż­na przeczy­tać > tutaj.

Tell us in a nut­shell what you are cur­rent­ly doing?

I am a pro­fes­sor of the fac­ul­ty of Edu­ca­tion­al Foun­da­tions at Mont­clair State Uni­ver­si­ty. I teach class­es in phi­los­o­phy of edu­ca­tion, gen­der issues in edu­ca­tion, edu­ca­tion and democ­ra­cy, and the ethics and pol­i­tics of edu­ca­tion­al assess­ment. I also con­duct research in these areas and I am the Direc­tor of the IAPC (Insti­tute for the Advance­ment of Phi­los­o­phy for Chil­dren).

Is this the role you took after Matthew Lip­man?

Exact­ly, since he retired in 2001. I start­ed work­ing at the uni­ver­si­ty in 1997, but at the begin­ning I was not per­mit­ted to work direct­ly in phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren, because I was hired for oth­er tasks. It was a few years before I was able to work close­ly with Mat Lip­man and Ann Mar­garet Sharp at the Insti­tute, and then in 2001 I became direc­tor.

Why did you become inter­est­ed in phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren?

Since I was young I had many ques­tions about life—mostly about the Mor­mon reli­gion in which I was raised—and my moth­er, who is devout but also a ques­tion­er and a seek­er, encour­aged my ques­tions and enjoyed dis­cussing ideas with me. Some­times, when we found our­selves deep in a the­o­log­i­cal per­plex­i­ty, she would pick up the tele­phone and call a reli­gious author­i­ty to get some guid­ance. She was also a school­teacher, and I spent many sum­mer after­noons with her, prepar­ing her class­room for the new school year and talk­ing about what and how she would be teach­ing. When I began to study phi­los­o­phy in col­lege, I rec­og­nized that I had been doing phi­los­o­phy with my moth­er for many years. In those years, I often shared with my moth­er what I was read­ing or dis­cussing in my phi­los­o­phy cours­es and then dis­cuss it fur­ther with her. While I was an under­grad­u­ate phi­los­o­phy stu­dent my moth­er found an arti­cle about phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren (P4C) in an edu­ca­tion mag­a­zine and shared it with me. The descrip­tion made the pro­gram seem con­gru­ent with the best of the sem­i­nar-style phi­los­o­phy cours­es I had tak­en and with the Socrat­ic dis­cus­sions my moth­er con­duct­ed in her own class­room. After my under­grad­u­ate degree I took a detour from phi­los­o­phy into law, which was excel­lent train­ing for me, but I missed phi­los­o­phy. After law school I clerked for a coun­ty judge for a few years, after which I decid­ed to take a break from law to get a mas­ters degree in phi­los­o­phy. I went to the Uni­ver­si­ty of Hawaii, where I could study com­par­a­tive Asian and west­ern phi­los­o­phy, and where they had a strong phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren pro­gram direct­ed by Dr. Thomas E. Jack­son. I stud­ied San­skrit, Bud­dhist and Hin­du phi­los­o­phy, had won­der­ful sem­i­nars on medieval phi­los­o­phy, aes­thet­ics, and Kant, and fell in love with phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren.

Sure­ly you remem­ber Lip­man and Sharp well. What was it like to be a mem­ber of their team?

I met Mat Lip­man and Ann Sharp in Mex­i­co City, where I was study­ing for a PhD in Phi­los­o­phy with a spe­cial­iza­tion in phi­los­o­phy for children—the first pro­gram of that kind—at the Jesuit, Uni­ver­si­dad Iberoamer­i­cana. Wal­ter Kohan, Ji-Aeh Lee, Chris­tine Gehrett, Gilbert Tal­bot, and Eduar­do Rubio were in the doc­tor­al cohort with me, and Tere­sa de la Garza was the pro­gram direc­tor. Mat and Ann were two of the pro­fes­sors who flew in from around the world to teach cours­es and advise stu­dents. A job came up at Mont­clair State Uni­ver­si­ty while I was writ­ing my dis­ser­ta­tion, and know­ing that was where P4C began and that I want­ed to be part of it, I applied.

It was an hon­or to work close­ly with Mat and Ann while they were both very active. David Kennedy and Mark Wein­stein are also in the depart­ment. The Uni­ver­si­ty had mas­ters degree pro­grams in Crit­i­cal Think­ing and Phi­los­o­phy for Chil­dren, and while I was there we cre­at­ed a doc­tor­al pro­gram in ped­a­gogy with a spe­cial­iza­tion in phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren. We ran the IAPC work­shops at Mend­ham twice a year for two weeks each time, and we had (and still have) a num­ber of inter­na­tion­al vis­it­ing schol­ars study with us for weeks or months at a time. The IAPC pub­lished the jour­nal Think­ing (Kennedy even­tu­al­ly took over as chief edi­tor in place of Lip­man). We were all doing our own research, on phi­los­o­phy of edu­ca­tion as well as phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren. And we worked with a small num­ber of local schools, bring­ing grad­u­ate stu­dents in to do phi­los­o­phy with chil­dren and to work with teach­ers in learn­ing how to do that. In the years that I was at the IAPC, Mat didn’t trav­el a lot but Ann was con­stant­ly on the move, all over the world. I was able to trav­el with her a num­ber of times, speak­ing at aca­d­e­m­ic con­fer­ences and con­duct­ing P4C work­shops.

What was the dynam­ics of work between Lip­man and Sharp? It often hap­pens that one side sup­ports the oth­er in what it is stronger. How was it in their case? Who did what in this duet?

This is an inter­est­ing ques­tion. I recent­ly pub­lished a book with Megan Laver­ty on Ann’s schol­ar­ship, for which we researched her per­son­al and pro­fes­sion­al life. Ann died before she man­aged to pub­lish her own book based on all the arti­cles and book chap­ters she had writ­ten. She was very gen­er­ous and shared her texts at con­fer­ences so that they could be print­ed in local jour­nals. So her work was spread all over the world, in dif­fer­ent lan­guages. Much of it is dif­fi­cult to find, because her arti­cles did not always appear in main­stream philo­soph­i­cal or edu­ca­tion­al jour­nals. Our work con­sist­ed in find­ing many of these texts and trans­lat­ing them. We also invit­ed con­tem­po­rary schol­ars to write crit­i­cal eval­u­a­tions of her work. Anoth­er rea­son we put this book togeth­er has to do with the dynam­ic between her and Mat. Mat pub­lished much more than Ann, who spent so much time deal­ing with the dis­sem­i­na­tion of the method, con­duct­ing work­shops, direct­ing the degree pro­grams at Mont­clair, and help­ing var­i­ous peo­ple start their own P4C pro­grams all over the world. In fact, since the book came out, many peo­ple have expressed sur­prise that Ann Sharp had writ­ten as much as she had (only a frac­tion of which was col­lect­ed in the book). Mat was the offi­cial direc­tor of the IAPC, but he and Ann dis­cussed every aspect of the Institute’s work togeth­er and made most admin­is­tra­tive deci­sions togeth­er.

So she was involved in “apos­tolic” work?

Exact­ly. Mat wrote his philo­soph­i­cal nov­els for chil­dren alone, but the teacher man­u­als for their use were writ­ten along with oth­ers, main­ly Ann. Lat­er, she also wrote her own nov­els for chil­dren. Also, Mat usu­al­ly only taught one or two cours­es a year for Mont­clair, but Ann typ­i­cal­ly taught two or three per semes­ter. That’s around 100 stu­dents a year, to assess and over­see their progress.

You’ve been in the P4C envi­ron­ment for two decades. We meet in Europe, where things have start­ed to live their lives. What has changed over the years? This was the sub­ject of many con­ver­sa­tions dur­ing this year’s SOPHIA meet­ing. What is your reflec­tion?

It’s an inter­est­ing top­ic. Recent­ly I’ve been research­ing the his­to­ry of the move­ment. It is inter­est­ing how the under­stand­ing of children’s philo­soph­i­cal prac­tice has changed over the years. For exam­ple, Lip­man and Sharp’s first book explain­ing phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren did not con­tain any men­tion of the com­mu­ni­ty of inquiry, for which they lat­er became so famous. Anoth­er exam­ple is how Mat’s the­o­ry of think­ing evolved. His first edi­tion of Think­ing in Edu­ca­tion was only on crit­i­cal and cre­ative think­ing, which he described as “high­er-order think­ing.” Lat­er, he and Ann he devel­oped the idea of car­ing think­ing. I think the way that the the­o­ry of P4C devel­oped at the IAPC in con­junc­tion with the prac­tice of doing phi­los­o­phy in schools, with giv­ing so many work­shops for teach­ers and philoso­phers, and with exchang­ing ideas with col­leagues from so many parts of the world, is impor­tant. I believe the strength, rich­ness and longevi­ty of the IAPC approach to P4C is a result of this mul­ti­fac­eted devel­op­ment. It was nei­ther a case of devel­op­ing the­o­ry first and then sim­ply apply­ing it, or of devel­op­ing a prac­tice and then the­o­riz­ing about it. Each of those aspects informed the oth­er. And the geo­graph­i­cal, cul­tur­al, philo­soph­i­cal, dis­ci­pli­nary, and age diver­si­ty of peo­ple involved in the work pro­vid­ed a nec­es­sary depth. In one of the last talks Ann gave before her death, she empha­sized the need for P4C to remain cur­rent by con­tin­u­al­ly learn­ing from and con­tribut­ing to new devel­op­ments in phi­los­o­phy, edu­ca­tion, and social move­ments. Not that this devel­op­ment has been smooth, by any means! I’ve seen and tak­en part in quite a few heat­ed dis­agree­ments about the mate­ri­als, meth­ods, and ground­ing the­o­ries of just the IAPC approach to P4C! To say noth­ing of what is now a glob­al phe­nom­e­non of brand­ing of dif­fer­ent approach­es.

And what has changed since Lip­man and Sharp are gone?

At the IAPC we have been pay­ing more atten­tion to the so-called “Arc of Inquiry”—the tra­jec­to­ry from a prob­lem or ques­tion, through var­i­ous avenues of gen­er­at­ing and test­ing pos­si­ble respons­es, toward nar­row­ing down on what is most rea­son­able or mean­ing­ful or sat­is­fy­ing. This under­stand­ing of inquiry as some­thing that begins in prob­lem­at­ic expe­ri­ence and aims for improved expe­ri­ence orig­i­nates in prag­ma­tism, of course, but the IAPC approach to philo­soph­i­cal dia­logue doesn’t depend on any­one being a prag­ma­tist! But this is the way we now con­duct our work­shops. This is not a big change, but it is a kind of an evo­lu­tion of the Lipman/Sharp method.

And in prac­tice, the func­tion­ing of uni­ver­si­ties in the US has also changed, which are more and more sim­i­lar to the cor­po­rate and busi­ness mod­el. The gov­ern­ment is less and less sup­port­ing high­er edu­ca­tion, includ­ing our uni­ver­si­ty, so pro­grams and fac­ul­ties like ours have to find the mon­ey to sup­port our­selves. In the past, the IAPC had four full-time employ­ees and three per­ma­nent lec­tur­ers, who were able to release part of their work­ing hours to the Insti­tute. That’s very much in the past. We used to have a whole build­ing, which was lat­er reduced to a suite of offices, and then to part of a stor­age room. In addi­tion, there are changes in the edu­ca­tion sys­tem at every lev­el that work against doing phi­los­o­phy in schools the way we con­ceive it: a high-account­abil­i­ty mod­el, stan­dard­ized test­ing, pay prob­lems, and the assess­ment of teach­ers and schools based on stu­dent test scores.

It sounds like things are going down a bit. It’s a bit wor­ry­ing. We in Europe are also striv­ing for more phi­los­o­phy in edu­ca­tion. Many good ini­tia­tives appear here and there. What, then, do you see for us in the near future? What can we do?

In fact, phi­los­o­phy in the Unit­ed States has nev­er had it easy. It has nev­er been wide­ly rec­og­nized as part of our cul­tur­al her­itage. There have been many impor­tant US philoso­phers, but phi­los­o­phy has nev­er been a required course of study in sec­ondary edu­ca­tion in any state. So from the very begin­ning it was a dif­fi­cult task. The IAPC pro­gram devel­oped much faster in oth­er parts of the world than local­ly, in the US. In the near future, it is promis­ing that var­i­ous approach­es to doing phi­los­o­phy with chil­dren in schools have been devel­oped, in the Unit­ed States and around the world. Peo­ple no longer think that the IAPC approach is the only good approach—in fact, many are quite crit­i­cal of it. Per­haps Ann and Mat thought about their work in this way. Today those of us work­ing at the IAPC believe our approach is good and well-researched, but we nev­er thought it was the only way to do phi­los­o­phy with chil­dren. A new P4C pro­gram at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas A&M, and a new mas­ters pro­gram in P4C at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Wash­ing­ton are good signs that the move­ment is grow­ing again in the US. And the orga­ni­za­tion PLATO: Phi­los­o­phy Learn­ing and Teach­ing Orga­ni­za­tion in the Unit­ed States acts as a net­work, focus­ing on dif­fer­ent approach­es and orga­niz­ing con­fer­ences. Their activ­i­ties are char­ac­ter­ized by a spir­it of coop­er­a­tion and shar­ing, where peo­ple learn from each oth­er. This seems to be very promis­ing.

Dur­ing con­ver­sa­tions with oth­er par­tic­i­pants of SOPHIA, I heard an inter­est­ing remark that, for exam­ple in the UK, the most inter­est­ing and cre­ative ideas most often come from out­side the main SAPERE orga­ni­za­tion, which con­tin­ues Lip­man’s work. Some­thing like this often hap­pens to estab­lished tra­di­tions, when rou­tine begins to enter into the life of cer­tain ideas.

I agree. But I would like to add some­thing here. Per­son­al­ly, I think that there is a con­nec­tion between creativity—the need to rethink cer­tain things—and a return to one’s roots. When I attend con­fer­ences such as this (SOPHIA) or even big­ger ones (ICPIC), peo­ple present their inno­v­a­tive ideas, and I see that many of them have already been devel­oped by oth­ers over the past 40 years. That’s ok, of course, but this move­ment will be stronger, the more we are will­ing and able to col­lab­o­rate across approach­es and loca­tions. Study­ing what’s been done in the past is part of the work of every aca­d­e­m­ic and tech­ni­cal dis­ci­pline. We can’t be afraid that doing a prop­er review of pub­lished research lit­er­a­ture on a top­ic of inter­est to us will some­how lim­it our cre­ativ­i­ty or our abil­i­ty to make an orig­i­nal con­tri­bu­tion to the top­ic. The oppo­site is true, in fact. This is why I’m so excit­ed about the new oppor­tu­ni­ty to share research pub­li­ca­tions in P4C in the data­base. It’s also why I’m spend­ing so much of my own research time look­ing into the his­to­ry of the move­ment. I think that hard­ly any­one reads Lip­man’s work today, let alone Sharp’s, or even that of Gareth Matthews. It is not that they must do so, but I believe it would be instructive—and cor­rec­tive against some of the mis­ap­pre­hen­sions of those ear­li­er scholar’s ideas that I fre­quent­ly come across.

For this rea­son, I enjoyed the “Dia­logu­ing Democ­ra­cy” Sym­po­sium held in con­junc­tion with the SOPHIA con­fer­ence, where I’ve had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to talk to you, Cather­ine McCall and Joe Oyler, who are respectable elders in our com­mu­ni­ty. Meet­ing with your knowl­edge and expe­ri­ence. When we reach for the roots, we can see if the prob­lems we can deal with have not been resolved before. Why com­mit mis­takes that have already been made and have been learned from? When there are no elders among us and we do not go back to the past, to tra­di­tion, to learn, we lose a lot.

There is a tra­di­tion and there are new gen­er­a­tions. There are many inter­est­ing lessons in the past that maybe begin­ners are not aware of and that is why I would like to make them more acces­si­ble through my work. As I’ve writ­ten about with Jen Glaser, a tra­di­tion only remains vibrant, in good order, if it gets recon­struct­ed through the new needs and inter­ests of the next gen­er­a­tion. But that can only hap­pen if the next gen­er­a­tion sees that the tra­di­tion can still give mean­ing to their work and their lives.

Please, tell us where we can learn more about the IAPC’s work. About what you are doing now. You men­tioned ear­li­er dur­ing the con­fer­ence about your annu­al work­shops.

Every year dur­ing the first week of August, a sum­mer sem­i­nar takes place in Mend­ham, New Jer­sey. A ver­sion of this sem­i­nar has been hap­pen­ing since the very begin­ning of the IAPC in the ear­ly 1970s, and it has run con­tin­u­ous­ly at Mend­ham since 1985. Dur­ing the sem­i­nar we intro­duce the par­tic­i­pants to the IAPC approach to phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren, using the Lip­man / Sharp mate­ri­als and meth­ods. It is an intense, res­i­den­tial course with an inter­na­tion­al char­ac­ter. We live and phi­los­o­phize and eat and hike togeth­er for eight days, so in effect we cre­ate an inten­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty. It’s some­thing I look for­ward to every year. We also have two or three vis­it­ing schol­ars come to study with us at Mont­clair every year for a few weeks or months, or even for the entire aca­d­e­m­ic year. And of course, each of us still con­ducts our own research.

You also men­tioned some­thing about an inter­net library …

Yes. This idea arose from a cer­tain need. Due to my posi­tion in IAPC, I receive hun­dreds of emails with ques­tions like: Do you know some­one who pub­lished a work on P4C in a pri­ma­ry school relat­ed to math­e­mat­ics or lit­er­a­ture? I have cre­at­ed the­mat­ic bib­li­ogra­phies over the years but when was found­ed I thought it would be the ide­al venue for shar­ing research in P4C. I wrote to them and after about two years of nego­ti­a­tions they agreed on an addi­tion­al cat­e­go­ry of Philosoh­py for Chil­dren with a num­ber of sub­cat­e­gories, each edit­ed by an expert in that sub-field. This data­base now con­tains pub­li­ca­tions on var­i­ous approach­es to phi­los­o­phiz­ing with chil­dren, as well as the phi­los­o­phy of child­hood and edu­ca­tion.

Great. What are the con­di­tions for adding works to this col­lec­tion? How is the con­tent of this work mon­i­tored?

It must be a peer-reviewed, aca­d­e­m­ic work such as a jour­nal arti­cle, book chap­ter or book, rather than piece of cur­ricu­lum. If you own the copy­right, you can upload the full text by your­self to the plat­form; oth­er­wise, you can pro­vide a link to where the work is pub­lished. You should pro­vide the abstract and key words, and you can nom­i­nate each work for up to three the­mat­ic cat­e­gories in the PhilPa­pers tax­on­o­my.

June 2, 2019, Gal­way, Ire­land

Maughn Rollins GregoryMaughn Rollins Gre­go­ry is pro­fes­sor of edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tions at Mont­clair State Uni­ver­si­ty (USA), where he replaced Matthew Lip­man as direc­tor of IAPC (Insti­tute of Progress of Phi­los­o­phy for Chil­dren) in 2001. He pub­lish­es and teach­es in the field of phi­los­o­phy of edu­ca­tion, chil­dren’s phi­los­o­phy, prag­ma­tism, gen­der and edu­ca­tion, Socrat­ic ped­a­gogy and con­tem­pla­tive ped­a­gogy. He is a co-edi­tor of the Rout­ledge Inter­na­tion­al Hand­book of Phi­los­o­phy for Chil­dren (2018) and has edit­ed a num­ber of spe­cial­ist jour­nal issues devot­ed to phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren. He is cur­rent­ly work­ing as the inau­gur­al research coor­di­na­tor at ICPIC (The Inter­na­tion­al Coun­cil of Philo­soph­i­cal Inquiry with Chil­dren)

Łukasz KrzywońŁukasz Krzy­woń - MA in phi­los­o­phy, grad­u­ate of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Sile­sia. Author of a text­book, Phi­los­o­phize with chil­dren, in Poland. His mas­ter the­sis, Hid­den Shine, appeared in print in 2005. He writes for a Pol­ish mag­a­zine Filo­zo­fuj!, where he presents con­ver­sa­tions on top­ics relat­ed to phi­los­o­phy with chil­dren. He has lived in Ire­land since 2004. For many years he has been work­ing there with chil­dren and young peo­ple, lead­ing, among oth­er things, philo­soph­i­cal inquiries in schools. A spe­cial­ist in phi­los­o­phy for chil­dren with The Phi­los­o­phy Foun­da­tion in Lon­don, he is also an active mem­ber of the Euro­pean asso­ci­a­tion SOPHIA, pro­mot­ing phi­los­o­phiz­ing with chil­dren in Ire­land and in Poland. He is cur­rent­ly work­ing as an envi­ron­men­tal edu­ca­tion offi­cer with Green-Schools Ire­land. He also runs his Lit­tle Rain­bow Acad­e­my Ire­land where he pro­motes arts and phi­los­o­phy as means for a hap­pi­er world.

Najnowszy numer można nabyć od 2 lipca w salonikach prasowych wielu sieci. Szczegóły zob. tutaj.

Numery drukowane można zamówić online > tutaj. Prenumeratę na rok 2020 można zamówić > tutaj.

Aby dobrowolnie WESPRZEĆ naszą inicjatywę dowolną kwotą, kliknij „tutaj”.

Dołącz do Załogi F! Pomóż nam tworzyć jedyne w Polsce czasopismo popularyzujące filozofię. Na temat obszarów współpracy można przeczytać tutaj.


55 podróży filozoficznych okładka

Wesprzyj „Filozofuj!” finansowo

Jeśli chcesz wesprzeć tę inicjatywę dowolną kwotą (1 zł, 2 zł lub inną), przejdź do zakładki „WSPARCIE” na naszej stronie, klikając poniższy link. Klik: Chcę wesprzeć „Filozofuj!”