Skip to main content
Log in

Destabilizing stereotyped concepts in childhood: Some opportunities and risks of philosophy for children as an aid to PVE

  • Open File
  • Published:
PROSPECTS Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Values like peace and the absence of violence cannot be effectively taught. They must be practiced, embodied, and lived…We can agree that peace is fine and beautiful and that violence is nasty and ugly, but these characteristics are weak and unconvincing unless they are woven into the justificational fabric.

Matthew Lipman, P4C co-founder (2003, pp. 121, 114)

Abstract

This article explores how the philosophy for children (P4C) pedagogical model might be well positioned to support the educational strategies associated with the prevention of violent extremism, through early intervention in children’s concept development. Specifically, it considers how the stereotyping of concepts risks interfering with children’s reasoning by engendering relationally problematic views that skew what they might consider valuable, resulting in epistemic rigidity and reduced opportunities to practice responsible autonomy. In response to such risks, the article proposes promising avenues for P4C facilitation, with an aim to cultivate flexible thinking in children and thereby support their evolving competence as emerging agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boydston, J. (1990). The collected works of John Dewey: Early, middle and late works. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, E. (Ed.) (1996). Spinoza’s ethics. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, M. (1991). Walter Lippmann reconsidered. Society,28, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festenstein, M. (2001). Inquiry as critique. Political Studies,49, 730–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, N. M. (2014). Body talk, body taunt: Corporeal dialogue within a community of philosophical inquiry. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis,35(2), 10–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, N. M. (2016). Negotiating the pseudo-environments of childhood. In D. Kennedy & B. Bahler (Eds.), Philosophy of childhood today: Exploring the boundaries. Landham, MD: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, N. M., & Oyler, J. M. (2016). Aspirational eros: Curating an aesthetic space for argumentation. In M. Gregory, J. Haynes, & K. Murris (Eds.), Routledge international handbook on philosophy for children. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (2003). Autonomy, gender, politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.) (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, M. (2007). Normative dialogue types in philosophy for children. Gifted Education International,22(1), 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, M. (2008). Philosophy for children: Practitioner handbook. Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, M. (2011). A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Presentation at the Annual Summer Seminar. Mendham, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

  • Kennedy, D. (2010). Philosophical dialogue with children: Essays on theory and practice. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. J. (1986). Doing Mark in a juvenile correctional facility. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children,6(3), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, F. (2016). Philosopher et méditer avec les enfants. Paris: Michel Albin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygotskian dialogues. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Brace and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (Eds.) (2000). Relational autonomy: Perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1997). The fixation of belief. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader. New York, NY: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, A. M. (1993). Peirce, feminism, and philosophy for children. Analytic Teaching,14(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, A. M. (1997). The aesthetic dimension of the community of inquiry. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines,17(1), 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. M. (1995). Teaching for better thinking. Sydney: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. (1973). Five public philosophies of Walter Lippmann. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie M. Fletcher.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, N.M. Destabilizing stereotyped concepts in childhood: Some opportunities and risks of philosophy for children as an aid to PVE. Prospects 48, 61–78 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09446-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09446-0

Keywords

Navigation