philosophy and children: for or with?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | spa |
Título da fonte: | Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/51240 |
Resumo: | In this paper, two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children are compared, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. The text begins with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, P4C is discussed. Second, PwC. Their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics are the main focus. Third, PwC’s critique of the P4C programme is studied. Finally, the paper concludes with some ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, PwC’s proposal is supported, fundamentally because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education, since philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as a collective one. |
id |
UERJ-22_ac67e85a5c7d885aacc05db26601d04f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br:article/51240 |
network_acronym_str |
UERJ-22 |
network_name_str |
Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
philosophy and children: for or with?filosofía y niños: ¿para o con?filosofia e crianças: para ou com?filosofiaeducaçãoinfânciafpcfcc.philosophyeducationchildhoodp4cpwc.filosofíaeducacióninfanciaFpNFcNIn this paper, two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children are compared, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. The text begins with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, P4C is discussed. Second, PwC. Their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics are the main focus. Third, PwC’s critique of the P4C programme is studied. Finally, the paper concludes with some ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, PwC’s proposal is supported, fundamentally because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education, since philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as a collective one.El presente artículo traza una comparación entre dos propuestas para introducir y ejercer la filosofía en espacios escolares que incluyan la participación de niños y niñas, estas son Filosofía para Niños (FpN), programa diseñado principalmente por Matthew Lipman y Ann Sharp, y Filosofía con Niños (FcN), la cual, de hecho, engloba un conjunto de (contra)propuestas de “segunda generación” –como las describen Vansieleghem y Kennedy (2011), en base a Reed y Johnson (1999)–, entre las que destacan aquellas de Walter Kohan y Karin Murris, por mencionar algunas. Partimos de algunos de los puntos de encuentro entre ambas para luego compararlas en cada una de sus dimensiones. Primero, tratamos la propuesta de FpN. Segundo, la de FcN. Los puntos en los que nos detenemos son sus ideas sobre la educación, la escuela y la educación filosófica, sus conceptos de infancia, el papel otorgado a los docentes y el vínculo establecido entre educación y política. Tercero, detallamos la crítica de FcN a FpN en relación a estos temas. Finalmente, concluimos con algunas de nuestras ideas sobre la problemática de la introducción de la filosofía al espacio escolar. Particularmente, nos inclinamos por la propuesta de FcN, sobre todo, debido a su coherente reconocimiento de la autonomía de los docentes y el elemento político de la educación. En efecto, consideramos que la experiencia filosófica con niños es esencialmente cuestionadora, desafiante, y, por lo tanto, tiene la posibilidad de gestar transformaciones importantes, a nivel individual-personal y también colectivo.In this paper, we compare two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. We begin with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, we discuss P4C. Second, PwC. We focus on their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics. Third, we study PwC’s critique of the P4C programme. Finally, we conclude with some of our own ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, we incline towards PwC’s proposal, especially because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education. Certainly, we think that philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as on a collective one.Neste artigo, são comparadas duas diferentes propostas filosóficas para introduzir e manter a filosofia em espaços escolares que incluem a participação de crianças. São elas: Filosofia para Crianças (FpC), desenvolvida principalmente por Matthew Lipman e Ann Sharp, e Filosofia com Crianças (FcC), que é na verdade um conjunto de (contra)propostas de uma “segunda geração” – como descrevem Vansieleghem e Kennedy (2011), baseados em Reed e Johnson (1999) –, entre as quais, aquelas criadas por Walter Kohan e Karin Murris, para mencionar algumas. O texto parte de alguns pontos de encontro entre as duas propostas, antes de compará-las em cada uma de suas dimensões. Primeiro, trata da proposta de FpC. Depois, da FcC. Os pontos de discussão são suas ideias sobre a educação, a escola e a educação filosófica, seus conceitos de infância, o papel outorgado aos professores e professoras e o vínculo estabelecido por cada uma dessas propostas entre educação e política. Então, detalha a crítica da FcC à FpC concernente a estes temas. Finalmente, o texto conclui com algumas ideias sobre a problemática da introdução da filosofia no espaço escolar. Particularmente, se apoia a proposta de FcC, fundamentalmente, devido a seu coerente reconhecimento da autonomia dos professores e o elemento político da educação, já que a experiência filosófica com crianças é essencialmente questionadora, desafiante e, por isso, tem a possibilidade de gerar transformações importantes, num nível individual-pessoal e também no nível coletivo.Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro2020-07-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/5124010.12957/childphilo.2020.51240childhood & philosophy; Vol. 16 (2020); 01 - 29childhood & philosophy; v. 16 (2020); 01 - 29childhood & philosophy; Vol. 16 (2020); 01 - 291984-5987reponame:Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online)instname:Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)instacron:UERJspahttps://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/51240/34385Copyright (c) 2020 childhood & philosophyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessalarcon castillo, vania2020-12-21T20:10:39Zoai:ojs.www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br:article/51240Revistahttps://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/childhoodPUBhttps://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/childhood/oaiwokohan@gmail.com || wokohan@gmail.com1984-59871984-5987opendoar:2020-12-21T20:10:39Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
philosophy and children: for or with? filosofía y niños: ¿para o con? filosofia e crianças: para ou com? |
title |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
spellingShingle |
philosophy and children: for or with? alarcon castillo, vania filosofia educação infância fpc fcc. philosophy education childhood p4c pwc. filosofía educación infancia FpN FcN |
title_short |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
title_full |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
title_fullStr |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
title_full_unstemmed |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
title_sort |
philosophy and children: for or with? |
author |
alarcon castillo, vania |
author_facet |
alarcon castillo, vania |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
alarcon castillo, vania |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
filosofia educação infância fpc fcc. philosophy education childhood p4c pwc. filosofía educación infancia FpN FcN |
topic |
filosofia educação infância fpc fcc. philosophy education childhood p4c pwc. filosofía educación infancia FpN FcN |
description |
In this paper, two different philosophical proposals to introduce and carry out philosophy in school spaces which include the participation of children are compared, these are: Philosophy for Children (P4C), mainly developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp, and Philosophy with Children (PwC), which is actually a set of “second generation” (counter)proposals –as described by Vansieleghem and Kennedy (2011), based on Reed and Johnson (1999)–, among which those created by Walter Kohan and Karin Murris, to mention a few, stand out. The text begins with some similarities between both proposals, before comparing them in each of their dimensions. First, P4C is discussed. Second, PwC. Their ideas about education, school, philosophical education, their concept of childhood, the role given to teachers and their relation with politics are the main focus. Third, PwC’s critique of the P4C programme is studied. Finally, the paper concludes with some ideas on the issue of introducing philosophy to the school space. Particularly, PwC’s proposal is supported, fundamentally because of its coherent acknowledgment of the autonomy of teachers and of the political element in education, since philosophical experience with children is particularly questioning, defying, and, therefore, it has the possibility of bringing about important transformations, both at a personal-individual level, as well as a collective one. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-07-21 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/51240 10.12957/childphilo.2020.51240 |
url |
https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/51240 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.12957/childphilo.2020.51240 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
spa |
language |
spa |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/51240/34385 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 childhood & philosophy info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 childhood & philosophy |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
childhood & philosophy; Vol. 16 (2020); 01 - 29 childhood & philosophy; v. 16 (2020); 01 - 29 childhood & philosophy; Vol. 16 (2020); 01 - 29 1984-5987 reponame:Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) instname:Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) instacron:UERJ |
instname_str |
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) |
instacron_str |
UERJ |
institution |
UERJ |
reponame_str |
Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
collection |
Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Childhood & Philosophy (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
wokohan@gmail.com || wokohan@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1799317592349868032 |