Interview with Roger Sutcliffe, President of ICPIC

by Saeed Naji

Introduction

Many centres around the world have started working with philosophy for children. Many of them use PfC (or P4C) as the name of their activities. For example Matthew Lipman's IAPC (Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children) uses PfC in its title. Others, however, have begun using PwC instead, meaning Philosophy with children. For instance ICPIC uses PwC to denote its activities. This makes us wonder: what is actually the difference between the two? Are they two different approaches or just two interchangeable titles describing basically the same type of activity?

Professor Matthew Lipman gave us some hints regarding the difference between PfC and PwC in my earlier interview. He pointed out that: "Philosophy with Children (PwC) has grown up as a small offshoot of Philosophy for Children (PfC), in the sense that PwC utilizes discussion of philosophical ideas, but not through specially written children's stories. PfC aims to develop children as young philosophers. PfC aims to help children utilize philosophy so as to improve their learning of all the subjects in the curriculum. (Interview with Matthew Lipman, question 3)"

The difference between PfC and PwC

1. Now, Professor Sutcliffe, I would like to know your idea about the differences. Can you, as one of PwC-leaders, discuss the differences and distinctions between them and the main character of PwC?

Well, the first thing I would suggest is that "PwC"—"Philosophy with Children"—is not a well-formed concept, or at least not a well-formed organisation. Certainly there are no institutes or associations specifically promoting something called "PwC" as distinct from "Philosophy for Children" or "PfC".

But there is, of course, some thinking behind the concept! As I see it, one reason why some people use the word "with" rather than "for" is indeed to indicate that they are not necessarily using the materials which Professor Lipman and his colleagues wrote (and which constitute a curriculum called "Philosophy for Children"). This alternative wording is, in its way, a mark of respect to that curriculum, since to use the phrase "Philosophy for Children" but not the curriculum might be regarded as pretending to do something which it is not doing.

Another reason why some people use the word "with" rather than "for" is to make clearer that the idea of "philosophy" in these cases is more like a process—inquiry—that is shared with children, and not so much of a body of knowledge that is being presented for them.

It is worth noting that ICPIC itself uses "with". I cannot say if the reasoning behind this was/is exactly the same, but I do believe that it is appropriate for the International body to be ready to embrace approaches to philosophical inquiry with children that may not follow exactly the curriculum that originated in the United States.

To be reassuring, though, I find that most people who use the phrase "Philosophy with Children" are very happy to acknowledge the debt their practice owes to Professor Lipman and his colleagues. The process of philosophical enquiry that they promote, generally referred to as "community of inquiry", is not significantly different from that promoted by "Philosophy for Children". If it were, then they would have to make a special case for doing philosophy with children their way.

It therefore seems to me quite accurate to say that PwC is an offshoot of Philosophy for Children.

However, insofar as PwC may be used to indicate any practice of philosophical inquiry with children that does not use purpose-written material such as Lipman's, it may be misleading to refer to PwC as a "small" offshoot of Philosophy for Children. This is because many people in different countries are using stories and other "stimuli" for philosophical inquiry that are not created specially for that purpose. And if they were all to be described as doing PwC rather than PfC, then those doing PfC might now, or before long, be the minority.

Actually, I do not think PwC is, or should, be used quite so sharply to divide practitioners.

Firstly, there are people who describe their practice as "Philosophy with Children" but who use the Lipman or other purpose-written materials as well as others, for stimulating philosophical inquiry. And then there are people who describe their practice as "Philosophy for Children" but who use stories and other "stimuli" for philosophical inquiry that are not created specially for that purpose, as well as ones that are.

One could, of course, be very strict and say that either one is following exactly the "Philosophy for Children" curriculum or one is not. I respect that point of view, but personally think it is not flexible enough for the needs of differing cultures or even differing children.

On the other hand, I would regard it as ridiculous to attempt to specify what proportion of purpose-written materials are to be used so as to put people into one category or the other.

In the end, it seems to me, what unites those who describe themselves as doing "Philosophy for Children" or "PfC" or "P4C" or "Philosophy with Children" or "PwC" or "Philosophical Inquiry with Children" or "Philosophical Inquiry" or "Philosophical Enquiry" (or whatever other label is taken to imply some big difference) is far more important than what might seem to divide them. The uniting factor is, what I mentioned before: the guiding ideal of "community of inquiry".

The importance of the Community of Inquiry

2. In your opinion, which approach is the best and most influential approach in this area? Can you tell us your reasons?

I think I've more or less just answered that. The best approach is that which is guided by the ideal of "community of inquiry".

Of course, being an ideal, (but not a Platonic one!) that concept will mean slightly different things to different people. (The realization that every concept does mean a different thing to each person is, to my mind, a post-Platonic gift of philosophy to human beings, but one they still ignore all too often!) But I believe there is sufficient common understanding of the ideal among practitioners to enable it to be translated into a recognizable and powerful practice.

I will not now explain my understanding of the common understanding, but I am quite happy to assert that it has been shaped and influenced more by Professors Lipman and Sharp than by any others—and that their influence in this regard has been almost entirely to the good. In my view, anyone embarking on philosophical inquiry with children in a studied way would be a poor student if they did not appreciate this influence. But also I should say, lest I appear uncritical, that I believe it is the calling of students to try and improve upon the concepts of their best influences. So, I would expect, and even hope, that the ideal of "community of inquiry" will develop and adapt, like a river flowing towards the sea.

3. What is your distinctive method or idea in this area?

Again, I think I have largely answered this question. But, if I were to speak more of my personal conception of P4C (which, incidentally, I suggest is the simplest and potentially most uniting way of labeling all the practice in this area, along with the concept of "community of inquiry"), then I would talk briefly of the 4 C's of P4C. Three of these were pointed to by Professor Lipman and are commonly accepted as ways of thinking that can and should be promoted in a community of inquiry:

• Critical thinking
• Creative thinking
• Caring thinking

To these I myself add Collaborative thinking, and present that, along with Caring thinking, as strongly connected to the community aspect of the community of inquiry, whilst Critical and Creative thinking are more strongly connected with the inquiry aspect.

But the beauty of the model (and it is only a model, or a way of looking at what goes on in a community of inquiry) is that it is holistic. In other words, each way of thinking depends, to some extent, on the other three. You cannot be truly critical, in my view, if you do not engage caringly with what or whom you are being critical of. And, despite the image (or, I would say, myth) of the lone creator, I would argue that most creative thinking emerges from some sort of dialogical, i.e. collaborative, activity.

Well, I begin to use rather grand and theoretical language to explain myself, and I would rather go back to the language I use with children. I invite them to question the ideas around them (critically), to put forward new ideas of their own (creatively), to take each other as seriously as they wish to be taken (caringly) and to support each other in building common understanding (collaboratively). By these means and emphases, I hope, they develop not just skills of thinking—questioning, reasoning, supposing, evaluating, etc.—but also the dispositions to think well. I capture those dispositions under the acronym of SOCRATES:

• Seriousness
• Openness
• Collaboration [?]
• Reasonableness
• Amiability
• Tenacity
• Empathy
• Sense of Humour

It is an artificial scheme, of course—all acronyms are artificial—but it points in some healthy directions, and remains, for me, as good a "measure" of progress as any others I have come across.

4. What are the advantages of your method?

I think its advantages can be summed up in two words—humane and holistic. It reminds me/the community that the most important learning we have to do, in the classroom and beyond, is how to be more human(e), and how that is almost certainly a matter of bringing different aspects of our being/thinking into (a whole) balance.