Ben Kilby

The role of competition in philosophy is not just a pedagogical concern, but also a feminist concern. Competitive philosophy in schools is intrinsically linked to Janice Moulton’s feminist critique of academic philosophy referred to as ‘The Adversary Method’. She argues that dialogue that emphasises adversarial methods of argumentation promote dominant notions of masculinity. Many philosophers and educators argue that this traditional ideal of masculinity and the adversarial mode of communicating are problematic for a variety of reasons. There has also been a broad array of empirical research demonstrating gender differences in classroom dialogue, including girls feeling targeted by teachers and boys due to the culture established with competitive-type dialogues. There is a direct link between this research and the espousal of masculine Reason in education. More, this kind of Reason is one that is overemphasised in competitive dialogues, such as debates or competitive philosophy. There are three primary concerns for competitive philosophy. Firstly, that it disadvantages girls in particular by over-emphasising masculine attributes. Secondly, that it disadvantages all students, regardless of sex, by over-emphasising masculine attributes. And thirdly, that it undermines the values of the Philosophy for/with Children and the Community of Inquiry approach by, again, over-emphasising masculine attributes. Therefore, the concern for competition in philosophy is not just about pedagogy, it is about justice.

This paper argues that there is an absence of current research in Philosophy for Children that focusses on teachers’ perspectives, particularly in relation to their beliefs and values. The paper will look briefly at the programmatics of P4C, and its current mandated status in the education system in the state of Victoria, Australia. It will then move to exploring how the study of teachers’ perspectives, through analyses of their beliefs and values, adds significant value in education, particularly in the context of P4C. It concludes by analysing some recent P4C research that has begun to explore teachers’ perspectives, before finishing with suggesting future research directions that build on these previous studies, and which promise lay important groundwork for extending the reach of P4C into educational systems.