Philosophy for communities

Rosie Carnall, one of the 2018 Woodbrooke Eva Koch scholars, reflects on her research into an innovative method of working together

To what extent is it OK to deceive to right wrongs?

A group of twelve people, many meeting each other for the first time, agree that this is the question they wish to discuss. I’m the facilitator for the process. So far as I’m aware, they’re all Quakers but, as an open invitation to join in was given to everyone currently staying at Woodbrooke, I can’t be certain.

The age range in the group is from around twenty to about seventy and we’ve gathered in a circle together. In some ways it looks a bit like a Meeting for Worship, and I have a similar sense of possibility, that anything could happen. But this is a philosophical enquiry. We’re entering into dialogue and discussion and using the Philosophy for Communities methodology.

An opportunity to share

I first learned about the methodology over ten years ago, when my son took part in an enquiry a Friend facilitated for our Meeting’s teenage group. The starting point was the story of the world war one Christmas armistice football match. I was impressed with how the group’s deep thinking brought the story to life for them. Since then I’ve trained in the facilitation method, which when used with adults is known as Philosophy for Communities. When used with young people it is known as Philosophy for Children. Both are abbreviated to P4C.

This is not a way of learning with expert input to provide ‘the right answer’ and it is more than an opportunity to share experience. The facilitator uses a simple process to engage the group in reasoned dialogue and to support their progress on the chosen question. The aspect of progress is important, for this is not a debate with fixed positions taken and points to be scored. Rather, it is a means of working together as a community to build a greater understanding.

The methodology frames ‘4Cs’ of philosophical thinking: critical, creative, collaborative and caring. To start with the last, the caring is for each other but also for the chosen question – the focus of the discussion should have real meaning for all involved. This shared interest is the foundation for the group to work collaboratively, building on each other’s thoughts and ideas to find their way into new and creative thinking. And the final, vital, element is to be critical, to make use of reasoning and judgement.

Thinking about thinking in this way helps the facilitator and the group to be intentional in their participation during the enquiry. A stimulus is used as a starting point. This is usually chosen by the facilitator and is often a story in some form. Children’s picture books are often a rich source for opening up big questions but, as with all the steps of the process, the approach taken can be flexible. Pictures, objects or short films can work well or even a shared experience. Concepts are explored, questions developed and refined, and the discussion then ensues.

Aspects of truth

At the start I had known in advance that some members of the group would be at Woodbrooke as participants in the Young Adult Leadership Programme. I’d therefore chosen a stimulus – Lion vs Rabbit by Alex Latimer – which includes themes that might be particularly relevant for them. However, as always, the stimulus was merely a starting point. It was up to the group to decide which question they wanted to discuss.

It is always fascinating to see focus emerge and thinking develop. The process was balanced between individual thinking time and pairs talking, as well as discussion in the whole group. One person started us off with a clear suggestion that it’s never acceptable to deceive for any reason but was then challenged by someone who raised the example of people hiding Jews from the Nazis during the second world war. This led to an exploration of different aspects of what truth is and what a difference context makes to the response an individual might choose, or need, to make in a range of circumstances.

A simple review tool was used at the end to check in with the group about how well they felt the process had worked in being thought provoking, feeling enjoyable and encouraging a range of opinions to be shared. Responses showed that it had done all three of these things but with a slight weighting towards being thought provoking and enjoyable, suggesting that it was felt the range of opinions was more limited.

Perhaps this was likely, given the context for the enquiry. However, it is my hope that by encouraging Quakers to make use of this method we might find that we can be more open about our differences and practice challenging ourselves to speak up about them.

Being willing to have our thinking challenged and to explore more fully what others mean is a wonderful opportunity for growth. It can help build authentic and resilient relationships that provide a good basis for becoming a more diverse community.

Valuing disagreement

As we enter into the process of revising of our Book of Discipline we will find many opportunities to think deeply about our Quaker faith and practice. We can use these to understand one another better, but only if we are willing to engage with our differences rather than simply attempt to smooth them over. I think the P4C method of philosophical enquiry provides a useful means to help any community to do this.

There are a number of commonalities with our Quaker ways of worship and discernment that make it particularly applicable as a discussion tool for our community: the way the enquiry process draws on the wisdom of the gathered individuals rather than seeking answers from an expert or authority; that participants are encouraged to draw on their lived experience to develop their thinking; the expectation that the group will achieve more through taking part in the communal experience than they could hope to on their own; the opportunity to have thinking respectfully tested in community; and that it is the group on the day – the community of enquiry – who choose and maintain ownership of the focus for their discussion.

What it offers that we don’t currently have is an established practice for engaging in rigorous discussion that values disagreement as a way in t

Rosie is a member of Sheffield Meeting,o rich thinking.

Further information: rosiecarnall@yahoo.co.uk

There will be two P4C courses at Woodbrooke next year – one a weekend-long philosophical enquiry into diversity and the other a P4C facilitator training course.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment