Encouraging and Supporting Children’s Voices

Abstract

Children are considered not to be full members of society and that their participation should be limited. Further, this limitation is imposed by adults. In order to counter these attitudes, it is key to afford space for children’s voices and that this is facilitated in some way. Philosophy with Children, in all its variety of approaches and practices, lays claim to being a tool that allows children to develop the skills necessary for citizenship, such as participation and airing their views. This section focuses on the role of Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI), a specific method of practical Philosophy with Children, to empower children and give them a voice. CoPI has a series of distinctive features that makes it especially apt in meeting this goal. Children are able to articulate their views on a particular topic and this is supported by the structure of the dialogue itself. In addition, their statements must build on previous statements by demonstrating dis/agreement and the participants must provide reasons to justify that dis/agreement. The method thereby emphasizes the primacy of the children’s thinking and the facilitator works to juxtapose speakers in order to drive the dialogue further philosophically. In this article, these features of CoPI are illustrated by examples from dialogues on the Good Life, stimulated by the question ‘What kind of society would you like to live in?’ CoPI is shown to give children voice with a view to promoting their participation in society while also eschewing the imbalance in the adult/child power relationship as questions regarding the good life ultimately invite us to reconsider our views of children.

Conclusion

Questions regarding the good life invite us to consider our view of children substantially.

Philosophy with Children in general and the method of Community of Philosophical Inquiry in particular has been shown to have an impact on the philosophy of the child, by giving children a voice and promoting their participation in society. It allows children to develop the ability to take up their place in a community while also eschewing the imbalance in the adult/child power relationship. In the first instance, it provides a platform owned by the children where they are able to raise issues they deem important or significant. They are able to undertake this task in a structured setting that enables all voices and views to be heard and arguments to be rehearsed. All comments are open to scrutiny and challenge; weak arguments will flounder. It is not sufficient, though, to provide only a forum for discussion; though this is crucial for the generation of a thinking society, the crucial factor is enabling the voices to be heard and to be taken into account. This would entail more children being able to participate in such dialogues, in a range of settings. Schools are easy to use as all children attend these, though other groups or fora may be formed, such as Scotland’s Youth Parliament or smaller community groups that would reach out to all children. Those in power (adults) should be able to hear the views of children, and this is challenging as it seems to retain the notion that adults are permitting children to air their views but only adults will act on the views if, and only if, they deem it appropriate to do so. In order for a meaningful shift in the power relationships between children and adults to take place, and that children’s views are heard and acted upon by whoever is most well-placed to act (be they children or adults), there must be an acknowledgement of children’s capabilities. Indeed, perhaps the likes of lowering the age of political enfranchisement or suffrage is one way to begin this. Our project shows that children have views about society, some more considered than others, but this is the same for adults. With opportunities for politically and morally focused dialogue through the likes of CoPI we might be assured that the electorate—whatever their age—has been critically reflected, as Nussbaum would desire, and that the views they air, the votes they cast, the acts they perform are measured and move towards creating a good life for all. This good life for all, with the inclusion of children’s views, is the only way to move towards addressing the adult/child power balance.