

































































Philosophizing with Children's Literature: A Response to Turgeon and Wartenberg


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

59 
 

 

Philosophizing with Children’s Literature: A Response to 

Turgeon and Wartenberg 

 
 

Darren Chetty, Maughn Rollins Gregory, Megan Jane Laverty  
 

 

Introduction 

 
ith the maturation of a field comes the opportunity and the responsibility to reflect on 
its sources, its areas and directions of development, debates among its proponents, and 
critiques originating from inside and outside the field. While early proponents of 

philosophy for children supported each other in the face of misunderstanding and misapprehension, 
differences inevitably arose among them, not only concerning materials and methods, but also 
concerning the very meanings of philosophy, childhood and education. These differences remain 
among contemporary scholars, educators and practitioners, who continue to engage in robust debates 
about how to research and practice philosophy with children and adolescents and how to theorize its 
foundational concepts. Understanding and sustaining both the practical and theoretical aspects of 
these debates and their intimate relation to one another is critical to the ongoing vitality and growth 
of this movement. The more we strive to understand the merits of rival interpretations and the critical 
value they provide for our own, the more we increase the quality of scholarly argumentation, engage 
meaningfully with scholarship in related fields, and protect our community of scholars and 
practitioners from debilitating schisms. 
 

With a view to promoting such scholarly argumentation, in this essay we consider issues 
addressed by Wendy Turgeon and Thomas E. Wartenberg in their essay, “Teaching Philosophy with 
Picture Books” in the second volume of Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis (ATTP) devoted to 
original essays by “veterans” of the philosophy for children movement (Volume 41, Issue 1, 2021), 
guest edited by Susan Gardner.1  We agree with Turgeon and Wartenberg that the question of what 
kinds of materials are best suited to philosophizing with children continues to be an important topic 
of research and of debate in our field and, while we appreciate their insights, we characterize the terms 
and the nature of the debate differently. In doing so, we challenge some of their arguments, as well as 
their representations and interpretations of certain scholars in the field. In addition, because they 
review another of the most important current debates in the field—systemic racism in children’s 
literature, in academic research, and in the politics of philosophical dialogue with children—we 
present an account of our position. We acknowledge that our familiarity with philosophy for children 
scholarship is limited to that which is written or translated in English and are therefore not aware of 
contributions about these issues published in other languages. 

                                                 
1 For this essay, we also draw on Wartenberg’s new book Thinking Through Stories: Children, Philosophy and Picture Books 
(2022) in which he expands on some of the ideas explored in the article with Turgeon. With this book, Wartenberg raises 
new criticisms of curricular philosophical novels, which we do not address here. 

W 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

60 
 

Philosophizing with Children’s Literature 

 
As with other practitioners and scholars in our field (Kennedy 1992; Matthews 1976; Murris 

2022; Sprod 1993), Turgeon and Wartenberg defend “the use of picture books in philosophical 
inquiries [as] fundamentally sound and an excellent path to encourage children to engage in 
philosophical enquiry” (2021:96). While the focus of their scholarship is picture books, many of their 
arguments apply more broadly to children’s literature and even to children’s popular media.2  They 
argue, for instance, that using picture books “gives the children entrance into a genuine philosophical 
topic by presenting problematic examples for them to discuss through the engaging lens of a 
narrative” (2021:107-108). Indeed, the relationship between narrative and philosophical thought has 
been widely theorized by Cora Diamond (2010), Martha Nussbaum (1992), and others.3  Therefore, 
while Turgeon and Wartenberg are correct to highlight the philosophical value of narrative, that value 
does not distinguish picture books from other forms of adult’s and children’s media, including the 
philosophical novels and stories of Lipman and many others (e.g., Bowen 2006, Camhy 2007, 2015, 
Daniel, 2002, Eyre, 2007, Gaarder 1994, Kennedy, 2012, 2019, Kohan and Vigna 2013, Michaels 
2007, Montero 2017, Reed, 1989, Sharp 2000a, 2000b). Nor is “the delight that children have in 
being read aloud to” (2021:107) a unique feature of picture books. Elsewhere, Wartenberg emphasizes 
that picture books are “charming and enjoyable,” with “entertaining narratives” (2022:36). Another 
advantage identified by Turgeon and Wartenburg (that is also not unique to picture books) is that 
they are familiar to parents and teachers who may be unfamiliar with philosophy. This is a significant 
advantage, particularly in light of the “wide range of [web-based] materials” they cite that support 
using specific picture books in philosophical inquiry (2021:106). 
 

Turgeon and Wartenberg note that the images in picture books stimulate children’s imagination 
(see 2021:99), and that “[m]any stories include a whimsical use of pictures to suggest such a second 
narrative as a supportive and enhancing account of the verbal story or perhaps even a sub/contra-text 
[...] for philosophical inquiry” (2021:103). These insightful remarks indicate the need to theorize how 
images, as well as narratives, can have philosophical meaning. Wartenberg has written on this topic 
(2006) and on philosophy in film (2007) (another kind of image). Joanna Haynes and Karin Murris 
(2012; see also Murris 2016, 2022) have advanced our understanding of how images in picture books 
work in the context of philosophical inquiry. We note that some stories and novels written as stimulus 
texts for philosophy for children have been illustrated (e.g., Sharp 2000; Cam 1998), though not (as 
yet) with high-value artwork.  
 

Turgeon and Wartenburg conclude: “Our position is not that one method for engaging children 
in philosophical inquiry is better than the other, but that each has important virtues as well as 
                                                 
2 Turgeon and Wartenberg do not explain how they distinguish picture books from other formats of children’s literature. 
Elsewhere, Wartenberg distinguishes “three basic types of illustrated books: illustrated novels, picture books, and comics, 
of which graphic novels are a particular kind,” and indicates that illustrated novels are “generally intended for adult 
consumption” (2022:53), though he also states that his “approach” uses both “picture books and also chapter books” 
(2022:41). It seems clear that Turgeon and Wartenberg understand picture books to be books for younger children in 
which illustrations play an integral, rather than an incidental function. 
3 Interestingly, Matthews and Lipman came to see the power of narrative to engage students in philosophical inquiry at 
about the same time: Matthews delivered “Philosophy in Children’s literature” as a lecture in 1973 (later published in 
1976) only a few years after Lipman piloted Harry Stottleemeir’s Discovery in 1972. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

61 
 

drawbacks” (2021:96). While we agree that different kinds of texts have different virtues and 
drawbacks for use in philosophizing with children, we disagree that there is a difference of methods or 
approaches here—a ‘Lipmanian approach’ and a ‘picture books approach.’4  It is commonplace in 
educational discourse to distinguish curriculum—the materials used to teach a subject matter—from 
pedagogy—the method used to teach it. In the case of philosophy for children, the subject matter is 
philosophy and the pedagogy is philosophical inquiry. Indeed, the web-based resources Turgeon and 
Wartenberg cite are pedagogical resources for how to inquire philosophically with almost any stimulus 
text. They assume that in defending the use of picture books, they are defending a distinct approach 
to philosophizing with children. To defend that assumption, more would have to be said about how 
picture books necessitate a unique pedagogical approach (which might, then, disqualify some of the 
web-based resources they cite). Indeed, the fact that elsewhere, Wartenberg uses the Lipman/Sharp 
phrases “a community of philosophical inquiry” (2022:80) and “a classroom community of inquiry” 
(2022:81)—without attribution—to describe philosophical discussions using picture books, indicates 
that this is not a different approach. Turgeon and Wartenberg are more correct when they cite 
different “approaches to the use of picture books” (2021:103). 
 

If the issue raised by Turgeon and Wartenberg is about curriculum rather than pedagogy, it has 
to do with how different curricular materials support philosophical discussion, rather than with the 
merits of different approaches to philosophizing with children. Moreover, by positioning themselves 
as defending an approach, Turgeon and Wartenberg make it seem as if all picture books qualify as 
useful resources for philosophical inquiry, which, of course, is not the case.5 Once it is accepted that 
many picture books can be useful in philosophical inquiry with children and adolescents—a moot 
point if our reading of the literature is correct—other, more significant considerations come into focus. 
Philosophy for children facilitators are then called upon to select materials based on their philosophy 
content and their appropriateness for particular educational contexts, such as whether they contain 
images or messages that are problematic in terms of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and whether 
they offer diverse representation among those categories.6 The fact that many proponents of doing 
philosophy with children’s literature have published guides for its use in philosophizing with children, 
including Matthews,7 Sprod (1993), Turgeon (2020), Wartenberg (2009), and others, is another 
indication that using children’s literature is not a unique approach.  However, these guides do point 
to an important difference in philosophy for children programs: whether and how teachers and others 
without academic preparation in philosophy are meant to facilitate children’s philosophy. Without 
commenting on this broader issue, Turgeon and Wartenberg acknowledge that:  
 

                                                 
4 Elsewhere, Wartenberg describes this distinction as between “two fundamental approaches,” one pioneered by Lipman 
and one by Matthews (2022:42). 
5 Wartenberg disagrees, stating categorically that “there are no picture books that cannot be used by creative facilitators to 
initiate philosophical discussions” (2022:106). 
6 Lipman’s curricular novels have been justly critiqued for containing gender stereotypes, for instance, that “moms are 
often busy at the stove while dads are represented sitting in an armchair reading the newspaper; the boys embody analytical 
(Harry) or critical (Tony) thinking skills; Mark is a rebellious protester while his sister Maria is docile and obedient; and 
Lisa and Suki represent intuitive and creative thinking” (Miraglia 2021:84; see also Wartenberg 2022). 
7 See Matthews’ curriculum series Wise Owl: Talking and Thinking about Children’s Literature at 
https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/wise-owl/. 

https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/wise-owl/


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

62 
 

Most teachers at the pre-college levels are not themselves well versed in philosophy, its 
concepts, and tools of analysis. Using children’s literature may be difficult without a lot of 
support, either in terms of guiding documents that highlight potential philosophical 
avenues for discussion or the presence of an experienced P4C [philosophy for children] 
practitioner who can help shape the dialogue, along with the teacher. (2021:104)8 

 
This problem has received considerable attention in the field (see, e.g. Gazzard 2012, Gardner and 
Weber 2009). Laurance J. Splitter and Sharp argue, for instance, that with the proper disciplinary 
preparation, students and teachers can develop “an awareness of the philosophical dimensions 
inherent in the material in question” (1995:185). 
 

In summary, the benefits of picture books identified by Turgeon and Wartenberg are not unique 
to picture books, but apply to most forms of children’s literature and media, including curricular 
philosophical novels; and the question of what to use in philosophizing with children is a curricular 
and not a pedagogical matter. In relation to the latter, the method Turgeon and Wartenberg describe 
for philosophizing with picture books is one that applies equally to other curricular philosophical 
stories and novels:  
 

One of the basic tenets of Philosophy for Children is to let the children determine the 
direction the discussion is to take. The idea is to encourage the children to explore their 
own ideas through interactions with their peers. In order to do this, the teacher needs to 
be self-effacing, that is, they must refrain from putting their own ideas into the mix or 
shutting down an avenue of inquiry because it was not what they had planned. There 
remains a strong role for them as the discussion’s facilitator [...]. (2021:104) 

 
We see this as more evidence that Turgeon and Wartenberg have not identified a distinctive 
approach; rather, they have expressed a preference for using picture books over other suitable 
curriculum materials. 
 

The Philosophy for Children Founders on Philosophical Texts 

 
Gareth B. Matthews 

 
A significant shortcoming of Turgeon and Wartenberg’s essay is that it gives short shrift to the 

legacy of the late American philosopher Gareth B. Matthews (1929-2011), who was the first to write 
about philosophy in children’s literature—including picture books—and to experiment with using 

                                                 
8 On this point, Splitter and Sharp argue that, “Even though some might believe that approaching philosophical issues 
through picture books and novels is easier than working from purpose-written materials, we suspect that it is more likely to 
be the other way around. In most countries today, teachers are not trained in the art and craft of philosophical inquiry. To 
explore the philosophical dimensions of literature—and to teach children to do the same—requires an expertise that cannot 
be taken for granted, especially given the complexity of a good piece of literature” (1995:185). Elsewhere, Wartenberg 
acknowledges that “In my earlier book [2009/2014] I asserted that anyone could facilitate elementary-school philosophy 
discussion [...]. But I was not saying that a facilitator did not need to have any philosophical knowledge in order to 
facilitate a philosophical discussion. I only claimed that they could find all the information they needed in my book 
because it presented detailed analyses of a set of picture books I suggested using, including a discussion of the 
philosophical theses put forward in each picture book” (2022:75, emphasis in the original). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

63 
 

children’s books to initiate philosophical conversations with children and with his university students 
(see Laverty and Gregory 2022a; Murris 2022). These experiments led to Matthews’ 1973 lecture, 
“Philosophy and Children's Literature,”9 his “Thinking in Stories” column, in which he reviewed 
philosophical children’s stories,10 and his teacher guides Wise Owl: Talking and Thinking about Children’s 
Literature.11 Wartenberg featured material from Matthews Wise Owl series on the innovative website 
“Teaching Children Philosophy” he developed at Mount Holyoke College.12 Matthews created his 
own website “Philosophy for Kids!,”13 including his “Philosophy Startup Kit for Schoolkids.” These 
websites, in turn, became the model for the website “Philosophy and Children’s Literature” at the 
University of Washington Center for Philosophy for Children.14 Matthews’ use of children’s stories to 
prompt philosophical dialogues became a compelling alternative to Lipman’s curricular philosophical 
novels, and has become the predominant approach to philosophy for children. 
 

In addition to originating the use of children’s literature for children’s philosophy and creating 
the first curricular guide for doing so, Matthews initiated philosophy in children’s literature as a field 
of scholarship. Over four decades, he published extensively in this new field (see e.g., 1976, 1986, 
1988, 1990, 1994, 2004, 2005, 2009), and today there is a secondary literature on his work (see 
Carlisle 1992; Cavell 2008; Gregory and Laverty 2022a; Haynes and Murris 2012; Johansson 2011; 
Kennedy 1999, 2010; Kidd 2020; Murris 2022; Wartenberg 2008). Matthews’ legacy in theorizing and 
promoting philosophy in children’s literature has been extended by practitioners and scholars who 
learned from his example, including Sara Goering (2007), Jana Mohr Lone (2022), Peter Shea (2022), 
and Wartenberg himself.15  Regrettably, Turgeon and Wartenberg diminish Matthews’ contribution to 
the observation that, “Early on Gareth Matthew[s] used familiar children’s stories like [Arnold Lobel’s] 
Frog and Toad readers to explore rich philosophical topics like friendship, loyalty, and self-image” 
(2021:102).  

 
The only other attention Turgeon and Wartenberg give Matthews is to take issue with the 

charge made by Morteza Khosronejad and Soudabeh Shokrollahzadeh that Matthews and Wartenberg 
are “instrumentalists” regarding children’s books. However, they misconstrue that charge as having to 
do with “focusing solely on the storyline itself, paying insufficient attention to the images and the 
story they might tell” (2021:102). In fact, while Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh do make that latter 
charge, their concern about instrumentalism is different: that because the founders of philosophy for 
children lacked a theoretical understanding of children’s literature, including picture books, they used 
children’s literature merely as an instrument for doing philosophy, which had both a negative effect 

                                                 
9 Matthews subsequently presented the essay to the American Philosophical Association and published it in the journal 
Metaphilosophy in 1976. 
10 See www.montclair.edu/iapc/thinking-in-stories. By Wartenberg’s (2022) definition of ‘picture book,’ virtually all of the 
fifty-eight children’s books Matthews reviewed for the “Thinking in Stories” column were picture books. 
11 See www.montclair.edu/iapc/wise-owl. 
12 The site was redesigned by, and is now hosted by the Prindle Institute for Ethics at DuPauw University. See 
https://www.prindleinstitute.org/teaching-children-philosophy 
13 See www.philosophyforkids.com. 
14 See https://www.philosophyforchildren.org/resources/questions-library. 
15 In his new book, Wartenberg credits Matthews with introducing him to philosophy for children and acknowledges that 
“I saw myself as carrying on in his footsteps” (2022:51). He also credits Matthews with being the first to propose using 
commercially published children’s books to philosophize with children (2022:41). 

http://www.montclair.edu/iapc/thinking-in-stories
http://www.montclair.edu/iapc/thinking-in-stories
http://www.montclair.edu/iapc/wise-owl
http://www.montclair.edu/iapc/wise-owl
https://www.prindleinstitute.org/teaching-children-philosophy/
http://www.philosophyforkids.com/
https://www.philosophyforchildren.org/resources/questions-library


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

64 
 

on children’s appreciation of, and attitude toward literature, and a limiting effect on the founders’ 
ability to theorize philosophy for children itself.16 Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh do not, in fact, 
charge either Matthews or Wartenberg with this kind of instrumentalism. They explicitly state that 
“Contrary to Lipman, who instrumentalizes children's literature, considering it a 'springboard', [... 
c]hildren's fictions [sic] for Matthews is authentic literature” (2020:8). Indeed, Khosronejad and 
Shokrollahzadeh credit Matthews with discovering “a new genre in children's literature named by him 
'philosophical whimsy'” (2020:8). As Kenneth B. Kidd put it, Matthews “preferred materials that 
playfully stage philosophical issues to materials that explicitly model philosophical processes (e.g., 
Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery) or introduce philosophical thinkers (e.g. Kierkegaard and the Mermaid)” 
(2020:41).  
 

Elsewhere, Wartenberg describes a unique approach to philosophizing with children that 
Matthews developed as a Research Fellow at the School of Epistemics at the University of Edinburgh. 
Matthews conducted philosophical dialogues with children that began with original, philosophical 
story-beginnings he wrote, which he then completed based on the children’s dialogue and shared with 
them to evaluate (see Matthews 1984; Burdick-Shepherd and Cammarano 2022). Noting that these 
stories resemble Lipman’s novels in consisting of dialogues among children about traditional 
philosophical issues, Wartenberg claims that “The problem with both of these philosophers’ 
procedures is that they limit the range of potential issues that children cannot [sic] discuss in their 
philosophy sessions to those that are widely acknowledged as philosophical in the Analytic tradition of 
philosophy” (2022:45). While it is a mistake to categorize Lipman as an analytic philosopher, we agree 
that any philosopher’s background and field of research will necessarily inform—and therefore limit—
their preference for, if not their recognition of, certain kinds of philosophical issues (see Kohan and 
Cassidy 2022, Laverty and Gregory 2022, Murris 2022). Of course, this applies to philosophers who 
recognize philosophy in picture books no less than to those who write curricular philosophical stories 
(Matthews famously did both); and as Wartenberg allows, the latter can very well include 
philosophical issues from a variety of philosophical traditions, as evidenced by the curricular 
philosophical novels of David Kennedy (2012, 2019).   
 
Matthew Lipman 

 
Lipman’s views on the educational uses of literature were complex and evolved over the course 

of his life. As Turgeon and Wartenberg observe, he “believed that philosophical novels written with 
the express purpose of engaging children in philosophical discussions were better suited than picture 
books to the task of introducing philosophy into elementary school classrooms” (2021:96). One 
misgiving Lipman had about children’s books in general was his impression that they disrespect 
children, in failing to portray the poignant problematicity of children’s experience. In his estimation, 
“children are thought to inhabit a world whose security is ensured by adults, a world into which the 

                                                 
16 This is also the crux of Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh’s critique of Lipman. Turgeon and Wartenberg, however, 
attribute the critique to Lipman himself. They claim, without reference, that a “‘Lipmanian’ argument against using 
[picture books] notes the danger of ruining an imaginative story by treating it in too utilitarian a manner, say, by mining it 
for philosophical ideas. Literature should not be used for philosophical discussions, the argument goes, because that is not 
its ‘job.’ The function and beauty of literature will be lost if it is used simply as a jumping off tool for philosophical 
discussion” (2021:96) Lipman made no such claim that we can discover. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

65 
 

threat of problematicity does not intrude, with the result that, under such circumstances, active 
thinking on the child’s part is hardly necessary” (1988:186-187).  
 

Believing that “the image of the child that children’s literature projects has much to do with the 
image of themselves that children internalize” (1988:187), Lipman concluded that children should see 
themselves mirrored in “stories of thoughtful, sensitive children acting courageously or in ways that 
show profound care and concern” (1996a:35). Defending his own philosophical novels for not 
including “kidnapers or extra-terrestrials or downhill racers,” he explained that “these romantic, other-
worldly characters or events in which we all love to dwell are ways of defying or escaping the inevitable 
necessity of making judgments” (1996a:32-33). Lipman was rightly concerned that “the more remote 
the models are from actuality, the more difficult it is to identify with them (1996a:34).17 Nevertheless, 
as Matthews recognized, fantasy, science fiction, dystopian fiction, and counterfactual historical fiction 
often raise thought experiments, moral dilemmas, and other philosophical perplexities ripe for inquiry 
(see Gregory and Laverty, 2022b).  
 

Lipman’s claim that children’s literature does not portray either the complexity and 
problematicity of children’s experience or children’s capacity to inquire, reason, and make judgments 
that improve their circumstances, may well hold of a great deal of children’s media today; it may have 
been true to a greater extent in 1988, when he made that observation, and it was likely quite true of 
the books he read as a child. Most media for children is, after all, produced for, and shaped by the 
market economy, the interests of which are often in tension with literary and artistic concerns; and 
much of what is commonly regarded as of high quality (including many ‘classics’) is riddled with 
racial, gender, and class biases (see Nel 2017).18 Still, Lipman’s claim is certainly false with respect to 
the market as a whole. Describing what he calls “the philosophical turn” in children’s literature, 
Kenneth B. Kidd notes that “children’s literature is drawing nearer adult fiction, resembling such in 
complexity and aesthetic sophistication [and] also drawing nearer adult critical discourse” (2020:8). 
Kidd observes that while “Children’s literature can be narrowly prescriptive [...], much of the time it is 
imaginative, expansive, and surprising in its strategies of engagement and cultivation” (2020:4). He is 
confident, further, that “contemporary children’s literature often models and invites critical 
engagement” (2020:12). Indeed, as Turgeon and Wartenberg point out, “characters in certain picture 
books are depicted as engaged in philosophical discussions” (2021:97).  
 

Lipman’s own recognition of the philosophical sophistication of some children’s literature is 
reflected in his commissioning Matthews to write the “Thinking in Stories” column, for Thinking: The 
Journal of Philosophy for Children. Nevertheless, Lipman did not believe such literature could sufficiently 
model the processes of philosophical inquiry for children. For Lipman, because children are capable 
of skillful thinking and collaborative inquiry, they deserve to be educated in exemplary methods for 

                                                 
17 Thus, reflecting on her students’ experience with one of Lipman’s novels, a sixth-grade teacher in Washington, D.C. 
recognized that “areas that have to do with the kinds of concerns they have to deal with in their own lives manage to 
surface often when analyzing this book” (Harris 1991:73). 
18 Wartenberg seems unaware of this problem. While claiming, correctly, that “picture books [...] have the potential to 
counter problematic views children imbibe from popular culture” (2022:69), he does not suppose that picture books are 
an important part of children’s popular culture and that a great many of them communicate ‘problematic views’.   



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

66 
 

doing so. He theorized that narrative texts are more effective for that purpose than expository texts 
that explain those processes. Indeed, Lipman seems to have had Matthews in mind when he wrote: 
 

Children are, some people have gone so far as to claim, "natural philosophers." Establish a 
free and benign environment, and children will naturally engage in higher-order thinking. 
Models of such thinking are not required. I doubt that there is much evidence to support 
this claim. We are led, then, to consider the alternative thesis, which is that modeling is 
needed in order to elicit higher-order thinking from children. (1991:218-219)19  

 
As Turgeon and Wartenberg point out, the need for such modeling was the reason Lipman invented 
the genre of the curricular philosophical children’s novel, that should “provide models of inquiry, 
models of cooperation and models of caring, sensitive individuals [that] demonstrate the feasibility of 
such an ideal children's community” (Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan 1980:170). 
 

Lipman developed a unique theory of how a curricular novel that combines narrative and 
expository formats, as well as conceptual and schematic modes of organization, can provide many 
kinds of cognitive modeling, including logic, mental acts, dialogue, and philosophical themes (see 
Lipman 1991:212-225, 1996a). With regard to logic, Lipman designed novels that  
 

employ two distinct models of logic. One, exhibited through a progressive discovery of 
rules explicitly stated, is that of a deductive system of formal logic. The other consists of a 
kind of ‘good reasons’ approach [which] emphasizes the seeking of reasons for opinions, 
actions, and beliefs, together with the assessment of the reasons given.” (Lipman, Sharp, 
and Oscanyan, 1977:109-110, emphasis in the original)  

 
Lipman also sought to dramatize education that involves recursiveness: “things like thinking about 
thinking and inquiry into inquiry and learning to learn. And with recursiveness, children are in a position 
to assume [...] more responsibility for their own education” (1996a:29, emphasis in the original). Yet, 
he also intended his novels to “indicate to [readers] the occasions on which logical thought is 
appropriate and those on which non-logical thought might be preferable” (Lipman, Sharp, and 
Oscanyan, 1980:176). 
 

Another kind of cognitive modeling Lipman’s novels provide is the depiction of children 
employing diverse mental acts and thinking styles. Thus, various characters in the novel Harry 
Stottlemeier’s Discovery are meant to consistently demonstrate “wondering (Harry Stottlemeier), thinking 
in formal logical patterns (Tony Melillo), intuitive or hunch-like thinking (Lisa Terry), seeking and 
enjoying explanations (Fran Wood), being sensitive to the feelings of others (Anne Torgerson), and 

                                                 
19 As Nussbaum observed, “Lipman [...] thinks that children can profit early on from highly specific attention to the logical 
properties of thought, that they are naturally able to follow logical structure, but that it usually takes guidance and leading 
to help them develop their capacities” (2010:73). Kenneth B. Kidd makes a similar observation: “Especially for Matthews, 
the child is not merely a capable practitioner of philosophy but rather the most exemplary one. Lipman is not as rhapsodic 
about the child as Matthews [...]. All children are curious, Lipman believes, and all children can think philosophically. 
Matthews, however, courts a romantic understanding of the child as natural philosopher [...]” (2020:32). Wartenberg also 
views children as “natural-born philosophers” (2022:17,33,112). 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

67 
 

thinking creatively (Mickey Minkowski)” (Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan, 1980:147). Lipman noted 
that “it is literature that introduces us to the depicted performance of specific mental acts. Jane 
Austen’s characters infer, presume, speculate, guess, and consider” (1988:186-187; 1991:238).  

 
Central to Lipman’s novels is that they offer models of dialogue, 

 
[...] both of children with one another, and of children with adults. They are models that 
are non-authoritarian, anti-indoctrinational, that respect the values of inquiry and 
reasoning, encourage the development of alternative modes of thought and imagination, 
and sketch out what it might be like to live and participate in a small community where 
children have their own interests yet respect each other as people and are capable at times 
engaging in cooperative inquiry [...]. (Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan, 1980:105) 

 
One fifth-grade teacher in Washington, D.C. observed this kind of modeling in real time: 
 

[Lipman’s] stories were interesting and a challenge to the students, for it gave them an 
opportunity to compare themselves with some of the characters in the story who were in 
the same age range as themselves. It gave them an opportunity to observe how these 
characters were inquisitive [...]. They were able to see how these children continuously 
explored the How?, What?, When?, Where?, and Who? of situations in the story. The 
stories enabled the students to investigate, observe and understand that it's normal to think 
and read as the characters did in the story. (Harris 1991:53) 

 
Nussbaum similarly observed that Lipman’s “series of books—in which complex ideas are always 
presented through engaging stories about children figuring things out for themselves—show again and 
again how this attention to logical structure pays off in daily life,” (2010:73-74) and that “The series as 
a whole takes students to the point where they might begin to work through Plato’s Socratic dialogues 
on their own” (2010:75-76). 
 

Wartenberg suggests that the modeling of philosophical dialogue is “another reason for using 
picture books to teach children philosophy” (2022:71). He notes that “stories that model a 
philosophical discussion, such as virtually all of Arnold Lobel’s Frog and toad stories, are helpful in 
this regard because children can take from the character’s interactions an initial understanding of how 
to take part in a philosophical discussion” (2022:111). Wartenberg acknowledges that this is what 
Lipman refers to as ‘modeling’, but implies that picture books do it better, though his thinking on this 
point is difficult to follow: “I was critical of [Lipman] for not explaining how such modeling was 
supposed to work to get children to understand the nature of philosophical dialogues. The difference 
is that in discussing bravery through “Dragons and Giants” [Lobel 1979], children come to see both 
Frog and Toad as engaged in the very same type of activity as they are” (2022:71). 
 

Quite a different order of modeling Lipman intended his curriculum to perform was to 
reconstruct important themes, debates, and positions from the history of (Western) philosophy—not 
as authoritative, but as resources for exploring children’s philosophical questions. As Darryl De 
Marzio notes, in Lipman’s novels, the Western tradition “is not presented as a series of historical 
epochs (e.g., ancient philosophy, modern philosophy, post-modern philosophy), or a series of systems 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

68 
 

of thought (e.g., idealism, rationalism, empiricism), or an orientation to the major figures of 
philosophy (e.g., Plato, Descartes, Kant)” (De Marzio, 2011:42). Rather, as Lipman put it, “Such a 
curriculum would represent central themes from the history of philosophy but would be translated 
into ordinary language.[...] It would also be sequential, so that successive stages would amplify old 
themes and introduce new ones, present new points of view, and provide for a critical look at other 
disciplines” (1988:183).20 
 

In his new book, Wartenberg acknowledges that “Lipman’s novels make good choices for 
teachers with little or no philosophical background but a desire to incorporate philosophy into their 
classrooms” (2022:44-45). However, he criticizes Lipman’s novels for being “designed to raise very 
specific philosophical problems for the children to discuss [which] seems to go against his own 
recommendation to allow the children to discuss what they want,” and because “the philosophical 
issues that Lipman includes in his novels are ones that he recognizes as distinctly philosophical” 
(2022:45, emphasis in the original). These criticisms are not against being directive in introducing 
children to traditional philosophical problems—which applies to the use of children’s literature as well 
as to curricular philosophical novels, and which Wartenberg explicitly recommends: “One reason that 
I start the discussion with a preselected question is that this ensures that the initial question is a 
philosophical one. It also allows the facilitator to be better prepared” (Wartenberg 2022:79). Rather, 
Wartenberg here critiques the apparent contradiction in Lipman’s embedding philosophical issues 
from Western philosophy in his novels while insisting that children’s philosophizing begin from their 
own questions. Following John Dewey’s lead, Lipman’s novels foreground the aesthetic, ethical, 
political, and other philosophical dimensions of ordinary experience, and provide a variety of 
perspectives on those dimensions from the Western canon. Children are thus introduced to these 
predetermined areas but are invited to raise questions about anything that puzzles or interests them.  

 
The manuals that accompany Lipman’s novels contain resources to support multiple avenues of 

inquiry the children may pursue. Lipman believed that the more children come to recognize these 
philosophical dimensions in their own experience, the more they will inevitably raise questions about 
them—as they will in recognizing the scientific, religious, and other dimensions of their experience. 
Granted, providing children access to questions, concepts, and debates from a philosophical tradition 
as part of their cultural heritage is not an aim of all, or probably most practitioners or theorists of 
philosophy for children today. But for those who uphold this aim, it makes a difference in the 
selection of materials to be used with children. As Splitter and Sharp expressed this aim: 
 

[W]e emphasise that Philosophy for Children aspires to be a philosophy curriculum in the 
classroom, and not merely a timeslot for providing teachers and students with 
opportunities to 'do philosophy' in an ad hoc and unstructured manner.[...] [F]ew would 
seriously suggest that a curriculum in [mathematics, science or history] could consist of a 

                                                 
20 In his 1969 university textbook Discovering Philosophy Lipman printed selections from philosophers in thematic sections, 
each of which ended with a fictional dialogue written by Lipman, between two of the philosophers in the section. Lipman 
could not and did not claim that his curricular philosophy novels represent the entirety of Western philosophy, and he has 
been justly critiqued for omitting significant aspects of that tradition, such as the Frankfurt school (see Waksman and 
Kohan 2013). It is important to note, however, that, in keeping with many professional philosophers in Europe and North 
America at the time (and to a lesser extent, today), Lipman used ‘philosophy’ to mean Western philosophy exclusively, 
which largely neglected women and non-White philosophers, and often ignored racial justice when considering justice. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

69 
 

random collection of stories which might generate some discussion of a mathematical, 
scientific or historical nature. Our primary argument is [...] that serious philosophical 
inquiry [...] is more likely to bear fruit when [...] students are given the opportunity to 
engage philosophy as a discipline and a curriculum. We must face the reality that if we 
want to bring a sense of structure, continuity, comprehensiveness, and even profundity to 
philosophy in the classroom, finding a collection of philosophical themes and concepts 
within the pages of a picture book or novel is unlikely to do the job. (1995:187) 

 
Here Splitter and Sharp acknowledge that their argument for a philosophy curriculum in no way 
disqualifies the use of children’s books in thinking and talking philosophically, though they relegate 
such books to a secondary role. The attempt to initiate children into philosophy as a discipline—
characterized by certain kinds of questions, methods of inquiry, cognitive and social practices, and a 
history of ideas—rather than to merely provide children the opportunity to philosophize, is the most 
important contrast between the approach initiated by Lipman and Sharp and that initiated by 
Matthews.  
 

Apart from the philosophical novel, Lipman also believed that children learn how to be 
reasonable from other models—all of which apply to philosophizing with picture books—including the 
sound pedagogical judgments of teachers21 (especially judgments that facilitate children’s reasoning), 
the behaviors of other children in a community of inquiry, and the cognitive interactions of the 
child’s family upbringing (see Lipman, 1991:218-291; 1996a:31-33). Significantly, Lipman’s theory of 
the text, the family, the teacher, and the community of inquiry as cognitive models derives from his 
study of social learning theory, as delineated by George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and 
Jerome Bruner. As Lipman observed, “One of the advantages of holding a social theory of cognition is 
that it provides a role for cognitive modeling as part of the learning process” (1996a:33). Indeed, the 
power of cognitive modeling through social interaction has been verified in numerous empirical 
studies conducted by contemporary educational psychologists (see Reznitskaya and Gregory, 2013).  
 

This is not to say that Lipman’s theory of what constitutes reasonableness, or his theory of the 
role of cognitive modeling in education for reasonableness is unproblematic. Nor do we claim that 
Lipman’s novels ideally operationalize the kinds of modeling recommended in his theories. Here we 
simply indicate the nature and the complexity of these theories, which Turgeon and Wartenberg do 
not address. Nor do they take issue with Lipman’s position that helping children to become more 
thoughtful (reasonable, imaginative, and morally sensitive) is among the primary purposes of engaging 
children in philosophical practice. Their only disagreement with Lipman concerns his position that 
using stories that model thoughtful children is the ideal way to do so. However, the objections they 
raise to this position are rhetorical and anecdotal:  
 

Can’t children learn to be thoughtful from their interactions with each other in 
philosophy discussions even if the stories they read do not provide a model of such 

                                                 
21 “[T]eachers can begin to view themselves as co-learners, co-searchers for more sufficient and comprehensive answers, 
always willing to listen to anyone ("even a child") who might have fresh and original insights about human concerns. The 
teacher then becomes a philosophical model for the children in the classroom which confirms the children in their 
freedom to think for themselves, to create new and fresh alternatives when confronted with problems of prime 
importance” (Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan 1977:12). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

70 
 

thoughtfulness? We see no reason to deny this possibility [...]. And indeed, we have found 
that the children we have worked with using picture books do become more thoughtful as 
a result of their interactions with their peers under the guidance of a facilitator. (2021:97)  

 
It is significant that Turgeon and Wartenberg here attribute children’s learning to be thoughtful to 
the pedagogy of well-facilitated philosophical dialogue. Indeed, they point to the aspects of that 
pedagogy highlighted in social learning theory. For Lipman, the philosophical content of a children’s 
story (literary or curricular) and the pedagogical practice of a community of philosophical inquiry are 
both necessary for the kind of learning he had in mind. Regarding the former, there is clearly much 
more to Lipman’s theory of the narrative text as cognitive model than Turgeon and Wartenberg 
relate. This is fair enough, given the scope of their essay; however, it is unfair that they imply that 
Lipman took the efficacy of his novels as “self-evident” without any theoretical or empirical 
justification.22   
 

Regarding literary standards, Turgeon and Wartenberg opine that “the philosophical novels that 
Lipman wrote are not great works of literature” (2021:97). Kidd observes similarly and in greater 
detail that “Lipman’s novels in dialogue compare unfavorably to contemporary children’s literature, as 
well as to the classics that Matthews champions. Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery is deadly earnest and not 
whimsical in the least. Most children would find it hard going, and it never took off as literature” 
(Kidd, 2020:47). Of course, this criticism is not universal. And as Turgeon and Wartenberg allow, 
Lipman “was open about [his novels] not being great works of literature, but that was not his goal” 
(2021:97). Notably, the philosophical children’s novels by Gaarder, Kennedy, Sharp, and others have 
not drawn similar criticism. Nor can Wartenberg’s categorical praise of “[t]he charm and wonder so 
evident in picture books” (2022:60) be substantiated by a review of picture books currently published. 
 

We now move to consider Turgeon and Wartenberg’s engagement with critiques of Lipman by 
Murris, Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh. Turgeon and Wartenberg paraphrase Murris’s critique 
that “Lipman prioritizes a very specific notion of philosophy, academic Analytic philosophy, thereby 
failing to do justice to his own goal of creating genuinely reflective children” (2021:98). Regarding the 
latter, what Murris in fact argues is that: 

 
With Lipman’s and therefore P4C’s epistemological and ontological roots in Plato’s 
rationalism and American Pragmatism, his preference for Anglo-American philosophy is 
understandable and justifiable. But his selection of what to include and exclude in [his] 
P4C curriculum has turned some philosophers (e.g. in Germany), who otherwise might 
have been interested in [his] P4C curriculum, against it.” (2016b: 67)  

 
Significantly, Murris (2022) makes the same critique of Matthews’ selection and analysis of 
philosophical children’s literature. As Turgeon and Wartenberg note, however, “there are recent 
examples of specifically written ‘philosophical novels’ which are linked to alternative models of 
philosophy, such as phenomenology and continental philosophical [sic] in general” (2021:98).   

                                                 
22 “Lipman’s assertion about the advantage of using expressly written philosophical novels is not entirely justified. It is not 
at all self-evident that the most appropriate way to teach young children to philosophize is to have them read novels in 
which the characters are shown engaging in philosophical discussions” (Turgeon and Wartenberg, 2021:97). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

71 
 

 
Turgeon and Wartenberg also cite Murris’ observation that “Lipman’s novels start with the 

‘abnormal’ child, the thinking child—the adult philosopher’s child” (2016b: 63). They somewhat 
misconstrue her to mean that “the children depicted in Lipman’s novels are not ordinary children 
who are acting the way children normally do” (2021:98), whereas Murris’s argument is broader and 
more radical, and includes children’s literature:   
 

Not only [Lipman’s] philosophical novels, but also existing children’s literature, perpetuate 
many adults’ assumptions about who and what children are and is therefore never 
politically innocent. Texts written for children are not only didactic when they encourage 
children to behave like sensible or thoughtful adults, but in an even more dangerously 
subtle way, [when] they legitimise and encourage children to behave in a way that—
according to some—is ‘natural’ to children. (2016b:63) 

 
Neither is Murris’s concern, as Turgeon and Wartenberg put it, that there is “a tendency within 
education to ignore the real child as a person and substitute some model from psychology or 
educational theory [that] fails to honor the very real capabilities of children to reflect on their 
experiences” (2021:98). Rather, she is concerned that most stories for children—those by Lipman as 
well as those in children’s literature, including picture books—are written and used by adults in such a 
way as to prevent children from challenging the messages they convey about what it means to be a 
child. For that, Murris contends, teachers need to know how to invite children to “meta-think” about 
the story—something that “cannot be modeled by a text itself as each text requires a ‘stepping-out’, a 
critical reflection on the narrative itself in ad infinitum. Whether this text is a philosophical novel 
from the P4C curriculum, or a picturebook makes no significant difference when engaging in the 
meta-thinking” (Murris, 2016b:75). Cleary, Murris is here addressing pedagogy rather than 
curriculum, and while Turgeon and Wartenberg do not address this argument, we agree with Murris 
and Kidd that certain texts, including comics, graphic novels, and picture books are more likely to 
“unsettle expectations about form and content as well as child-adult relation” (Kidd, 2020:54). 
 

Another argument for preferring children’s literature to Lipman’s novels is attributed by 
Turgeon and Wartenberg to Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh, who are said to argue that “Lipman’s 
position implicitly limits philosophy to logical/rational discourse and misses the rich depths of the 
role of imagination in making meaning” (2021:98).23  In the first place, we note that Khosronejad and 
Shokrollahzadeh make no such claim. In fact, they interpret Lipman to “suppose the tradition of 
writing purposefully philosophical narratives as encouraging rather than pre-empting children's 
imagination” (2020:5). Second, we note that the bulk of Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh’s 
critique—that in spite of his intentions, Lipman’s novels fail to engage children's imagination—is their 
own summary of Haynes and Murris (2012), whom Turgeon and Wartenberg neglect to cite on this 
point. Third, because this is a response essay to Turgeon and Wartenberg, we do not take up the 
argument as presented by Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh or Haynes and Murris here. Instead, we 
suggest that Lipman’s rejection of the false dichotomy between logical rigor and imagination (see 
Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan 1980:99) was a major theme of his early work in Deweyan aesthetics 

                                                 
23 Turgeon and Wartenberg, however, defend Lipman by stating that “Exploring how language works and what concepts 
are is a primary activity of the young child and Lipman’s approach does focus on this” (2021: 98). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

72 
 

(1967), his philosophical novel Suki (1978) which foregrounds aesthetic experience, his early 
championing of creative thinking as a necessary component of higher-order thinking (1991), and his 
extensive writing about moral imagination (e.g., Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyan, 1980). Given this, we 
are puzzled that Turgeon and Wartenberg relay Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh’s argument as 
unproblematic. 
 

To conclude, Turgeon and Wartenberg offer no evidence that there was anything like an 
“admonition of Lipman and his followers not to use picture books in elementary school philosophy 
discussions” (2021:102).24 A more accurate summary of Lipman’s view would be that while many 
children’s books prompt and sustain children’s philosophical thinking in worthwhile ways, most do 
not portray children thinking and dialoguing in such a way that can be a model of collaborative 
philosophical inquiry, and most of those that raise philosophical questions do not attempt to 
represent different positions about them from the philosophical tradition.  
  
Ann Margaret Sharp and Laurance J. Splitter 

 
Turgeon and Wartenberg attribute to Splitter and Sharp the “claim that the pictures and 

illustrations in children’s books foreclose the cognitive options of the children engaged with them. 
The idea is that the illustrations in picture books do ‘work’ that is properly left to the children 
themselves by filling in the text with images that the author and illustrator deem appropriate” 
(2021:98). It is well known that Lipman’s novels were published without illustrations—a decision he, 
Sharp, and Oscanyan explained by stating that, “to [provide illustrations] is to do for children what 
they should do for themselves: provide the imagery that accompanies reading and interpretation” 
(1980:36). To that end, Lipman’s novels for younger children provide spaces for children to create 
their own illustrations. Both the fear of stifling children’s creativity and the invitation to invite them 
to create their own illustrations are tied to Lipman’s recognition that young children, in general, have 
an acumen for art unparalleled by most adults. Coincidentally, Lipman and Matthews were both 
inspired to recognize children’s philosophical acumen in part by their experience of children’s art (see 
Lipman 2008; Matthews 1994). Nevertheless, Wartenberg may be correct to suppose that Lipman 
lacked “an acquaintance with or theoretical understanding of picture books and the logic of the 
relationship between their texts and images” (2022:55). 
 

Turgeon and Wartenberg claim, without reference, that “The omission of pictures on the 
Lipman/Sharp novels has drawn criticism on the grounds that children expect and want pictures; 
otherwise they will find the books boring or not engaging,” but acknowledge that, “in our experience 
children are astonishingly tolerant of the lack of pictures in the Lipman novels” (2021:99).25 They 
nevertheless accuse “the Lipmanians” of  
 

an inability to come to terms with the wonderful illustrations that grace the pages of 
picture books. It seems inconceivable that anyone who has read books by Dr. Seuss 
(Theodore Geisel) and looked at his wildly imaginative drawings could think that a child’s 

                                                 
24 Elsewhere, Wartenberg claims that “Lipman opposed using picture books to introduce young children to philosophy” 
(2022:51).  
25 However, Wartenberg acknowledges: “I have never used Lipman’s novels in my work with children” (2022:43). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

73 
 

imagination would be stunted by seeing the image of a Star Bellied Sneetch or the Cat in a 
Hat. (2021:99) 

 
Of course, a good deal of the artwork in children’s media is not wonderful, but insipid and banal 
without being provocative in any helpful way, as well as biased in terms of race, class, gender, and 
sexuality. To this point, Lynn Gluek and Harry Brighouse argue that such works condescend to 
children when they “‘dumb down’ language, content and even image” (2008:130). Turgeon and 
Wartenberg cite Splitter and Sharp’s 1995 book, Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community 
of Inquiry, without quotation, for the “Lipmanian” stance on artwork in children’s books; however, the 
treatment of the issue there is considerably more nuanced than Turgeon and Wartenberg indicate: 
 

[T]he characteristic display of beautiful drawings in [children’s picture] books can be a 
mixed blessing if it induces an expectation, on the part of otherwise imaginative children, 
that the author has already determined the visual nature of characters and contexts. If we 
think of drawings as serving a similar function to texts in stimulating inquiry, we would 
argue, by analogy, that a good philosophical drawing is one which raises or reflects, rather 
than settles, a question or puzzle. (1995:186) 

 
While we agree with Splitter and Sharp that not only the quality of the artwork but the way it raises or 
settles philosophical questions is an important consideration, we agree with Turgeon and Wartenberg, 
Haynes and Murris, and Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh, that the artwork in picture books, 
graphic novels, and other stories for children can be as philosophically meaningful as their texts, and 
that high-quality artwork in children’s media is more likely to stimulate than to hinder children’s 
imagination.  
  

Race and Children’s Literature 

 
Turgeon and Wartenberg rightly raise the problem of racism in children’s literature but suggest 

that this problem is being self-corrected. Numerous scholars argue, to the contrary, that, as a multi-
million-dollar industry in pursuit of profits, children’s publishing remains a site where biases and 
racist assumptions are reproduced (see Klein 1985; Naidoo 1992; Ramdarshan Bold 2019; Sands-
O’Connor 2008, 2017; Sims-Bishop 2007; and Thomas 2019). We believe that racist, sexist, 
heteronormative, classist, and other forms of bias that “hide in plain sight” in children’s literature 
(Nel 2017:10) and curricular philosophical novels are among the most important and complex issues 
confronting the philosophy for children community today.26 To date, sexism has received some 
sustained attention by philosophy for children scholars (see, e.g., Field 1995; Sharp 1994, 1997; Sharp 
and Gregory 2009). Racism, however, is rarely given attention in this community, with the notable 
exception of a succession of journal articles beginning with Chetty in 2014.27 That scholarly exchange 
is the focus of a section of Turgeon and Wartenberg’s essay, though they do not share their own 

                                                 
26 We do not harbor “the concern that picture books inherently present a misleading picture of complex social issues,” as 
Wartenberg claims, without reference (2022:86). Wartenberg is further mistaken in stating that Chetty “is not sanguine 
about the possibility of using picture books to discuss race with young children” (2022:87) and that Chetty believes that all 
“picture books either simplify major complex issues or de-historicize them” (2022:92). 
27 Further examples of writing related to philosophy for children and racism include Rainville 2000, Vigliante 2005, Reed-
Sandoval 2019, Elicor 2020, and Kronsted & Wurtz 2021. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

74 
 

perspective on racism. In what follows, we offer our stance on what we take to be the most important 
points of that exchange.  
 

Perhaps the most contentious issue regarding racism and philosophy for children is whether 
theorists and practitioners in the movement ought to have a considered philosophical stance on 
racism. By this we mean a stance that is informed by an engagement with socio-historical knowledge of 
racism and how it relates to the context in which one is working and the materials and methods that 
one is employing. This would include the ways that Western philosophy, while largely avoiding racial 
injustice as a subject of study, has also been implicated in the emergence of racial taxonomies used to 
justify the exclusion of people designated as ‘nonwhite’ from the category of persons (see, e.g. Mills 
1997). People who have a considered philosophical perspective may disagree with each other on any 
number of racial issues, but are more likely than those who do not, to recognize and resist racism 
when it manifests. We believe it is important that people who practice and theorize philosophy for 
children have a familiarity with contemporary scholarship in the philosophy of race in order to be 
sensitive to the ways that race and racism are relevant to the texts (commercial and curricular) and the 
norms of discourse we adopt in that practice, and to avoid the kinds of missteps that can make 
philosophy for children an inadvertent site of the production of racist ideology.28   
 
‘Color-blind’ Children’s Stories 

 
Turgeon and Wartenberg credit Lipman with trying to make the gender and ethnicity of 

characters in his novels ambiguous, which, they suggest, “facilitates [...] a more porous and open 
identification between readers and the characters in the novels” (2021:99). However, we doubt the 
effectiveness and desirability of this approach. Chetty (2008) highlights that only one character in 
Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery, Fran Wood, is explicitly raced and that she is described as “a girl and 
Black too” at the moment when two boys “tease” her (Lipman 1974/1982:11). Because the other 
characters in Lipman’s novels are not identified racially or ethnically (except, perhaps, by their last 
names), they are often assumed to be white. Indeed, as early as 1989 a teacher in the United States 
described a fifth-grade session where a group of children raise the question of whether Harry is white 
and conclude unanimously that he is (see Harris 1991:62). The common practice in Anglo-American 
literature of identifying the racial or ethnic identity of only Black and racially minoritized characters 
leads to other characters being read as white—by readers of color as well as by white readers—unless 
told to do otherwise. Observing this phenomenon in literary discourse, Toni Morrison writes that 
“[t]he world does not become raceless or will not become unracialized by assertion. The act of 
enforcing racelessness […] is itself a racial act” (1991:46). Chetty has recounted that many of his 
second-grade students in a racially diverse school agreed with one student’s pronouncement that 
“Stories have to be about white people” (2016b:96).  
 
Race and Representation in Children’s Stories 

 
Turgeon and Wartenburg note that “There are many contemporary picture books that feature 

non-white protagonists,” characterizing this as a “trend that will defang any criticism of picture books 
                                                 
28 For an overview of philosophy of race, see Zack, 2017; for examples of philosophy, race, and the classroom, see 
Applebaum 2010, Blum 2012, Harris 1991, and Yancy and del Guadelupe Davidson 2014. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

75 
 

based on the absence of non-Caucasian characters” (2021:99 and note 14). In fact, work to redress the 
under-representation of racially minoritized people in children’s literature in the United States of 
America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) has a long history. In 1919, sixteen years after 
publishing The Souls of Black Folk, in which he argued that “The problem of the twentieth century is 
the problem of the color-line” (1903/1994:9), W.E.B. Du Bois announced the launch of The Brownies’ 
Book, “a little magazine for all children, but especially for ours, ‘the Children of the Sun’” 
(1919:286).29  While The Brownies Book ran for only 24 issues, it has been described by Dianne 
Johnson-Feelings as “precipitat[ing] the development of the body of work now called African 
American children’s literature, in all of its subsequent manifestations and meanings” (1990:37). 
While subsequent progress has been made, due to concerted efforts by activists, parents, scholars, 
writers, and illustrators, racially minoritized people continue to be notably under-represented in 
children’s publishing in much of the English-speaking world.30       
 

The relative lack of representation of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) people is 
by no means the only element of bias and racism in children’s literature. Another is the frequent 
marginalization of BIPOC literary characters in the stories in which they appear. In noting an increase 
in the number of books featuring Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people, the Centre for 
Literacy in Primary Education identified ten ways that racially minoritized characters were 
marginalized in books published in the United Kingdom, rendering those characters “visibly invisible” 
(CLPE 2019:18).31 Another element, and the most troubling, is racist depictions of racially-
minoritized people in many of the classics of children’s literature, including Peter and Wendy (Barrie 
1911) and Little Black Sambo (Bannerman 1899) (see Chetty and Karen Sands O’Connor, 2020). 
While most of these were not originally published as picture books (though picture books and films 
have since been produced), they demonstrate the need to expand our philosophical thinking about 
racism in children’s literature beyond the concern of whether or not racially minoritized people are 
represented, to considerations of how they are represented. To do so is not only to engage 
philosophically with the topic of racism in children’s literature; it is an important aspect of the kind of 
aesthetic and ethical interrogation and critique of that literature as a cultural product, that 
philosophers in and out of philosophy for children ordinarily conduct.  
 
Race and the Selection of Children’s Stories 

 
In his 2014 article, Chetty suggests that “the recommendation of [certain] materials and the 

omission of more critical perspectives of race amongst recommended starting points and training 

                                                 
29 Often described as a sociologist, Du Bois was also a philosopher and a contemporary of John Dewey, though his work in 
spanning philosophy, childhood, racism and children’s literature has been largely neglected in philosophy for children 
scholarship. 
30 See data on the representation of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) people in literature collected by the 
Cooperative Children’s Book Center at the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison 
(https://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/) and the annual surveys of ‘Ethnic Representation within UK Children’s literature’ 
entitled Reflecting Realities by the Centre for Literacy in Primary Education (CLPE, https://clpe.org.uk/) in the UK. 
31 Similarly, remarking on the fact that people of color are dramatically underrepresented in children’s literature in the 
genres of fantasy, science fiction, and dystopian novels, Philip Nel writes that “White children should not be the only ones 
encouraged to see themselves on a quest in an imaginary world, grappling with technology of the future, inhabiting 
mythological tales, or banding together to resist a dystopian regime” (2017:195). 

https://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/
https://clpe.org.uk/


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

76 
 

materials might constitute a form of ‘gate-keeping’ of philosophical thought” and that “the notion of 
‘The Gated Community of Enquiry’ might be illuminating in considering how P4C practitioners 
approach the subject of racism” (2014:14). Drawing upon the work of the late Caribbean-American 
philosopher Charles Mills, Chetty analyzes David McKee’s picture books Elmer (1968/1989) and Tusk 
Tusk (1978). Wartenberg mistakenly accuses Chetty of ignoring his own “doubts as to whether these 
books are actually about racism” and going on “to discuss them as if they did” (2022:87). In fact, 
Chetty chooses these books only because they “have been recommended [...] by Philosophy for 
Children practitioners as starting points for philosophical enquiry into racism, multiculturalism and 
diversity” (2014:14). Chetty notes that while racism is not actually depicted in either story, both are 
often read as “race fables”32 (2014:25):  
 

Neither book speaks to structural inequality, which is historically situated and not 
arbitrary, and to how it positions groups as inferior and superior. They don't appear to 
portray oppression. Consequently, the solutions they offer are very different from the kind 
of solutions often considered appropriate for addressing racism. Elmer’s difference is 
celebrated and integrated into the group in a tokenistic way, whilst in Tusk Tusk the 
solution is toleration, co-habitation and miscegenation. Because they don't discuss 
structural inequality, they don't open up for enquiry justice-based solutions like repair, 
redistribution or reconciliation.33 (2014:22-23)  

 
Chetty (2014) raises concerns about inquiring about racism by use of allegorical children’s stories that 
retreat into theoretical abstraction and ignore relevant factual details.34 However, Chetty’s interest is 
broader than to critique McKee’s books. His aim is to consider what their being recommended as 
ways into philosophizing about race—particularly in the context of a paucity of scholarship relating to 
racism and an alarming lack of philosophy for children scholars of color—suggests about prevailing 
understandings of race and racism among philosophy for children scholars. Chetty reminds us that it 
is typically adults who select the stories used in philosophy for children sessions and that the story 
selected to some extent makes some questions more likely to be asked and others less so.  
 

We do not believe—as Chetty has been taken to believe—that picture books should be used to 
teach children particular concepts or ideas, about race or any other philosophically complex concept.35  
Nor do we believe that facilitators should select picture books that confirm their own view of the 

                                                 
32 Matthew Orville Grenby describes a fable as “a fundamentally didactic form, designed to draw in its readers through a 
compelling story and appealing, even cute characters and to teach important lessons through allegory” (2008:11). 
33 While Chetty takes care not to speculate about author intentionality, Mckee has since said that Elmer was inspired by ‘a 
racist incident’ (see Jeffries 2012).  
34 Though critical of what he mistakenly takes to be a categorical condemnation of picture books that have been used to 
invite children to philosophize about race and racism on Chetty’s part, Wartenberg agrees with Chetty’s actual thesis, in 
stipulating that his own “endorsement of picture books as allowing for successful discussions of difficult issues comes with 
the caveat that the books have to be chosen with care so that inappropriate conceptions of race and racism will not be 
supported” (2022:96). 
35 Rather than engaging with Chetty’s detailed argument that Tusk Tusk is more didactic than Haynes and Murris 
acknowledge, Murris asserts, without foundation, that he prefers to use picture books didactically (2015:60). In contrast, 
Williams correctly observes that, “So far as Chetty is concerned, I think a distinction should be made between wishing to 
bring certain matters to the attention of children and trying to control the agenda and the outcome. I think he wants to do 
the former” (Williams 2020:9).  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

77 
 

world. However, we follow Chetty (2014) in suggesting that this might be what is actually happening. 
If those who select picture books are unaware of the political dimension of stories, they are likely to 
take as neutral or universal stories that convey particular political ideas and norms. As the children’s 
literature scholar, Jack Zipes, recommends:  
 

I avowedly seek a political understanding of our notion of classicism and classical fairy 
tales, the process of selection, elimination and reward. The fairy tales we have come to 
revere as classical are not ageless, universal, and beautiful in and of themselves, and they 
are not the best therapy in the world for children. They are historical prescriptions, 
internalized, potent, explosive, and we acknowledge the power they hold over our lives by 
mystifying them (2006:11).36  

 
In addition to fairy tales, we doubt that there can be such a thing as a picture book (or any other 
cultural production) that is politically neutral.  
 
Race and the Facilitation of Philosophical Discourse 

  
While it is commonly acknowledged that being aware of one’s positionality as an adult working 

with children is vital for facilitating philosophical conversations with children—and indeed for all 
educational practice—it is also necessary to extend this awareness of one’s positionality beyond age, to 
include how one’s racialised, gendered and classed identities, for example, might come to bear on the 
choices one makes inside and outside the classroom. Turgeon and Wartenberg appear to read 
Williams (2020) as saying that a good facilitator can counteract or neutralize the political message of a 
children's story, so that any and every text is potentially appropriate for philosophical dialogue. 
However, Williams’ point is narrower, and in agreement with Chetty: that a good facilitator might 
create meaningful philosophical inquiry—around the issue of hatred, not historical racism—with a text 
like Tusk Tusk to prevent it from being miseducative about racism. We see Turgeon’s and 
Wartenberg’s response to Williams as problematic for two reasons. First, in moving critical attention 
from the text to the role of the facilitator, they dismiss the importance of paying critical attention to 
children’s media (see Nel 2017), thereby devaluing the very cultural product they seek to promote.  
 

Second, Turgeon and Wartenberg imply (as Williams and Chetty do not) that a ‘good enough’ 
facilitator can use any text, no matter the content, which we reject on the grounds that no 
philosophical teacher, however accomplished, can completely neutralize the political content of a text. 
They write that “Williams [...] acknowledges the concerns raised by Chetty about either simplifying 
complex phenomena and ideas or dis-historicizing them but stops short of rejecting the use of such 
books in philosophizing” (2021:101). In fact, Williams not only acknowledges, but agrees with 
Chetty’s concerns:37  “Chetty suggests there may be a limit to what popular picture books alone can 

                                                 
36 Steve Williams demonstrates, through careful citation, that Murris misrepresents Jack Zipes as claiming that fairy tales 
are “universal, ageless, therapeutic, miraculous and beautiful” (Zipes 2006:2, cited in Murris 2016a:243-4). 
37 In 2010, Chetty and Williams collaborated on a ‘Philosophy for Children and Race’ online reading group, attended by a 
number of SAPERE trainers. At the time SAPERE courses did not include any readings by Black or otherwise racially 
minoritized scholars or any readings relating to racism, though this was a topic teachers on SAPERE courses often asked 
about. Chetty and Williams along with Christian Albert, a Black Trinidadian British teacher, philosophy for children 
practitioner, and former colleague of Chetty’s at a primary school in London serving a racially diverse community, created 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

78 
 

achieve in supporting dialogue about complex social issues with historical dimensions. I agree” 
(Williams 2020:5). In our view, there is more work to be done to understand the relationship among 
the complexities and challenges of facilitation, the inevitable political dimension of children’s stories 
and curricular materials, and the diverse positionality of children. 
 

The Politics of Scholarship in the Philosophy for Children Community 

         
As Chetty observes, racism is rarely given attention in philosophy for children materials and 

scholarship—a pattern he identifies as beginning with Lipman’s Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery (Chetty 
2008; 2014). Indeed, Turgeon and Wartenburg do not share what they themselves take racism to be. 
They write that “Murris is critical of Chetty for assuming that he knows what the appropriate theory 
of racism is and attempting to get children to come to accept it” (2020:100). It is not clear what 
Turgeon and Wartenberg make of this claim, or how Murris has arrived at this conclusion.  
 

In fact, Turgeon and Wartenberg do not quote, summarize, or comment on Chetty’s 
philosophical account of racism.38 While both his respondents are cited, his voice is effectively absent 
from the two-page discussion that he is identified as initiating. Whatever the intention of the authors, 
this has the effect of readers encountering the voice of each of the scholars in this exchange about 
racism—Wendy Turgeon, Thomas Wartenberg, Karin Murris and Steve Williams—except for Darren 
Chetty, the only racially minoritized scholar among them. Such a practice is in keeping with Chetty’s 
notion of “the gated community of enquiry,” which he introduces in The Elephant in the Room (2014). 
The paper is described by David Kennedy as critiquing “the central notion of the community of 
enquiry as an egalitarian safe space” as creating an uneasy paradox in the domestication of 
interruption, subtly gagging the potential voices of the members of silenced, marginalized and 
excluded groups, and gingerly ignoring oppositional counter-narratives” (2017:xiii). We suggest that 
Turgeon and Wartenberg’s paper can be viewed as an instance of this occurring in philosophy for 
children scholarship, which Chetty and Judith Suissa (2017) argue, is itself a community of inquiry 
and one that has a formative role in philosophy for children training and practice.  
 

We believe the exclusion of any citation of Chetty and of the Black and other racially 
minoritized scholars he brings into conversation with philosophy for children scholarship (many for 
the first time) is to the detriment of this discussion. Further, it is likely to be to the detriment of the 
community of philosophy for children scholars. When one fails to afford the same level of respect to a 
racially minoritized scholar, one communicates something significant to all racially minoritized 
scholars about how their work will likely be received, should it introduce new, critical perspectives. 
There are very few BIPOC scholars in the philosophy for children community—shockingly few when 
one considers that ours is a pedagogy that regularly advocates dialogue across difference, a willingness 

                                                                                                                                                                   
a philosophy for children resource based on Albert’s experience of struggling to find a recognizable Black character he 
could dress as for the school’s celebration of World Book Day. The resource has been used with children, teachers and 
philosophy for children trainers in the UK to inquire into children’s literature, racial representation and education (see 
https://www.thephilosophyman.com/marksdilemma).  
38 A reference to Chetty’s published work was only added to Turgeon and Wartenberg’s article after Chetty noted its 
absence in the article’s initial publication.  

https://www.thephilosophyman.com/marksdilemma


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

79 
 

to listen, and epistemic humility. We believe it is vital to open the gates of the community of 
scholarship in philosophy for children to minoritized and junior scholars in our field. 
 

Another aspect of the politics of philosophy for children scholarship is that over the past forty-
plus years, philosophy for children scholars have paid little or no attention to the voices of BIPOC—be 
it in philosophy, pedagogy and education, or children’s literature. Over almost forty years, a number 
of books about philosophy for children have been published featuring Black children on the cover 
while failing to cite a single Black scholar within their covers.39  From a scan of much existing 
philosophy for children literature, it would be possible to conclude that while BIPOC children are 
capable of philosophizing (in classrooms with white philosophy teachers), BIPOC adults have little or 
nothing to offer those who philosophize with children. 

 
The common practice of making selections of starting materials that are authored only by white 

people is not a politically neutral practice. The lack of discussion about this practice amongst 
philosophy for children scholars is not neutral scholarship. The lack of racially minoritized philosophy 
for children scholars is not a neutral fact. The lack of citation of Black and racially minoritized 
philosophers and scholars, and philosophers and scholars working on racism and its relation to 
philosophy and education is not neutral. That some fifty years after the emergence of philosophy for 
children, there are international conferences that include, at best, a handful of Black and racially 
minoritized scholars is not a neutral fact. The monopolization of positions of authority by people 
racialized as white in the philosophy for children community is not neutral. The lack of interrogation 
as to what these facts collectively mean for the philosophy for children community as an epistemic 
community is not a neutral fact.  
 

Conclusion 

 
In conclusion, our findings indicate that everyone involved in philosophy for children agrees 

with Turgeon and Wartenberg that picture books and children’s literature more generally are useful 
for intergenerational philosophical inquiry. However, the use of children’s books in itself does not 
constitute a unique approach to philosophizing with children. Rather, the selection of materials for 
that activity depends on how we understand its nature and purposes. On the one hand, many of the 
pedagogical elements that Lipman, Sharp, Kennedy, Cam, and others wrote into their curricular 
philosophical children’s stories and novels can be found in some children’s literature, while, on the 
other hand, many of the benefits that Turgeon and Wartenberg and others have noted for children’s 
literature, including literary and aesthetic quality, are available to the curricular philosophical 
children’s story. In any case, the alternatives of philosophical children’s literature and curricular 
philosophical materials are not mutually exclusive. Philosophers and educators should weigh the 
relative dis/advantages of different kinds of texts in deciding which ones to use to philosophize with 
children for different purposes. 
 

We have also reviewed a number of concerns about the use of children’s literature in philosophy 
for children. These include those addressed by Turgeon and Wartenberg, including that teachers, 

                                                 
39 See for example, Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyan (1980); Lipman (1988); Sharp and Reed (1992); SAPERE (2016). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

80 
 

parents, and graduate students without a preparation in philosophy will struggle to select and use 
children’s literature to philosophize with children and that some children’s books are morally 
didactic. We have also reviewed the concerns articulated by Lipman, Sharp, and Splitter, that 
children’s literature does not perform the multiple kinds of cognitive modeling necessary to introduce 
children to, and initiate children in philosophy as a discipline. Finally, we have reviewed the concern 
raised by Chetty that much children’s literature contains racial and other kinds of bias. We agree with 
Turgeon, Wartenberg, Murris, Khosronejad, and Shokrollahzadeh that more work needs to be done 
on the part of philosophy for children scholars to draw from children’s literature studies. One of the 
benefits of doing so is that we can learn how critical race theory, indigenous theories, and queer 
theory (see Kidd 2020) should figure in philosophical inquiry.  
 

Because this essay is a response to Turgeon and Wartenberg’s essay, which itself recounted a 
number of other scholars writing in response to still others, we conclude with the observation that 
scholarly discussion, just like the classroom community of inquiry, is a site of knowledge co-creation. 
This insight obligates all of us to bring to scholarship in philosophy for children the same 
interpersonal care and academic rigor we bring to scholarship in other fields. While none of us can 
claim to do this perfectly, it behooves us all to beware the professional harm we may cause to others by 
not reading them carefully, not citing them appropriately, and ignoring their contribution, as well as 
the epistemic loss to the community when knowledge creators are marginalized in those ways. We are 
mindful that, given the lack of diversity among the philosophy for children founders and their 
contemporaries, racially minoritized scholars in the philosophy for children global community are 
often junior scholars. We hope they will be supported, mentored, and invited to make a home in the 
field. Given that philosophy for children as a field has both advocated dialogic pedagogy across 
difference, and developed in a scholarly community that lacks racial diversity, we would be wise also to 
reflect on what our racially minoritized peers bring to our attention. We might also reflect on how, for 
many of us, our experience of dialoguing in racially diverse communities is limited to classrooms 
where, whatever our personal commitments, we find ourselves in positions of de facto authority.   
 

References 

Applebaum, Barbara (2010). Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, Moral Responsibility, and Social 
Justice Pedadogy. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books. 

Bannerman, Helen (1899) Little Black Sambo. London: Grant Richards. 
Blum, Lawrence (2012) High Schools, Race, and America’s Future. Cambridge, MA: Havard Education. 
Bowen, Jack (2006) The Dream Weaver: One Boy's Journey Through the Landscape of Reality. New York:  
 Pearson/Longman.  
Burdick-Shepherd, Stephanie and Cristina Cammarano (2022) Gareth B. Matthews on the child as 

philosopher. In Maughn Rollins Gregory and Megan Jane Laverty (Eds.) Gareth B. Matthews, 
The Child’s Philosopher, 87-104. New York: Routledge.  

CLPE (The Centre for Literacy in Primary Education) (2019) Reflecting Realities: Survey of Ethnic 
Representation Within UK Children’s Literature 2018. London: CLPE 

Cam, Philip (1998) Thinking in Stories 1. Alexandria, NSW, AU: Hale & Iremonger. 
Camhy, Daniela G. (2007) Von Kleinen Mäusen und Großen Gedanken: Philosophische 

Nachdenkgeschichten. [Of Little Mice and Big Thoughts: Philosophical Thought Stories]. Graz, Austria: 
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Kinderphilosophie.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

81 
 

----- (2015). Tina and Amir & Ella. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones La Rectoral. 
Carlisle, Lenore Reily (1992) Picture Books: An Easy Place to Think. In Sally Benedict and Lenore 

Carlsle (eds.) Beyond Words: Picture Books for Older Readers and Writers, 49-58. Portsmouth, NH: 
Heinemann.  

Cavell, Stanley (2008) A Time and Place for Philosophy. Metaphilosophy 39(1):51-61. 
Chetty, Darren (2008) Philosophy for Children and Antiracist Education: To What Extent Does P4C 

Complement Antiracism? MA Dissertation. Goldsmiths College, University of London. London 
-----(2014) The Elephant in the Room: Picturebooks, Philosophy for Children and Racism. Childhood & 

Philosophy 10(19):11–31 
-----(2016) "You Can’t Say That! Stories Have to Be About White People." In Nikesh Shukla (ed) The 

Good Immigrant, 96-107. London: Unbound 
-----(2018) Racism as ‘Reasonableness’: Philosophy for Children and the Gated Community of Inquiry, 

Ethics and Education, 13(1):39-54. 
Chetty, Darren and Judith Suissa (2016) No Go Areas: Racism and Discomfort in the Community of 

Inquiry. In M. Gregory, J. Haynes, and K. Murris (eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of 
Philosophy for Children, 11–18. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Chetty, Darren and Karen Sands-O’Connor (2020) Beyond The Secret Garden? Classic Literature and 
Classic Mistakes. Books for Keeps 241:14-15. 

Daniel, Marie-France (2002) Les Contes D'Audrey-Anne: Contes Philosophiques [The Tales of Audrey-
Anne: Philosophical Tales]. Québec: Le Loup de Gouttière. 

De Marzio, Darryl Matthew (2011) What Happens in Philosophical Texts: Matthew Lipman’s Theory 
and Practice of the Philosophical Text as Model. Childhood and Philosophy 7(13):29-47. 

Diamond, Cora (1995) The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy and the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT 
Press. 

Du Bois, W.E.B. (1919) The True Brownies. The Crisis 18:285-286. 
-----(1903/1994) The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Dover 
Elicor, Peter Paul (2020) Resisting the 'View from Nowhere': Positionality in Philosophy for/with 

Children Research. Philosophia International Journal of Philosophy (Philippines) 1(21):19-33. 
Eyre, Lucy (2007) If Minds had Toes. New York: Bloomsbury. 
Field, Terri (1995) Philosophy for Children and the Feminist Critique of Reason. Critical and Creative 

Thinking 3(1):9–12. 
Gaarder, Jostein (1994) Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. New York: Farrar, Straus 

and Giroux. 
Gazzard, Ann (2018) Do you Need to Know Philosophy to Teach Philosophy to Children? A 

Comparison of Two Approaches. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 33(1): 45-53.   
Gluek, Lynn and Harry Brighouse (2008) Philosophy in Children’s Literature. In Michael Hand and 

Carrie Winstanley (eds.) Philosophy in Schools, 119-31. London: Continuum. 
Goering, Sara (2007) Integrating philosophy for children and young adults into the public schools: 

Tale from Long Beach California. Theory and Research in Education 5(3):341-355.  
Gregory, Maughn Rollins and Megan Jane Laverty (2022a) [Philosophy for Children Founders] Series 

Editors’ Introduction. In M.R. Gregory and M.L. Laverty (Eds.) Gareth B. Matthews, The Child’s 
Philosopher, xvii-xviii. New York: Routledge. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

82 
 

-----(2022b) Frog and Toad at the Academy: Gareth B. Matthews on How Children’s Literature Goes 
Philosophical. Policy Futures in Education. OnlineFirst version 5 January 2022: 
https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062463. 

Grenby, Matthew Orville (2008) Children’s Literature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
Harris, Leonard (ed.) (1991) Children in Chaos: A "Philosophy for Children" Experience. Dubuque, IA: 

Kendall Hunt.  
Haynes, Joanna and Karin Murris (2012) Picturebooks, Pedagogy and Philosophy. New York: Routledge.  
Jeffries, Stuart (2102) 25 years of Elmer the elephant. Interview with David McKee. The Guardian 12 

July 2014; accessed 5 March 2022 from 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/12/25-years-elmer-elephant-david-mckee.  

Johansson, Viktor (2011) In Charge of the Truffula Seeds: On Children’s Literature, Rationality and 
Children’s Voices in Philosophy. Journal of Philosophy of Education 45(2):359-377. 

Johnson, Dianne [Dianne Johnson-Feelings]. Telling Tales: The Pedagogy and Promise of African American 
Literature for Youth. New York: Praeger 

Kennedy, David (1992) Using Peter Rabbit as a Philosophical Text with Young Children. Analytic 
Teaching 13(1):53-58.  

-----(1999) Philosophy for Children and the Reconstruction of Philosophy. Metaphilosophy 30(4):338-
359. 

-----(2010) Philosophical dialogue with children. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellon Press. 
-----(2012) My Name is Myshkin: A Philosophical Novel for Children. Münster, DE: LIT Verlag. 
-----(2017) Foreword: In Search of the Third Space. In Ching-Ching Lin and Lavina Sequeira (eds) Inclusion, 

Diversity, and Intercultural Dialogue in Young People’s Philosophical Inquiry, vii-xv. Rotterdam: 
Sense. 

-----(2021) Dreamers: A Philosophical Novel for Children. Accessed 5 March 2022 at 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336312912_DREAMERS_A_Philosophical_Novel
_for_Children.  

Khosronejad, Morteza and Soudabeh Shokrollahzadeh (2020) From silencing children’s literature to 
attempting to learn from it: changing views towards picturebooks in p4c movement. Childhood 
& Philosophy 16:1-30. 

Kidd, Kenneth B. (2020) Theory for Beginners: Children's Literature as Critical Thought. New York: 
Fordham University Press. 

Klein, Gillian (1985) Reading into Racism: Bias in Children’s Literature and Learning Materials. London: 
Routledge. 

Kronsted, Christian, and Jonathan Wurtz (2021) "Philosophical Horizons: P4/WC and Anti-Racism 
in Memphis, TN." Intentional Disruption: Expanding Access to Philosophy (2021): 91-112. 

Kohan, Walter Omar and Caire Cassidy (2022) Gareth B. Matthews: Philosophy of childhood or 
children? In Maughn Rollins Gregory and Megan Jane Laverty (Eds.) Gareth B. Matthews, The 
Child’s Philosopher, 215-231. New York: Routledge. 

Kohan, Walter Omar and Vigna, Elvira (2013) Pensar com Heráclito. [Think with Heraclitus. Rio de 
Janeiro, RJ, Brazil: Lamparina Editora. 

Laverty, Megan Jane and Maughn Rollins Gregory (2022) Gareth B. Matthews: A Philosopher’s Life 
with Children. In Maughn Rollins Gregory and Megan Jane Laverty (Eds.) Gareth B. Matthews, 
The Child’s Philosopher, 1-28. New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F14782103211062463
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/12/25-years-elmer-elephant-david-mckee
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336312912_DREAMERS_A_Philosophical_Novel_for_Children
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336312912_DREAMERS_A_Philosophical_Novel_for_Children


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

83 
 

Lipman, Matthew (1967) What Happens in Art. New York: Appleton‑Century‑Crofts. 
-----(1974/1982) Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of 

Philosophy for Children. 
-----(1978) Suki. Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.  
-----(1988) Philosophy Goes to School. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
-----(1991) Thinking in Education (1st Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press. 
-----(1996a) Pixie and the Relationship Between Cognitive Modeling and Cognitive Practice. In Ronald 

F. Reed and Ann Margaret Sharp (Eds.) Studies in Philosophy for Children: Pixie, 28-36. Madrid: 
Ediciones de la Torre. 

-----(1996b) Natasha: Vygotskian Dialogues. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Lipman, Matthew, Ann Margaret Sharp, and Frederick S. Oscanyan (1977). Philosophy in the Classroom 

(1st Ed.). Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. 
-----(1980). Philosophy in the Classroom (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.  
Lobel, Arnold (1979) Frog and Toad Together. New York: Harper Collins. 
Lofting, Hugh (1920) The Story of Dr Doolittle. London: Frederick A. Stokes. 
Miraglia, Maria (2021) The Importance of Continuing the Heritage of Lipman's Philosophical Fiction: 

Writing Stories for the Contemporary World. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 
41(2):77-91. 

Matthews, Gareth B. (1976) Philosophy and Children’s Literature. Metaphilosophy 7(1):7-16. 
-----(1984) Dialogues with Children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
-----(1986) Bravery and philosophy in the adventures of Frog and Toad. In Rotert, R. and Butler, F. 

(eds.) Triumphs of the Spirit in Children’s Literature, 27-31. Hamden, CT: Library Professional 
Publications. 

-----(1988) The philosophical imagination in Children’s Literature. Reprinted in K. Egan and D. 
Nadaner (Eds.) Imagination and education, 186-197. New York: Teachers College Press. 

-----(1990) Philosophy as Child's Play. Children's Literature Association Quarterly 1990 Proceedings, 25-38. 
-----(1994) Philosophy of Childhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
-----(2004) Finding platform 9¾: the idea of a different reality. In Bagget, D. and Klein, S.E. (Eds.) 

Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts, 257-274. Chicago: Open Court. 
-----(2005) Children, Irony and Philosophy. Theory and Research in Education 3(1):81-95, reprinted here. 
-----(2009) Philosophical Adventures in the Lands of Oz and Ev. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 

43(2):37-50. 
Mckee, David (1968 / 1989) Elmer. London: Anderson Press 
-----(1978) Tusk Tusk. London: Random House. 
Michaels, J.C. (2007) Firebelly. Boston, MA: Philosophragh. 
Mills, Charles, W. (1997) The Racial Contract. New York: Cornell University Press. 
Montero, Virginia Trejos (2017) Los Gemelos: Una Historia Para Pensar [The Twins: A Story to Think 

About] San José, Costa Rica: Pensarte. 
Morrison, Toni (2020) Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. New York: Vintage.  
Murris, Karin (2015) Posthumanism, Philosophy for Children, and Anthony Browne’s “Little 

Beauty”. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature. 53(2):59-65. 
-----(2016a) The Posthuman Child: Educational transformation through philosophy with picturebooks. 

Abingdon: Routledge 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

84 
 

-----(2016b) The Philosophy for Children Curriculum: Resisting ‘Teacher Proof’ Texts and the 
Formation of the Ideal Philosopher Child. Studies in the Philosophy of Education 35(1):63-78. 

-----(2022) Age-Transgressive Philosophizing with Children’s Literature. In M.R. Gregory and M.J. 
Laverty (eds.) Gareth B. Matthews, The Child’s Philosopher, 41-59. New York: Routledge.  

Naidoo, Beverly (1992) Through Whose Eyes? Exploring Racism: Reader, Text and Context. Stoke-on-Trent, 
UK: Trentham 

Nel, Philip (2017) Was The Cat in the Hat Black? The Hidden Racism of Children’s Literature and the Need 
for Diverse Books. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Nussbaum, Martha (1992) Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

-----(2010) Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press. 
Rainville, Nell (2001). "Book Review: Philosophy for Children in Native America: A Post-Colonial 

Critique." Analytic Teaching 21(1): 65-77. 
Ramdarshan Bold, Melanie (2019) Inclusive Young Adult Fiction: Authors of Colour in the United Kingdom. 

London: Springer. 
Reed, Ronald (1989) Rebecca: A Novel for Children. Fort Worth, TX: Analytic Teaching Press. 
Reed-Sandoval, Amy (2019) "Can Philosophy for Children Contribute to Decolonization?" Precollege 

Philosophy and Public Practice 1: 27-41. 
Reznitskaya, Alina and Maughn Rollins Gregory (2013) Student thought and classroom language: 

Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist 48(2):114-
133. 

Sands-O’Connor, Karen (2008) Soon Come Home to This Island: West Indians in British Children’s 
Literature. Abigndon: Routledge. 

-----(2017) Children’s Publishing and Black Britain, 1965-2015. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 
Sharp, Ann Margaret (ed.) (1994) Special Double Issue: “Women, Feminism and Philosophy for 

Children.” Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children 11(3/4). 
-----(ed.) (1997) Special Issue: “Second Issue Devoted to Women, Feminism and Philosophy for 

Children.” Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children 13(1).   
-----(2000a) The Doll Hospital. Melbourne, AU: The Australian Council for Educational Research. 
-----(2000b) Geraldo. Melbourne, AU: The Australian Council for Educational Research. 
Sharp, Ann Margaret and Maughn Rollins Gregory (2009) Towards a feminist philosophy of 

education. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children 19(2/3):87-96. 
Sharp, Ann Margaret and Ronald F. Reed (1992) Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s 

Discovery. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 
Sims-Bishop, Rudine (2007) Free Within Ourselves: The Development of African American Children’s 

Literature. Westport: Greenwood Press. 
Splitter, Laurance J. and Ann Margaret Sharp (1995) Teaching for Better Thinking: The Classroom 

Community of Inquiry. Melbourne, AU: The Australian Council for Educational Research.  
Sprod, Tim (1993) Books into Ideas: A Community of Inquiry. Moorabbin, Victoria, AU: Hawker 

Brownlow Education. 
Thomas, Ebony Elizabeth (2019) The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to the 

Hunger Games. New York: New York University Press 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 42, ISSUE 1 (2022) 

  
 

85 
 

Turgeon, Wendy C. (2020) Philosophical Adventures with Fairy Tales: New Ways to Explore Familiar Tales 
with Kids of All Ages. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. 

Turgeon, Wendy C. and Wartenberg, Thomas E. (2021) Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books. 
Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 41(1):96-108. 

Vigliante, Tace (2005) "Effective anti-racism education in Australian schools: the need for 
philosophical inquiry in teacher education programs." Critical and Creative Thinking: The 
Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education 13 (1): 90-113. 

Wartenberg, Thomas E. (2006) Beyond Mere ‘Illustration’: How Films Can Be Philosophy. Journal of 
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64(1):19-32.  

-----(2007) Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy. London: Routledge. 
-----(ed.) (2008) Symposium on Gareth B. Matthews. Metaphilosophy 39(1):1-65. 
-----(2009) Big Ideas for Little Kids: Teaching Philosophy Through Children’s Literature. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman and Littlefield Education. 
-----(2022) Thinking Through Stories: Children, Philosophy, and Picture Books. New York: Routledge. 
Waksman, Vera and Walter O. Kohan (2013) Fare filosofia con i bambini: Strumenti critici e operativi per il 

lavoro in classe con e oltre il curricolo «philosophy for children» [Doing philosophy with children: Critical 
and operational tools for classroom work with and beyond the "philosophy for children" curriculum]. 
Naples: Liguori. 

Weber, Barbara and Susan T. Gardner (2009) ‘Back to the Future’ in Philosophical Dialogue: A 
Please for Changing P4C Teacher Education. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 29(1): 
25-30.  

Williams, Steve (2020) Philosophical Dialogue with Children about Complex Social Issues: A Debate 
about Texts and Practices. Childhood & Philosophy 16(36):1-28. 

Yancy, George and Maria del Guadalupe Davidson (Eds) (2014) Exploring Race in Predominantly White 
Classrooms: Scholars of Color Reflect. New York: Routledge. 

Zack, Naomi (2017) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Zipes, Jack (1983) Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion. Abingdon: Routledge.  

 
Address Correspondences to:  
Darren Chetty [https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8943-6876]  
Lecturer (Teaching), Faculty of Arts & Humanities, University College London 
Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Education, University College London 
Email: darren.chetty.14@ucl.ac.uk 
 
Maughn Rollins Gregory [https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4293-5798] 
Montclair State University 
Professor of Educational Foundations, Montclair State University 
Director, Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children 
Vice President for Personnel, American Federation of Teachers Local 1904 
Coordinator of Research, ICPIC: International Council for Philosophical Inquiry with Children 
Email: gregorym@montclair.edu 
 
Megan Jane Laverty [https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-0144] 
Associate Professor of Philosophy and Education 
Department of Arts and Humanities 
Teachers College, Columbia University 
Email: ml2524@tc.columbia.edu 

mailto:darren.chetty.14@ucl.ac.uk
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.montclair.edu%2Feducational-foundations%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ca9eda8d0df6d4ac0b79508da11d434cd%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C637841900363039995%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5fT8yLu3AJW48%2FM6fdBdLyGgpWutegebGu0ltNVK7P4%3D&reserved=0
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.montclair.edu%2Fiapc%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ca9eda8d0df6d4ac0b79508da11d434cd%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C637841900363196216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lS9nD7a4PSzwYHylRJGcV9FFm9%2FBTqX4NNMuiQTSCMo%3D&reserved=0
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aftlocal1904.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ca9eda8d0df6d4ac0b79508da11d434cd%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C637841900363196216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FK8GHgFF%2FU8pCMjluyUK31RwBSR%2ByKqz23QBfwsculg%3D&reserved=0
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icpic.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ca9eda8d0df6d4ac0b79508da11d434cd%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C637841900363196216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oCTzdXFxrqCRczfIMCIIcWPhzZiPk1Bli7nH%2BotiXY0%3D&reserved=0

