• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PHILOSOPHY OF THE MANY: HIGH SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY AND A POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE by Ester Pereira Neves de Macedo A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto © Copyright by Ester Pereira Neves de Macedo 2011 PHILOSOPHY OF THE MANY: HIGH SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY AND A POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE Doctor of Philosophy, 2011 Ester Pereira Neves de Macedo Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies University of Toronto Abstract As we start a new millennium, the conviction that exclusionary practices need to be fought at all levels of society is becoming gradually more accepted. Nevertheless, as I show in this thesis, many if not most researchers on High School Philosophy (HSP) operate from what Iris Marion Young (1990) calls a logic of identity, which continues to be exclusionary even when it attempts to reach “all.” My objective in this thesis, therefore, is to map out the HSP literature in terms of Young‟s “Politics of Difference,” and, by doing that, to suggest ways in which it could be more inclusive. This adaptation of Young‟s Politics of Difference to HSP is presented in this thesis in six chapters. In chapter 1, I summarize the main aspects of Young‟s argument. In chapter 2, I give an overview of the current literature on HSP, showing that it is scarce and scattered. This thesis‟s first contribution, therefore, is as a representative, though not exhaustive, catalogue of the HSP literature. In chapter 3, I present a deeper analysis of the HSP literature, dividing it into two main strands, “the selective” and the “universal” approaches to HSP. I also argue in this chapter that both these approaches are problematic, because they exclude many, privileges some over others and alienate all. In chapter 4, I present a brief analysis of the epistemology informing both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. In this chapter, I focus on the so-called “Myth of Neutrality,” which is another manifestation of the logic of identity. Using as illustration ii the works of two authors, Robert Simon and Harvey Siegel, I show in this chapter how the myth of neutrality manifests the positivism and reductionism typical of the logic of identity. Finally, in chapter 5 I present my positive proposal for HSP, which I called “Philosophy of Many” (PoM), as a more inclusive alternative to both the selective and the universal approaches to HSP. The final chapter reviews the main conclusions of this study and suggests direction for further research. iii Acknowledgements When I first started a PhD in 2001, I thought I was invincible. I knew I was smart, and I could work hard if so inclined. My needs were not too extravagant, and I was proud to be Ms. Independence. Simon and Garfunkel's "I Am a Rock" might as well have been written about me. If I learned anything from my doctoral journey, it was that no man is an island, and the same is true of women. It was a great surprise to learn that, to complete a PhD hard work and natural talent are not enough. One needs infrastructure. One needs a solid and intricate web of emotional, academic, spiritual and financial support. This is what I found out writing this thesis and in a way, this is what this thesis is about. The PhD asked of me more than I ever thought it would (or that anything could). But it also gave me more than I thought anything could, recognition of academic accomplishment being the least important of all. Although I am fully responsible for this thesis, I must acknowledge that it embodies accomplishments that are not just my own. It reflects the wisdom, struggles and disappointments of people who loved me before I was born, of people who saw me grow up and of people who only knew me as a foreigner, and supported me regardless, asking nothing in return. Special thanks go first and foremost to my mom and dad, Neia and Jorge, for all that they taught me, for all the joys, sufferings and worries I have caused them. Thanks also to my little brother Francisco, to his sweetheart Vanessa and to my whole extended family, who taught me the first things about what life in community is like. Thanks to Geraldine and Bob Sharpe, for taking me in as a house guest for the what I thought were the final months of the writing process and who, together with Erin iv and Leon Irish, Jim Lang and Mary Alckroyd and their families, acted as a surrogate family to me. The list of “home away for home” also include the Carmelite sisters and all the friends I met through them. Especially thanks goes to Sister Mary Agnes Roger. Then there is Massey College, my first home in Toronto, who supported me in various ways and exposed me to a wide range of talent, skill and grace that I never thought possible. There is also my home department at OISE, and all the friends I met there. Especial thanks to Dwight Boyd, my supervisor and cheer leader, to John Portelli and Kathryn Morgan, who helped me broaden up my horizons, to Cindy Rotmann, Bonnie Slade, Jim Lang, Meryl Greene and all those who read certain pieces of writing which eventually evolved into this thesis. Thanks to Monika Korolczuk, Ela Beres and Eunice Rivera, who were like sisters to me, and from whom I have learned more than I can write down. Thanks also to Danilo Paiva, who has kept up with my adventures ever since I was a freshman, and who never thought my dreams were too far-fetched. Besides the community of family and friends and the academic community of inquiry, I would also like to thank the community of angels and saints, without whose constant support this thesis would not have been possible. This degree is the result not only of thousands of hours of study, but of at least as many hours of prayer, by so many people and to so many saints that I would never be able to write them all down. You all know who you are, and from the bottom of my heart I thank you. Finally, (and here I ask non Christian/non-theist friends and readers to forgive me, but I cannot help it) I would like to thank the Almighty God, my creative Creator, who put all these wonderful desires in my heart, to Jesus Christ, my brother and friend, for v walking with me at all times and carrying me when necessary and to the Holy Spirit, the Mighty Wind, for inspiring me and stirring me in unimaginable directions, sometimes like a breeze, sometimes more like a tornado. To all of you, my most heartfelt thanks. vi Preface Western Philosophy traces itself back to Socrates, with his insistent exhortation to follow the Delphic command of “Know Thyself” and his maxim that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” Yet, Delphic command and Socratic injunction notwithstanding, mainstream academic practice to this day often strives after a non-personal style of reflection, in pursuit of an elusive objective and universal perspective. Although Michel Foucault, Paulo Freire, standpoint theorists and others have argued the importance of questioning how reality and knowledge come to be constructed and reified, “objective reality” is still today often seen as fixed and static, as is the knowledge of it. Within this tradition, one may be led to believe that alienating oneself from one‟s personal physical reality is the (only or best) way to reason more clearly, in an effort towards that unreachable impersonal, objective, neutral perspective. However, by consistently praising the objective and deriding the subjective, this tradition effectively works to annihilate the subject and to objectify people. This is all to say that that my understanding of philosophy (and the academic work that is derived from it, such as this thesis) influences and is influenced by who I am, which in turn influences and is influenced by where I come from, and so on. As Merleau- Ponty says: All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. (Merleau-Ponty, 1969/1989, viii) Much of this thesis has arisen from arguments with family members, friends, colleagues, professors, students, current and past. The discussions often gravitated around arguments such as implicit conceptions of what philosophy and the job of the philosopher vii are supposed to be like. The reason such debates often become heated is that these conceptions are deeply intertwined with core personal beliefs – despite the equally heated protests (naïve or hypocritical) that these conceptions are objective and completely impersonal. Despite the many things Socrates or Descartes got “wrong,” of the things these two philosophers got “less wrong,” I particularly like the emphasis they place on philosophy as means to self-knowledge, and self-knowledge as means towards further knowledge. Although there is much more to it than I will cover here, the Cartesian “what am I?” is as good a foundation for an investigation as good foundations go. The answer to this question involves many relational references: to where I come from, to where I currently happen to live, to where I am planning to go. I am Latin American; more specifically, Brazilian; from Brasilia, the new capital of Brazil, from a family composed mostly of civil servants, all come to the city from the countryside around one of the driest and poorest regions of the country.

Load more

  164

Copy Link