Abstract
Children’s literature was first published in the eighteenth century at a time when the philosophical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on education and childhood were being discussed. Ironically, however, the first generation of children’s literature (by Maria Edgeworth et al) was incongruous with Rousseau’s ideas since the works were didactic, constraining and demanded passive acceptance from their readers. This instigated a deficit or reductionist model to represent childhood and children’s literature as simple and uncomplicated and led to children’s literature being overlooked and its contribution to philosophical discussions being undermined. Although Rousseau advocates freeing the child to develop, he does not feel that reading fiction promotes child development, which is a weakness in an otherwise strong argument for educational reform. Yet, rather ironically, the second generation of children’s writers, from Lewis Carroll onwards, more truly embraced Rousseau’s broader philosophical ideas on education and childhood than their predecessors, encouraging and freeing readers to imagine, reflect and actively engage in ontological enquiry. The emphasis had changed with the child being embraced in education and society as active participant rather than passive or disengaged recipient. Works deemed to be seminal to the canon of children’s literature such as Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Peter Pan and The Chronicles of Narnia challenge readers to work through conflicts many of which can be identified retrospectively as exhibiting postmodern characteristics. By exploring moral and spiritual dilemmas in their writing, Carroll, Barrie and Lewis’s works can be regarded as contributing to discussions on theodical postmodernism. The successes of The Lord of the Rings and Narnia films suggest that there is an interest in exploring moral dilemmas, fulfilling a need (perhaps for tolerance and understanding) in society at large. Children’s literature has an almost divine power to restore, to repair and to heal, all characteristics of theodical postmodernism but differing from the more widely held conception of postmodernism which pulls apart, exacerbates and exposes. Children’s literature therefore offers a healthy and constructive approach to working through moral dilemmas. In their deconstruction of childhood, these authors have brought children’s literature closer to aspects of enquiry traditionally found in the domain of adult mainstream literature. As the boundaries between childhood and adulthood become more fluid, less certain, debate is centring around whether the canon of children’s literature itself has become redundant or meaningless since there are no longer any restrictions on which subjects can be treated in children’s literature. Despite the fact that children’s literature clearly engages with difficult issues, it continues to be left out of the critical equation, not given serious attention, disregarded as simplistic and ignored in contemporary philosophical discussions concerning morality, postmodernism and the future of childhood. With children’s literature coming closer to mainstream literature, and exhibiting prominent features of postmodernism, however, it is only a matter of time before philosophical discussions actively engage with children’s literature and recognise its contribution to the resolution and reconciliation of ontological dilemmas. When this occurs, philosophy and children’s literature will re-engage, enriching contemporary investigations of existence, ethics and knowledge and fruitfully developing thought in these areas. This paper aims to contribute to this process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These authors “have been almost the only important adults to recognise that many children are naturally intrigued by philosophical questions” (Matthews 1980, p56).
“Letter to a Lady,” dated 2 February 1955.
There is a danger, here, of homogenising children by constructing childhood in a sentimental way. The period of childhood spans a number of years. As Baggett points out, certain “books may not be suitable for 6-year-olds, but that doesn’t mean they’re not suitable for 9-year-olds (not to mention most adults of all ages)” (Baggett 2004 in Baggett and Klein, p171).
Rousseau’s notion of natural goodness is mediated by the inevitability of change towards ‘civic society’ and by the ambiguity of the very notion of nature. Bernadette Baker identifies that the concept of nature has at least six multiple-meanings:
[ . . . ] as an original state [ . . . ], as untamed animal appetites without religious or moral reasoning [ . . . ], as matter and force [ . . . ], as uniform laws of motion [ . . . ], as that which is not made by humans [ . . . ], and as those potentials and dispositions that are revealed a posteriori by institutions Man founds. (Baker 2001, p233)
Rousseau strongly regards Nature as positive and the original state of the child to be good. He does, however, believe that society potentially corrupts individuals. Human Nature can, he argues, be reconstructed through education which substitutes and supplements original nature to nurture virtues such as compassion and extrapolate these latent tendencies from within. By making strange, we can see afresh and with this new vision, Rousseau argues, goodness in society can be realised and the goodness in our natures revealed.
Gareth Matthews refers, in this regard, to the ways in which “children facing death find Charlotte’s Web comforting. In this story, fears are expressed but we are reassured” (Matthews 1980, p95).
It was virtually inevitable that that philosophical themes would find expression in C. S. Lewis’s novels when one discovers that not only did Lewis study and teach Philosophy but that he “believed he got the job at Magdalen because he was the only candidate who could teach both Philosophy and English, the combination the college wanted for the position” (Walls 2005 in Bassham & Walls, pxv).
Lewis re-experiences and works through the loss of his mother in The Magician’s Nephew. It is represented in the difficult choice Digory has to make between “obedience to Aslan’s command and an action that may save the life of his dying mother” (Meilaender 1998, p7). He is tested and is ultimately rewarded for his obedience.
Indeed, the Hogwarts School Houses are founded on virtuous principles: Gryffindor for bravery, Ravenclaw for cleverness, Hufflepuff for the diligent and Slytherin for the ambitious (Rowling 2000, p17). Hermione behaves virtuously by championing a moral cause in her creation of the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (Rowling 2000) designed to defend the marginalised and to confront prejudice. In this way, Rowling’s characters are not too far removed from the writer’s own life working, at one stage, for Amnesty International.
The same charge can be levelled at Jean Piaget in his construction of cognitive theories of development regarding children. Just because children may not conceive of or structure the world as we adults do, does not mean that they are pre-moral beings incapable of working through ontological dilemmas common to humanity as a whole.
Naturally inquisitive children have potentially a lot to gain from philosophical engagement and critical skills of enquiry. Recently, the BBC reported that 4 year olds are being taught philosophy in Clackmannanshire nurseries. Research by the University of Dundee suggests that exploring philosophical concepts through structured inter-active classroom classes “raises children’s IQ by up to 6.5 points and improves their emotional intelligence,” self-esteem and confidence. Furthermore, it is believed that “starting the subject early in life had a profound effect on young people’s behaviour,” enabling them “to move to a level where informed choice can be made” (BBC 2007).
References
Anacker, G. J. (2005). Narnia and the moral imagination. In G. Bassham & J. L., Walls (Eds.), The chronicles of Narnia and philosophy: The lion, the witch, and the worldview (pp. 130–142). Illinois: Carus.
Baggett, D. (2004). Magic, Muggles and the moral imagination. In D. Baggett & S. E. Klein (Eds.), Harry Potter and philosophy: If Aristotle ran Hogwarts (pp. 158–172). Illinois: Carus.
Baker, B. M. (2001). Appointing the Canon. Rousseau’s Emile: Visions of the state, and education. Educational Theory, 51, 1–43, (Winter).
Barrie, J. M. (1928). Peter Pan or the boy who wouldn’t grow up. In Hollindale (ed.), (1995).
BBC News (2007), “Nursery Pupils Taught Philosophy”, 5 February 2007. Online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/6330631.stm (last accessed: 8 February 2007).
Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. London: Penguin.
Burke, S. (1992). Death and the return of the author. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Carpenter, H. (1985). Alice and the mockery of God. In Secret gardens: A study of the golden age of children’s literature (pp. 44–70). London: Allen and Unwin.
Carroll, L. (1865). Alice’s adventures in wonderland. In Green (ed.) (1982).
Carroll, L. (1872). Through the looking glass. In Green (ed.) (1982).
Chapman, A. (1999). Uncanny epiphanies in the nineteenth-century sonnet tradition. In W. Tigges, (Ed.), Moments of Moment: Aspects of the literary epiphany, Studies in Literature 25, (pp. 115–135). Amsterdam: Rodopi
Dusinberre, J. (1999). Alice to the lighthouse: Children’s books and radical experiments in art. London: Macmillan.
Edgeworth, M., & Edgeworth, R. L. (1798). Practical education. Volume I, London, p. 336.
Egoff, S., Stubbs, G. T., & Ashley, L. F. (Eds.) (1969). Only connect: Readings on children’s literature. Oxford: OUP.
Gormley, B. (1998). C. S. Lewis: Christian and storyteller. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Jasper, D. (1992). The study of literature and religion: An introduction. London: Macmillan.
Jenks, C. (1996). Childhood. London: Routledge.
Kingsley, C. (1862). The water-babies. London: Ward, Lock and Company.
Krips, V. (1997). Imaginary childhoods: Memory and children’s literature. Critical Quarterly, pp. 42–49.
Lewis, C. S. (1951). Prince Caspian. London: Geoffrey Bles, Thirty-First Impression, September 1989.
Lewis, C. S. (1952). On three ways of writing for children. In Egoff et al (eds.) (1969).
Lewis, C. S. (1953). The silver chair. London: Macmillan, Thirty-First Impression, September 1989.
Lewis, C. S. (1955). Surprised by joy. London: Harper Collins.
Lewis, W. H. (ed.) (1966). Letters of C. S. Lewis. London: Geoffrey Bles.
MacDonald, G. (1872). The princess and the goblin. London: Strahan.
Matthews, G. B. (1980). Philosophy and the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matthews, G. B. (2004). Finding platform 9 ¾: The idea of a different reality. In D. Baggett & S. E. Klein (eds.), Harry Potter and philosophy: If Aristotle ran Hogwarts (pp. 175–185). Illinois: Carus.
Mavor, C. (1996). Pleasures taken: Performances of sexuality and loss in Victorian photographs. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
McEwan, I. (1987). The child in time. London: Vintage.
Meilaender, G. (1998). The everyday C.S. Lewis. First things, 85 (pp. 27–33). August / September 1998,http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/articles/meilaender.html.
Morris, T. (2004). The courageous Harry Potter. In D. Baggett & S. E. Klein (eds.), Harry Potter and philosophy: If Aristotle ran Hogwarts (pp. 9–21). Illinois: Carus.
Pease, A. (2004). Aestheticism and aesthetic theory. In F.S. Roden (Ed.), Palgrave advances in Oscar Wilde studies (p. 111). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pullman, P. (2002). In A. Blake (Ed.), The irresistible rise of Harry Potter. London: Verso.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). Emile or on education. London: Dent.
Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the philosopher’s stone. London: Bloomsbury.
Rowling, J. K. (1998). Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets. London: Bloomsbury.
Rowling, J. K. (1999). Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury.
Rowling, J. K. (2000). Harry Potter and the goblet of fire. London: Bloomsbury.
Sherwood, M. M. (1818). The Fairchild family. London: John Hatchard.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1964). Children and fairy stories. In S. Egoff et al. (eds.) (1969), Only connect: Readings on children’s literature. Oxford: OUP.
Walls, J. L. (2005). Narnia and the enchantment of philosophy. In G. Bassham & J. L. Walls (eds.). The chronicles of Narnia and philosophy: The lion, the witch, and the worldview (pp. 63–76). Illinois: Carus.
Walmsley, L. (ed.) (1999). The spirit of C. S. Lewis: A year of reading from his life and work. London: Harper Collins.
Wordsworth, W. (1815). Surprised by joy. In Allison; Barrows; Blake; Carr; Eastman and English (eds.) (1983), p. 560.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGavock, K.L. Agents of Reform?: Children’s Literature and Philosophy. Philosophia 35, 129–143 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-007-9048-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-007-9048-x