Puzzles and Prison: Philosophical Conversations at HMP Downview

Miranda Fricker: a professor of philosophy The City University of New York (CUNY), whose views we discussed on blame and forgiveness

Link

Dr Mike Coxhead

Email: michael.coxhead@kcl.ac.uk

Twitter: @coxheadmike

The course at HMP Downview was our first at a women’s prison. Since 2016, Andy West, Andrea Fassolas, and I had delivered our 10-week, introductory philosophy course regularly at Belmarsh. We had also run it at Brixton and Wandsworth. We were told that the women’s estate would be different, and so we wondered: How so? Would we need to change our course? There’s good reason to think that there are significant differences between the populations of men and women in UK prisons. But how, if at all, would these be relevant to the doing of philosophy?

Our experience at Downview was without doubt unique, but no more so than at Belmarsh, Brixton, or Wandsworth – each remarkably different institutions. I’ve often been told that individual prisons vary so dramatically with respect to their populations, resources, and governance, that you’ll likely be caught out trying to second guess what each will be like. This was also true of Downview, where our group of students was as diverse, unexpected, and memorable as any other.

Each Friday morning we were welcomed by a circle of empty chairs, tightly packed around a whiteboard in a corner of the library. We would wait, mulling over our lesson plan and fiddling with books, until the room would slowly fill with faces, each increasing with familiarity week by week. There we would introduce and work through philosophical topics such as personal identity, freedom, time, happiness, suffering, blame and forgiveness, and, by popular request, love. Classes were long – three-hours, punctuated by a much anticipated tea and biscuit break – and the group was enthusiastic and tenacious.

Diotima teaches Socrates about eros (love). ‘Socrates with a Disciple and Diotima’, Franc Kavčič

Link

Often times our classes are driven by a story, real or imagined. Take, for example, a session devised by Andy on the case of the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie. If left conjoined, both Mary and Jodie would likely die. If medically separated, Mary was expected to survive but Jodie would die. What is the right thing to do? Why? The group is encouraged to share their perspectives, discuss, and join the dots of agreement and disagreement. As the conversation progresses, we ask: What are the ethical principles lurking behind our different views? Do each of us subscribe to conflicting principles? How should we respond to these conflicts? As often happens, the group slowly divides itself into proponents of well-known philosophical positions, such as consequentialists (the end always justifies the means) and deontologists (not all means can be justified by the end – there are certain duties we must abide by). We lay out and articulate these philosophical views through mini-lectures, introducing students to philosophers both past and present, before opening the floor for exploration and critique.

In so doing, we inevitably reflect upon and interrogate our beliefs, realise and unravel the complexity of the philosophical puzzles we are confronted with, and take part in collective inquiry through dialogue. Philosophy done in this way – by a group, in conversation – is complex and nuanced, with various aspects. On the one hand, it is oriented towards truth: Is it right or wrong to separate Mary and Jodie? Is there a fact of the matter? If so, can we discover it simply by talking to one another? On the other hand, it is concerned with understanding ourselves and others: What do I think? Why do I think it? What do these other people think? Why do they think the way they do? Do I agree with them? Upon reflection, do I agree with myself?

These aspects were articulated by our students:

‘I have learnt that there’s never one answer to a question and it makes you think a lot, which is a good thing. Philosophy has opened my eyes more to a lot of things that I didn’t know before. If I have one situation now I am able to think of other solutions […] It makes you think a lot but in a sense of “what happens next?” or “this is what I think”.’

‘I like to know how other people think […] [I’ve enjoyed] listening to other peoples’ opinions, learning what philosophy is. Nobody’s thinking is totally wrong, but it’s not totally right either […] It’s good to know how other people think. It’s hard to say what philosophy is about, because it’s different opinions’

‘I have found that with a philosophical approach one asks questions and questions everything […] It was a wonderful platform to voice my opinions and for the opinions of others to be heard and understood’

‘[I enjoyed it] Very much – especially listening to completely different viewpoints. Our group has a wide cross-section from society – so their input, I found useful when turning / changing my beliefs.

‘I would say it is about looking at different views of a subject. And to analyse the situation and see what the outcome is. Philosophy is difficult, challenging, and confusing, but in a good way’

This final comment makes clear (correctly, in my opinion) that philosophical conversation is often rich, compelling, and rewarding, at the same time as being difficult and frustrating – as another student aptly put it, ‘philosophy can contradict itself’. It tends to ask far more questions than it answers. It also frequently involves disagreement and, when we are asked to discuss views to which we are deeply wedded (be they moral, political, existential, or otherwise), those disagreement are high stakes. Philosophy, in this way, is a very serious endeavour. The group at Downview inevitably experienced these difficulties (as would any group) and excelled in their enthusiasm and ability to navigate them.

It’s well attested that women are underrepresented in philosophy’s canonical history and its contemporary universities – a problem dramatically compounded by race and Western-centrism. This issue was highlighted, in particular, by a student who recommended that philosophy at a women’s prison should have more women teaching it, with a greater focus on feminist philosophy. For these reasons, it is naïve to suppose that philosophy is gender-neutral, and the women we worked with brought particular and pressing concerns to the fore. Unsurprisingly, however, philosophy can grip anyone, and for this reason it can be profoundly gender inclusive.

Thanks are due to Philosophy in Prison for funding the course, and Kathryn at the Downview library for her tremendous work organising and supporting it.