The Story of Ferdinand: animal rights, violence, conformity and obedience to authority

The Story of Ferdinand, by Munro Leaf, illustrated by Robert Lawson
Original edition:  The Viking Press, 1936
A more recent edition: Puffin Books, 2011
There is also a famous Disney short of the story.

This text is an adapted reproduction of a module written by Madeleine Lifsey for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

The Story
The Story of Ferdinand tells of a young, peaceful bull, who lives in a pasture with his mother and a large group of other young bulls. All the other bulls like to run and buck all day long, but he prefers to sit under his favourite tree and smell the flowers. When five scary men come to take the meanest bulls away, Ferdinand stays calm and content, assuming the men will not choose him. Suddenly, a bee stings Ferdinand. Startled, he loses control, bucking and fussing more than anyone else! Assuming that he is a very fierce bull, the men take Ferdinand away against his will, and they force him into the fighting ring. However, they become very angry when they find he refuses to fight…

The Philosophy in the Story
Our society puts a lot of emphasis on teaching children to make “ethical choices,” but it would be difficult for any of us to determine a clear set of criteria that makes an action “right” or “wrong” each time. The Story of Ferdinand is an example of a young protagonist who grows up very comfortable in his own skin and with his own decisions, but is soon confronted with difficult situations that challenge his peaceful way of life. Young children can use Ferdinand’s story to confront their own questions about ethical dilemmas. Each question set deals with the larger issue of how we make choices in our interactions with others, but this question can be broken up into more specific topics. Looking at how the men interact with Ferdinand can spark a discussion on Animal Rights. The next three topics deal with Ferdinand’s choices, rather than the men’s. Ferdinand’s passivity informs a discussion on Violence. Considering why Ferdinand does not follow the other bulls’ example of rough play leads to a discussion on Conformity. Finally, examining why Ferdinand does not follow the men’s orders leads to a discussion on Obeying Authority.

Animal Rights
The first question set deals specifically with interactions between species. Our society teaches us that humans have the right to use non-human animals for our own purposes as we see fit. Most humans view themselves as somehow “higher” or more important than all other animals, but they have a difficult time justifying why they feel this way. Does this concept need to be re-examined? Most students will agree that Ferdinand should not have been taken away and hurt, but they may disagree about whether or not his species makes a difference, and if so, why. If Ferdinand were a human, there would be little debate that the abuse he suffers is a crime. However, many reason that species membership is an arbitrary distinction that should not be the basis for how one is treated, no more than should race, gender, ethnicity, and so on. Illustrating this standpoint, philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism, maintained that the question is not “‘Can they reason?,’ nor ‘Can they talk,’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” Contemporary philosopher Peter Singer agrees that while species membership is not a distinguishing moral characteristic, sentience – that is, self-awareness and ability to suffer – is. We know that non-humans suffer acutely, both physically and mentally – for instance, mother cows will bellow hysterically when their calves are taken away from them, showing clear signs of distress long afterwards. If we agree that taking Ferdinand from his mother and his home and hurting him for our entertainment is wrong, then we must ask ourselves whether it is ever okay to exploit animals – for our entertainment, for our clothing, for our cosmetic products, for our food, or for anything else - and if so, how we decide when and why it is okay.

Prompts for philosophical discussion about animal rights

Ferdinand wants to stay with his mother and sit quietly under his favourite tree, but the five men come and take him away to hurt him and make him fight.

1. How do you think the men were able to make Ferdinand come with them even though he did not want to? Were they right to do this? Why or why not?
2. Does being able to do something mean you should do it? Why or why not?
3. If not, what is something you could do but should not do? Why?
4. Are animals here for our entertainment?
5. Do we have a responsibility to respect and/or to protect animals?
6. What is more important: What Ferdinand wants to do, or what the fighting men want him to do? Why?
7. If Ferdinand were a human being, would your answer be different? Why or why not?
8. If someone hurt a person who has the same skin color as you, would you be more upset than if someone hurt someone who was very different from you? Would it matter if they were shorter, taller, younger, or older than you? Why or why not?
9. Which would make you more upset, someone hurting a close friend of yours, or someone hurting a stranger? Why?
10. Why do some kinds of differences seem to matter when we decide how we treat each other, while other differences do not?

When the men come, Ferdinand is calm because he assumes they will not choose him, but when a bee stings him and he bucks, the men take him away.

1. Why do the men believe that Ferdinand is fierce?
2. Can we know what someone is thinking or feeling just by watching his/her behavior? Do you ever think you can tell what your pets are thinking? If so, how? If not, why not?
3. Do the men ask how Ferdinand feels? Should they?

Violence

The second question set deals with violence in general, which should certainly be considered regarding interactions between humans and non-humans, but also among humans themselves. Children are taught from an early age “don’t fight,” but it is sometimes difficult to tell what this means. What about in self-defense? In considering Ferdinand’s reaction to the violent men who want to “stick” him with pins and spears, students can debate ways to respond when someone else initiates a fight. Some argue that once someone has been provoked, any kind of violence can be justified if committed in self-defense. Others maintain that violence is never acceptable. For instance, many advocate ahimsa, or “no harm,” a Sanskrit term that is the foundation of many Eastern philosophies. A subscriber to ahimsa, like Mahatma Gandhi, a peace activist and celebrated pioneer of passive resistance, would maintain that a nonviolent response is always more appropriate. While we teach the general mantra, “don’t fight,” television, video games, and other forms of entertainment tend to portray a violent lifestyle as the norm and as something to admire and emulate. Sometimes some forms of “fighting” can be healthy forms of play, like when children wrestle together. However, does this mean that there is something wrong with not enjoying rough play or violent video games? Parents and educators have been disputing through the ages whether violent play and entertainment is healthy or not; here is a chance for children to add their voices to the debate.

Prompts for philosophical discussion about violence

Everyone in the story except for Ferdinand and his mother enjoy fighting.

1. Why didn’t Ferdinand enjoy fighting?
2. Do you think certain types of fighting can be fun? When and how? Why or why not?
3. Is fighting ever the right thing to do? Is it ever the wrong thing to do? When? How do you know?
4. Is it ever okay not to fight back when someone wants to fight with you? Why or why not?
5. What should you do if you don’t want to fight, but someone tries to start a fight with you?
6. Do the answers to questions #2-#5 depend on whom you are fighting?
7. Does it matter if the one you are fighting is weaker or stronger than you?
8. Can a fight ever be fair? What makes it fair or unfair? Explain.

A big crowd comes to watch the men fight with Ferdinand.

1. Have you ever had fun watching someone else fight? (hockey, wrestling, kickboxing – bullfighting!) What makes it fun?
2. Is it still fun to watch if someone gets really hurt? Why or why not?
3. Is there such a thing as a “good fight?” What makes it “good?” (entertaining, fair, difficult for both sides, safe?)
4. Do you think the men’s fight with Ferdinand would have been safe for both sides? Why or why not?
5. Is there a way to fight but make sure that no one gets hurt? How is this type of “safer” fighting different from other kinds of fights?
6. Do you do martial arts? (Karate, Taekwondo, etc.)
7. Is that a different kind of fighting than the kind of fighting in the book? (self-defense, everyone there is choosing to engage in the fight)
8. Are there rules in our school/community about different kinds of fighting?
9. Do these rules protect you? How?
10. Would you ever want to change those rules? If so, what do you think should be the rules about how, why, when, where, and whom we fight? Explain.
11. Should everyone have to follow the same rules about fighting? Why or why not?

Conformity

Children, especially males, often grow up socialized to believe that they should be “tough,” and this can manifest itself in a number of assumptions about how we should behave. Amidst a cohort of young bulls who like to beat each other up all day long, Ferdinand is the lone, sensitive bull who prefers to smell the flowers. At first, when Ferdinand’s mother sees all the other young bulls playing a certain way and sees Ferdinand behaving differently, she worries that something is wrong, but when she understands that he is happy, she relaxes. Ferdinand’s mother ultimately decides that it is okay for Ferdinand to be different, but her initial concerns reflect the underlying ethical question of whether there is something inherently good or bad about conforming to social norms. Some argue that social norms originate outside the self and thus should not govern how the individual behaves, while others maintain that social norms serve an important role in regulating our behavior to best serve the interests of society.

Students will often decide that it is completely okay for two different groups (or a group and one “outlier”) to enjoy different things, but some may argue that it is important for peers all to behave the same way in certain situations. The discussion on conformity can focus specifically on peer pressure and bullying, which is especially appropriate in a school context and can be combined with the discussion on violence (see above). If everyone else around you is doing something, can you assume that it is okay? When phrased this way, it may seem that the answer is clearly “no.” However, given specific situations, our answers may become more complex. After all, we model our behavior on those around us, and so it can be difficult to determine when to follow and when to protest. One interesting activity would be to go around the circle and have each student think of a time in which they felt different from everyone around them. Most likely, everyone has felt this way at some point, and there will be those who feel this way most of the time. We could structure an entire session on the nature of “feeling different” and the ethical issues it raises.

Prompts for philosophical discussion regarding conformity 

All of the other bulls with whom Ferdinand grew up like to run and fight, but Ferdinand wants to live peacefully.

1. What do you think the other bulls thought of Ferdinand?
2. Have you ever wanted to do something different than what all your friends wanted to do? How did you handle it?
3. If you did what you wanted to do instead of what your friends wanted to do, did they make fun of you? Did you or your friends end up changing your mind?
4. Have you ever felt different from everyone around you? What was that like?
5. Is being different sometimes a good thing, a bad thing, or neither? Why do you think so?
6. Why do you think people get upset so often when one person acts differently from everyone else?
7. Can it be threatening to see someone behave or think differently than you do? Why?
8. If a new student joined your classroom and every one of your classmates started bullying him or her, would you join in? Why or why not? Would you try to stop it? Why or why not?
9. If enough people decide something is right, does that make it right? If enough people decide something is wrong, does that make it wrong?

Obedience to Authority

At the elementary level, children are just starting to grapple with the question of whether their caregivers are always right or have all the answers (and quickly learning that the answer may be a resounding no!) However, just because our caregivers are not always right does not mean that they are not generally excellent role models. How do we know when to listen to someone and whom to trust? Children may suggest many different criteria. For example, we trust people who we have seen do good things in the past, people who have more education that we do, people who are older than us, and so on. None of these suggestions is right or wrong; the important thing is that students can take it a step further to articulate why. Ferdinand’s story offers a springboard to discuss how we know whom to obey. The scary men tell him he must fight, but he disagrees. Was he right to do so, and why?

Prompt for philosophical discussion regarding Obedience to Authority

The Banderilleros, the Picadores, and the Matador are angry because Ferdinand will not obey them and fight.

1. Should Ferdinand have listened to the men and fought them?
2. Why did Ferdinand decide not to fight?
3. What are some ways we try to decide whether something is right or wrong?
4. If an adult you trust tells you to steal something, but you think that stealing is wrong, would you do it anyway?
5. Are adults always right?
6. Do we trust certain adults [caregivers? educators?] more than others? Why or why not?

This text is an adapted reproduction of a module written by Madeleine Lifsey for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

(c) of all the illustrations in this post, Robert Lawson, 1936

This text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

The Big Box: Rules and Freedom

The Big Box, by Toni Morrison and Giselle Potter

Hyperion Books, 1999

This text is a reproduction of a module written by Taryn Hargrove, Mary Cowhey and Thomas Wartenberg, and translated by Mariana Zárate and revised by myself for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

The story

Because they do not abide by the rules written by the adults around them, three children are judged unable to handle their fredom and forced to live in a box with three locks on the door. 

The philosophy in the story

The Big Box is about three very energetic children "who just can't handle their freedom". To make these children abide by the rules, the grown-ups create a world inside a box, a world with toys and games, treats and gifts, and all kinds of stuff they think kids need to be happy and carefree. They are three locks on the door, which opens only one way. 

Life inside the box

The first set of questions is designed to elicit discussion regarding the life in the box. 


Life in the box, depending on how you look at it, may be a happy place for the children. The children can be who they are and have no one judge or punish them. They are free to do what they want in that confined area. On the other hand the box could be an unhappy place for the children. The children are given everything that adults assume would make the children happy. Are the children happy with all the clothes, toys, and candy? What makes us happy? There is a conflict between happiness and what people perceive happiness to be? Some children consider happiness to be freedom of speech and freedom to do what they what. Other children may be happy with materialistic things. 


The questions make us think about what truly makes us happy. If you were put into the box, what would you choose to put in the box with you? Why do the children stay in the box? Some may say they are scared to go out and face the rest of the world. Others may say that they are happy in their own little world.

Questions to prompt philosophical discussion about life in the box

• What is a one-way door?
• Does our classroom open two ways or one?
• What are the locks for?
• What's good about life in the box?
• Do kids need toys, snacks, and cool clothes?
• If they have cool toys, clothes, snacks and other stuff in the box, why aren't they happy?
• What would we need to give you that would make you happy to live in the box?
• Why do they stay in the box?

The meaning of rules
The second set of questions explores the meaning of rules. These questions allow us to evaluate whether rules are important in our communities. What would happen if our society did not have rules? Rules are important for structure, organization, and safety in society. Do the rules we have make our communities perfect? Even though we have rules we still have the freedom to make our own decisions.

Questions to prompt philosophical discussion about the meaning of rules

• Do we need rules in our homes, classroom, school, and community? Why?
• Who makes the rules?
• Who has to follow them?
• What if there were no rules?
• Would you like to go to a school with no rules?
• What would be good about it? What might be bad about it?
• What are some good rules that you like at home or at school?
• What rules did the kids follow?
• Did anyone even notice what they did right?
• What are appropriate consequences for breaking rules?

The concept of freedom

Freedom is the last topic of discussion. We are absolutely sure that there are at least some cases where we make decisions, and that in making them we are free and hence responsible for these decisions. We cannot imagine what it would be like to live in a community in which there is no such thing as responsibility. On the other hand, does freedom actually exist? With a lack of resources are we still free to do what you wish to do? Freedom appears to be impossible in a world where everything runs its ordinary course and no irregularities happen. But why is that so?

Questions to prompt philosophical discussion about the concept of freedom

• What does that line mean, when the adults say to the kids, "You simple can't handle your freedom."?
• What if parents decided that their two year old could handle her freedom and just let their baby go free? What would happen?
• What if the parents decided you could completely handle your freedom and just told you to go free? What would happen?
• When you are 18 years old, do you think you will be ready to "go free"?
• When you are free, do you still have to follow some rules?
• Why do people call the United States of America a free country if there are rules here?
• If a two year old is not able to handle freedom, what would make someone older ready to handle freedom?
• What does the older person know or have that the two year old doesn't?

This text is a reproduction of a module written by Taryn Hargrove, Mary Cowhey and Thomas Wartenberg, and translated by Mariana Zárate and revised by myself for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

(c) of all the illustrations in this post, Giselle Potter, 1999

This text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

"Cookies", from Frog and Toad Together: the paradox of will power

"Cookies", from Frog and Toad Together, by Arnold Lobel (1971)

Harper Trophy

This text is a reproduction of a module written by Jayme Johnson for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

The Story

In order to have cookies for later, and to avoid some serious belly aches, Frog and Toad need to stop eating cookies. Will Frog and Toad be able to muster up the will power they need to stop eating cookies before they become sick?

The Philosophy in the Story

Have you ever told a friend to take the last bit of dessert with them? Or even better, have you ever told yourself you had better just polish off that last piece of pie so that its gone and out of the way? Perhaps both were attempts at doing the same thing: undermining your own lack of will power. So which do you want to do, eat the pie, or not eat the pie? The problem is that it seems to us in these moments that we want both! In the story "Cookies" by Arnold Lobel, Frog and Toad are met with a similar dilemma. They want to stop eating the cookies before they become ill, but the cookies taste so good that they just can't seem to stop eating them.

Frog realizes that the problem is that they need will power to stop eating the cookies. He defines will power as "trying hard not to do something that you really want to do." In doing so, Frog raises an interesting philosophical issue. Does having will power just mean trying not to do something, or does it mean actually not doing it? Moreover, does not doing something that you really want to do always require having will power, or just sometimes? These kinds of questions inspire a philosophical discussion on the nature of will power. 

"Cookies" explores the topic of will power in an amusing and light-hearted way. But behind this lies an interesting puzzle. The puzzle emerges when we realize that Frog's definition of will power seems to lead to an absurd conclusion. Consider it as follows. First, Frog declares that he wants to cease with eating cookies before he gets sick. Why? Simple, of course: Frog does not want to get sick. However, Frog also says that having will power is trying hard not to do something that you really want to do. Since Frog needs will power to stop eating cookies, and given his definition, it is safe to say that Frog really wants to keep eating cookies. Yet Frog knows that if he keeps eating cookies, that he will definitely get sick...and soon! So if all of this is true, then Frog has contradictory beliefs. He really wants not to get sick. But he also really wants to get sick too. But that's impossible. So here is the real problem: if having will power means having to believe two contradictory things at the same time, then it seems like having will power is impossible! But that just doesn't seem right.

So what are we to do? What Frog says about will power makes sense, but something must be amiss, for if he is right, then having will power requires us to do the impossible. But that doesn't seem right. Many of us can think of examples in our own lives in which someone had will power over something. So how are we to solve this puzzle?

One thing we might do is throw up our hands and say, "So it goes. I guess having will power is impossible!" But I don't think that we should give up so easily. Especially given how common cases of people demonstrating will power seem to be.

Another thing we could do is try to show that Frog does not really desire contradictory things. One way to do this might be to compartmentalize Frog's desires so that no one part him is in contradiction. Part of Frog, we might say, wants not to be sick. Another part of Frog want to keep eating cookies, even if it means getting sick. To make sense of this, however, requires making sense of what it means to talk about part of Frog wanting something. Can different aspects of the same person (or Frog!) want different thing? Plato thought so. He talks about parts of the soul in his work "The Republic". Here Plato theorizes that the soul has three parts (1) desire (2) emotion and (3) reason. Plato would say that part of Frog, the desire part, will always want more cookies, or whatever else if fancies. It is the job of the other parts of the soul to make sure that desire does not go unchecked. So the reason part of Frog, Plato might say, realizes that too many more cookies = tummy ache, and the emotion part is supposed to work to keep desire at bay as much as it needs to. From this perspective how much will power someone has is determined by how well that person keeps desire under control. So Frog lacks will power because he lacks strength of either emotion or reason, but has a very strong desire. Plato might tell Frog that if he really understood that any more cookies will make him sick, it would be easy not to eat them.

Of course there are other ways to solve the puzzle as well, and any potential solution is sure to bring about lively philosophical discussions.

Questions to Prompt Philosophical Discussion

In the story, Frog and Toad eat so many cookies that they fear they will become sick.

• Is there something that you like to eat or drink so much that you can’t stop yourself, even when you fear that you will get sick?
• If you know that eating so much of something will make you sick, why do you continue to eat it?
• Is wanting to continue to eat or drink something even when you fear you will get sick the same as wanting to get sick?

Frog defines will power as “trying hard not to do something that you really want to do.”

• If you really want to do something, why would you try not to do it?
• Can part of you want to do something, while another part does not?
• If part of you wants to do something, and another part doesn't, where are these parts? Are they in our minds?
• What kind of parts are they? Are they like fingers and toes? Or more like ideas?
• Are any of these parts in charge of the rest of them? Which one?
• Does thinking about ourselves as having different parts help us understand the problem that Frog and Toad have with the cookies?

At the end of the story Frog says that they have lots and lots of will power because they want to eat more cookies but cannot because they have given them all away.

• Who do you think has more will power, Frog, or Toad? Do you think Frog will visit Toad later and eat cake?
• If there are no more cookies left to eat, are Frog and Toad really exercising will power by not eating them?
• Does something have to be tempting you in order for you to have will power?
• Do you have will power even when you are not using it?

This text is a reproduction of a module written by Jayme Johnson and translated by me for Teaching Children Philosophy, a project Story Philosophy contributes to through translations and original contributions of picture book based philosophical discussion modules.  

(c) of all the illustrations in this post, Arnold Lobel, 1971.  

This text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

About Story Philosophy

The idea for this blog

When I was in my first year at university in the UK, I remember one of my tutors asking us whether we had any previous experience of philosophy. I mentioned I had had two years of philosophy at secondary school, like every other secondary school student in Spain at the time. 'Ah!' –he said-, 'a civilized country!'

The idea for this blog stems from a deep conviction that philosophical thought and philosophical discussion -in the broadest sense of both these concepts- form (should form?) the very basis of civilization.  

At a time where educational institutions seem to run the other way at the very mention of the word ‘philosophy’ or, if interested, often prefer calling it something else so as not to intimidate, I feel it is particularly relevant to stand up and speak out for the essential role philosophy can play in education from a very early age.

There are many ‘philosophy for children’ projects out there, some more along my line of thought than others, but all of which do something as magical as basic. They get children to look at the world they live in, to question what they see and what they are told, to question the beliefs of others and their own, to push the boundaries of conformism, to turn things upside down and look underneath them, behind them, inside them. Ultimately, they get children to develop a gaze of their own, a voice of their own, to become their own selves. Can education aspire to anything above and beyond that? And why does it aspire to so much below that?     

I would like to clarify that I firmly believe that literature should not be read for a purpose, as a means to an end. I do not believe in literature written to tell lessons or teach values. It’s boring. Very.

I do not suggest picture book reading at schools should become –exclusively- an excuse for philosophical discussion. I think children desperately need to read for the pure sake of enjoyment.  

But I do suggest that taking quality picture books children enjoy reading and encouraging them to talk about specific aspects that catch their attention and intrigue them is a great way of introducing a healthy and very useful philosophical habit. And it can be great fun!

The age range I have in mind here will vary greatly from child to child, but I’m mostly thinking of 5-10 year-olds.  

I expect readers of this blog to include primary school teachers, perhaps some parents, and picture book enthusiasts with a penchant for rigorous thinking.

I also have a blog with reviews and recordings of favourite children’s books, called We Read it Like This (wereaditlikethis.blogspot.com). If interested, please stop by and say hi.

When I was designing this blog and giving it further thought and research, I came across a wonderful project. The Teaching Children Philosophy program website (www.teachingchildrenphilosophy.org) is fantastic and also has many picture book based philosophical discussions. It contains resources for educators, parents and kids and information on their Undergraduate Course taught by Tom E. Wartenberg at Mount Holyoke College. A really interesting and inspiring project. 


Note added January 19th 2012. 
Since I wrote this original introductory post, I've been in contact with Tom Wartenberg (see mention in previous paragraph) and several interesting things have happened: 

1. Together with Mariana Zarate, a senior English Teacher Training student in Argentina interested in literary theory, philosophy and interdisciplinarity and currently writing her thesis on teaching children Philosophy through English as a foreign language, I am translating the great material on the www.teachingchildrenphilosophy.org site for it to be available to Spanish speakers. Check it out.
2. I'm adapting and contributing the material from Story Philosophy to the Book Modules on their site. 
3. I'll be including a selection of their excellent modules on Story Philosophy to share here too. 

Read the first Story Philosophy review! The Mixed-up Chameleon, by Eric Carle.