Ferreting Out Philosophy by Sue Geddis (Originally published in Volume 2, Number 2 of the CALSCA Newsletter, July, 1995)   The most manageable definition of philosophy, in my opinion, states that it is any very general set of beliefs in which an outlook on the world is founded, and from which the motives of human action may be drawn. Other ideas relate to more systematic sciences and argument as the basis for the search for truth. Where social knowledge and social relationships are concerned, logic and rationalism have come under fire and experience has become the measuring tool for knowing what we know. It's still a much debated point. APPLIED TO LIFE SKILLS As a Life Skills coach, this definition suggests that I would be interested in asking what I believe occurs when I/we do Life Skills, what assumptions do I make or is the group making, and why have I chosen to use Life Skills for social learning as opposed to other methods that I could choose? (As a question, this last can be key for understanding our practice.) I find Dynamics much too dependent on the individual in its approach. It states that "each person has the right to be and to express himself, and to feel good - not guilty - about doing so, as long as it does not hurt others in the process." (p40) But what about our ability to know when others are being hurt, to understand how our social class prevents us from being conscious of others, how our privilege as coach awards more importance to what we say than to what is said by members of the group? Hurt people don't always talk. It doesn't seem right, to me, to apply this kind of universality to Life Skills. There are social controls on all of our behaviours, for instance on whether we talk or not, whether we hear what someone says or not, and thus, on our way of thinking. This impacts on my role of coach, but how? What is the motive behind Life Skills? Is it your personal development, the individual's development in your group, or societal development, and then if you answer the latter,as a coach what does it mean you will do as part of your group activity? How do you draw all three together or do you? Because of this, I currently believe that what an individual knows or believes is always in relation to what the group as a whole articulates, projects or states. One of the philosophical tasks for Life Skills coaches and groups then is the constant working out of this relationship between the individual and the group. That's what we were all about in Winnipeg most of the weekend. By Sunday we needed to get our philosophy down on paper and it came out in the five committees and their strategies. But we have chosen to submit to these. We don't completely know whether they are the right categories. APPLIED TO CALSCA Which brings me to CALSCA. There are two philosophical tasks, I suggest. The first is to work out the relationship between what I as an individual think CALSCA's philosophy should be and what the assembled group in Winnipeg thought. The second philosophical task is to consider what the assembled group comes up with and what the coaches not at the meeting/other associations/etc. think. That's our job, because we are representing a community of practitioners. And then, whatever this is, the third thing is how does this reflect the social good? If there was a better cross section at our meeting, what would they think? Or do we have to invite them there to know? The second philosophical task is important, but is hard for us as coaches because by virtue of our work and whatever we believe about that , always concentrating on individuals. That's why we process to such great lengths, I suggest, because as an individual, I don't want to relinquish my choice to the group. Life Skills gives me permission to prioritize what I express. Consequently, I can quickly see what other meetings will be like when they involve 20 different people. I don't want to deny this right, but I do want to suggest that as a group, we need to constantly question the individual/group relationship and how we can come to terms with that. I think it is the place where growth takes place for us as coaches and, at least for me, I con see that my choice is always made within a multifaceted society. So one of the philosophical questions is does truth lie in the individual or is it subservient to the group? How do we come to terms with individual beliefs and group beliefs? One of our tasks, as a result, is to constantly ask questions about our own beliefs as they interrelate with the beliefs of the group, be it the group assembled in Winnipeg or the larger one;, in Canada. Because coaches are so good at asking questions, we're all mini-philosophers. What I haven't really touched on here is our assumptions either as coaches or as CALSCA. Let's keep talking.