Talk:John Dewey (1859-1952)

From Studyplace

Categories Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help	Pathways Concepts Subjects People Essays Reviews Commons Courses Help
Key tabs
article tab edit tab move tab	study tab history tab watch tab

Managed to write down some guiding and great quotes (in my opinion) from the first 3 chapt. Combination of available time and other commitments didn't allow for more :) Feel free to check the questions section that includes a broader scope of the the whole book and how we can place it in today's society.

Chapter 1: Search for the public

∑ Distinction between political action and theories of state. “The worst of it is, however, that looking in the wrong place, to causal forces instead of consequences, the outcome of the looking becomes arbitrary.” P.19 Criticism of Political Philosophy…from the standpoint of a pragmatist and instrumentalist.

∑ Distinction between facts that condition human activity and facts which are conditioned by human activity. Although the latter does not mean that the former in turn tend to condition human conditions.

∑ How to define the concept of state? “the objective fact that human action have consequences upon others, that some of these consequences are perceived, and that their perception leads to subsequent effort to control action so as to secure some consequences and avoid others” p.12 Yes, but not in an agreed-by-all way! ∑ Private versus public. Affect the well being of others not involved directly in the actions, these acquire a public capacity. “The line between private and public is to be drawn on the basis of the extent and scope of the consequences of acts which are so important as to need control, whether by inhibition or by promotion.” P.15 Who decides what’s important/How is important defined?

∑ “The public as far as organized by means of officials and material agencies to care for the extensive and enduring indirect consequences of transactions between persons is the Populus.” p. 16 ∑ Not authorship, but authority. Not a collective impersonal will, but single human beings. ∑ Human association as a fact. “Wants, choices and purposes have their locus in single beings; behavior which manifests desire, intent and resolution proceeds from them in their singularity […] yet nothing has been discover that acts in entire isolation” P.22 ∑ “Not the question how individuals or singular beings come to be connected, but how they come to be connected in just those ways which give human communities traits so different from those which mark assembles of electrons, unions of trees in forests, swarms of insects, herds of sheep, and constellations of stars.” p. 24 ∑ “Individuals still do the thinking, desiring and purposing, but what they think of is the consequences of their behavior upon that of others and that of others upon themselves” p.24 ∑ “What he believes, hopes for and aims at is the outcome of association and intercourse” p.24 ∑ Distinction between the State and other forms of social life. ∑ “The characteristic of the public as a state springs from the fact that all modes of associated behavior may have extensive and enduring consequences which involve others beyond those directly engaged in them”. P 27 ∑ How the public changes through time and how current political forms adapt to these changes. “The creation of adequately flexible and responsive political and legal machinery has so far been beyond the wit of man”. P.31 “This is why the change of the form of states is so often effected only by revolution”. P. 31

Chapter 2: the discovery of the state

∑ When is the state necessary? Answered by the following criteria: 1.Temporal and geographical localization Arbitrary? -From too direct and vital to occasion a need for political organization, to too remote and disconnected. This is not the public and therefore outside the realm of a state. It is though between these extremes that we find the province of the state.

“Roughly speaking, tools and implements determine occupation and occupations determine the consequences of associated activity. In determining consequences, they institute publics with different interests, which exact different types of political behavior to care for them. P.45

No model pattern, which makes a good state, and no belief on the notion of states developing in a predictable way drove by an intrinsic principle. Rather, the use of intelligence to judge consequences. (As if those consequences were valued in the same way by all members of society…)

2.The quantitative scope of results of conjoint behavior generates a public with need for organization. -when consequences concern a large number, a number so mediately involved that a person cannot readily prefigure how they are to be affected, that number is constituted a public which intervenes. “It is rather that the public itself, being unable to forecast and estimate all consequences, establishes certain dikes and channels so that actions are confined within prescribed limits, and insofar have moderately predictable consequences.” P. 53 “Conditions are stated in reference to consequences which many be incurred if they are infringed or transgressed.”p.55

3.Modes of behavior which are old and hence well established, engrained. -when, however, a mode of behavior has become old and familiar, and when and instrumentality has come into use as a matter of course, provided it is a prerequisite of other customary pursuits, it tends to come within the scope of the state”. P.60

4.The idea that children and other dependents (such as the insane, the permanently helpless) are peculiarly its wards. -When the parties involved in any transaction are unequal in status, the relationship is likely to be one sided, and the interests of one party to suffer…best means of securing and maintaining equality.

The far reaching character of consequences, whether in space or time; their settled, uniform and recurrent nature, and their irreparableness. Each of these matters involves questions of degree.

“A public is organized into a state through its government”. P.69

Chapt. 3 The Democratic State

Primary problem of the public: to achieve such recognition of itself as will give it weight in the selection of official representatives and in the definition of their responsibilities and rights. This challenge lead us into the notion of the democratic state.

Since officers of the public have a dual makeup capacity, what conditions and what technique are necessary in order that insight, loyalty and energy may be enlisted on the side of the public and political role?

Development of political democracy as a result of many social movements, rather than on a straight inspiration of democratic ideals or to planning for the eventual outcome.

“Its origin was biased, a reaction against past forms of governments and states, therefore was driven by a fear of government and a desire to reduce it to a minimum so as to limit the evil it could do. Freedom presented itself as an end in itself, though it signified in fact liberation from oppression and tradition”. p.86 -Individualism: The limitation of the powers of government became associated, with the doctrine that the ground and justification of the restriction was non-political rights inherent in the very structure of the individual. “The economic theory of laissez-faire, based upon belief in beneficent natural laws which brought about harmony of personal profit and social benefit, was readily fused with the doctrine of natural rights.” p.91

Overview of economic theory of laissez-faire and the mayor influence it had on the theoretical conceptions of the democratic government

Sounds familiar? What arrangements will prevent rulers from advancing their own interests at the expense of the ruled? Proposed answer by James Mill: -Popular election of officials -Short terms of office -Frequent elections

To which Dewey responded “the individual, about which the new philosophy centered itself, was in process of complete submergence in fact at the very time in which he was being elevated on high in theory” p.96 “The individual was counting for less in the direction of social affairs at a time when mechanical forces and vast impersonal organizations were determining the frame of things.” p.97 “The Great Society created by steam and electricity may be a society, but it is not a community” p.98 “Individualism was a doctrine which stated what was focal in thought and purpose” p.100 “The forces, springing from combination and institutional organization which controlled below the surface the acts which formally issued from individuals, went unnoted.” p.101 “Mind was “consciousness,” and the latter was a clear, transparent, self-revealing medium in which wants, efforts and purposes were exposed without distortion.” p.103 …in contrast with Social theory of Knowledge–nothing “natural” about the mind.

“Associated behavior directed toward objects which fulfill wants not only produces those objects but brings customs and institutions into being. The indirect and unthought-of consequences are usually more important that the direct.” p.106

“Its outcome was the development of those extensive and invisible bonds, those “great impersonal concerns, organizations” which now pervasively affect the thinking, willing and doing of everybody, and which have ushered in the “new era of human relationships.” p.107

Key resources to draw on

Scope and tone of coverage

Talk

help talk. . . .

2006/2007 MSTU5606 discussion

Queries, critiques, and points of discussion

Lead off: Leila May-Landy

In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey attempts to address some of the problems facing the society of his time. His diagnosis of the maladies of 1927 stem from the rise of industrialization, the growth of the complexity of social, political and economic interchange and individualization, all of which are key constituents of the Great Society of the early twentieth century. While these elements provide many possibilities for human society, they are, in Dewey’s outlook, obstacles to the creation of a coherent public able to exercise its influence in a democracy.

Since Dewey covers much ground in this text, it might be easiest to begin with the dilemma posed in the title itself and to elaborate some of the elements of his political ‘philosophy.’

Dewey defines the public as “all of those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for.” (PP 15-16) The term ‘consequences’ is crucial in that acts remain purely private when their consequences do not extend beyond the two parties immediately involved in the transaction. The public takes shape when the consequences of acts extend to others and there is an attempt to control their impact through ‘conjoint action’ based on shared interests. As the extensiveness, complexity and significance of indirect consequences increases, so does the importance of the need to control them. This effort requires that the ‘consequences be systematically cared for.’ Hence the public is ‘called into being’ by the (perceived) indirect consequences of human transactions and the state is formed as the political agency through which these consequences are regulated. The effectiveness of the state is, in turn, measured by “the degree of organization of the public which is attained, and the degree in which its officers are so constituted to perform their function of caring for the public interests.” (PP)

Before we go any further, it is necessary to point out that (in this reader’s view!), Dewey’s pragmatism is firmly rooted in this concept of consequences. As empirical facts, consequences provide an a posteriori understanding of the creation of states. As Dewey argues in chapter one, philosophers and political theorists have presented views of the state based on a priori causality (“state-forming forces”). Grounding their discussion in the belief that there is a nascent movement toward not only state formation, but toward the formation of an ideal state, they constructed many misconceptions about the nature and legitimacy of states. In Dewey’s relativism, legitimacy itself is a transient concept and the conditions upon which it is based change over time. (p. 6) Social facts are provisional, and the public must (and can be called upon to) exercise critical judgment as autonomous entities outside the structures of power.

For Dewey, the perception of consequences, the condition upon which states were formed changed over time, require an ‘experimental’ approach that responds to factors relative to a particular time and place. The modes of associated behavior which generate new indirect consequences are in a state of flux as they are influenced by changes in ‘the machine age.’ Hence, the ‘inchoate’ and unorganized public is destined to exist in a state that is unable to meet its needs. Dewey, in fact, saw inertia, the desire to hold on to the status quo and reactionary forces as working in direct conflict with the need of the public to reshape or redefine the state in response to changes.

The Great Society with the rise in industry and technology (“the use of steam applied to mechanical invention” p. 95), nevertheless, provided the foundation for the democratic state to emerge. Dewey explains the rise of democracy as follows: “the development of political democracy represents the convergence of a great number of social movements, no one of which owed either its origin or its impetus to inspiration of democratic ideals or to planning for the eventual outcome.” (p. 85) Whereas this ‘release of new potentialities’ (p. 98) was a liberating force for the individual, the resulting increase in associated behavior and indirect consequences fostered a greater loss of face-to-face communication and made the public subject to ‘remote and invisible organizations’ (p. 98) The extent to which this occurred can be seen in the Dewey’s discussion of the eclipse of the public, a condition whereby “The public is so confused and eclipsed that it cannot even use the organs through which it is supposed to mediate political action and polity.” (p. 121) Simply put, “It is not that there is no public, no large body of persons having a common interest in the consequences of social transactions. There is too much public, a public too diffused and scattered and to intricate in composition.” (p. 137 or p.126 “there are too many publics” ) At this juncture, the heart of the problem lies in the fact that the social instability and technological change (and other elements of the Great Society) have made attachments and associations too unstable for the public to organize itself. (p. 141).

In this light, although the potential for the creation of a unified and vigorous public exists, it remains an elusive aspiration in the age of the Great Society. “The same forces which have brought about the forms of democratic government, general suffrage, executives and legislators chosen by majority vote, have also brought about conditions which halt the social and human ideals that demand the utilization of government as the genuine instrumentality of an inclusive and fraternally associated public. The ‘new age of human relationships’ has no political agencies worthy of it.” (p. 109)

We arrive none too soon at Dewey’s discussion of the Great Community, perhaps the most inspiring part of the text. In this chapter, some of the inconsistencies that this reader picked up from the text are addressed, and I am inclined to give Dewey the benefit of the doubt that he has overcome some of these inconsistencies (or perhaps it would be better to call them ambiguities) in his text. For Dewey, the foundation of democracy is community life (p. 148), and it is precisely through the active participation in various forms of both political and non-political associations in the life of the community that individuals (‘good citizens’) could enrich and be enriched. The “’we’ is as inevitable as ‘I’” and the individuality of each is expressed and potentiated. (p.151) My apologies for the broad strokes, but communal experience and associated action are the very foundation of fraternity, liberty and equality in Dewey’s argument. The element that is missing so far in this discussion is the role of communication which is precisely what holds the Dewey’s system together.

As the complexity of society grew exponentially in the Great Society, it became necessary for the public to have the knowledge (the data for good judgment p. 209) necessary to make informed judgments. We should remember that Dewey was convinced that the public was capable of weighing facts and deliberating on information provided by experts. In order for the public to act upon its shared interests, it is necessary for it to have not pre-digested, mediated conclusions, but facts, information gathered by experts which it could use to make informed decisions. Thus, the public must engage in informed dialogue and rational consideration and must, as well, inform the experts of its needs (p. 209) For Dewey, “knowledge is a function of association and communication; it depends upon tradition, upon tools and methods socially transmitted, developed and sanctioned.” (p. 158) And it “that common understanding and thorough communication which is the precondition of the existence of a genuine and effective public.” (p. 174) The problem of the public is accordingly defined as the need for “the improvement of the methods of debate, discussion and persuasion.” (p. 208) Without this crucial component, the Great Society can become the Great Community for “knowledge is communication as well as understanding” (p. 176) firmly rooted in face-to-face engagement in a local community.

Dewey’s democratic state is in no way a complete, static entity. It is an ongoing process in which “positive freedom is not a state but an act which involves methods and instrumentalities for control of conditions.” (p. 168) But this is not an easy process – the very ‘instrumentalities’ that facilitate the acquisition and distribution of knowledge enslave the public. The social sciences, duly enlisted to dispel eternal truths (based on a priori judgments), themselves need to be recast to become a true “apparatus for conducting investigation, and for recording and interpreting (organizing) its results.” (p. 203)

The rousing conclusion to chapter five smoothens out some of the rough edges there might be in Dewey’s argument. His enthusiasm is contagious as he describes the creation of the Great Community as “a society in which the ever-expanding and intricately ramifying consequences of associated activities shall be known in the full sense of the word, so that an organized, articulate Public comes into being. … Democracy will come into its own, for democracy is a name for a life of free and enriching communion.” (p. 184)

The Public and its problems, at times, reads like a collection of quotable aphorism meant to inspire us to understand our role in the complex social web of human interactions. We acquire and exercise our individuality within the scope of our associations, and participatory democracy is, in Dewey’s estimation, the best tool for accomplishing this goal. Particularly compelling for this reader is the central role Dewey gives for communication - the construction of knowledge is, in fact, the result of a dialogic process that we are all able to (and must) engage in. I will end with (yet another!) quote from The public and its problems. “There is no limit to the liberal expansion and confirmation of limited personal intellectual endowment which may proceed from the flow of social intelligence when that circulates by word of mouth from one to another in the communications of a local community. That and that only gives reality to public opinion. We lie, as Emerson said, in the lap of an immense intelligence. But that intelligence is dormant and its communications are broken, inarticulate and faint until it possesses the local community as its medium.” (p. 219) And lest we forget, “The local is the ultimate universal, and as near an absolute as exists.” (p. 215)

Questions for Discussion While he rejects the notion of historical determinism, Dewey does see democracy as having emerged as the best system to regulate the needs of the public in the Great Society and to transform it to the Great Community. Does Dewey fully explain this timely convergence? Has he described the preconditions well enough?

Is it possible to construct a state that is in a constant state of experimentation? Does Dewey give us a tangible idea of how this state would, in fact, function?

The level of civic engagement implied in Dewey’s view of democracy seems unlikely to occur. (He readily admits that we are more drawn to cheap amusement made possible by the machine age. (p. 139)) I wonder if we will so readily replace ‘the competition for material goods … with appreciatively enjoyed intellectual and artistic wealth.” (p. 217) Do we have a critical mass of ‘good citizens’ to create the society Dewey is describing? Are we ready for Dewey’s vision of democracy?

What is the ‘art’ of communication that Dewey evokes at the end of chapter five? “The highest and most difficult kind of inquiry and a subtle, delicate, vivid and responsive art of communication must take possession of the physical machinery of transmission and circulation and breathe life into it.” (p. 184)

I had the good intention of at least scanning Walter Lippmann’s renowned tome, Public Opinion (and even The Phantom Public), so that I could have juxtapose the ideas of the two authors, but limited time and numerous obligations intruded. Nevertheless, it important to ask (and surely someone will answer!) if Dewey’s optimistic concept of participatory democracy guided by an informed (and discerning) public with shared interests is indeed more compelling than the cynical (or realistic!) view of a public (gullible, yet complicitous in the creation of stereotypes and demagoguery) that needed to be guided by experts. Who provides a more compelling argument? (Chomsky seemed to feel that Lippmann did.)

Although I hate to do this, there were several instances when I sincerely wondered what Dewey would have made of the Internet – yet another source of associations that create direct and indirect consequences. But does it draw us together in a truly viable or legitimate way? Do the associations it creates inform the local or even perhaps create localities from which constituent publics can be formed?

Does Dewey, in fact, intend to describe THE public or A public, among many?

To what extent is Dewey’s vision of participatory democracy influenced by protestant theology?

Although my understanding and knowledge are both a bit thin, I do feel that there are similarities between Durkheim’s theory of the division of labor and Dewey’s view of the individual’s role in a democracy. I will go further and readily admit that my understanding of some of the materials we have covered thus far is not strong enough to embark upon an informed discussion of the similarities and differences between Dewey concept of the individual, the public, the state and the rise of democracy and those of the other authors we have read this semester. Hence, I will call upon my classmates to draw parallels!

Talk:John Dewey (1859-1952)

From Studyplace

Contents

2008/2009 write-up

Study

Generative questions originating the article

Key points to make

Key resources to draw on

Scope and tone of coverage

Talk

2006/2007 MSTU5606 discussion

Queries, critiques, and points of discussion

Views

Personal tools

resources

Search

Toolbox