| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''John Dewey''' (1859-1952) was a major American philosopher and a leading [[liberal]] commentator on public affairs. A student of [[Charles Peirce]] he was a leading exponent of [[pragmatism]] and [[instrumentalism]]. Dewey was especially influential as the philosopher of "progressive education." He sought the reconstruction of society through education in which children discovered knowledge for themselves rather than repeat rote learning . | + | '''John Dewey''' (1859-1952) was a major American philosopher and a leading [[liberal]] commentator on public affairs. A student of [[Charles Peirce]] he was a leading exponent of [[pragmatism]] and [[instrumentalism]]. Dewey was especially influential as the philosopher of "progressive education." He sought the reconstruction of society through education in which children discovered knowledge for themselves rather than repeat rote learning. Dewey was one of the main intellectual forces behind American liberalism, 1900-1930, especially in his emphasis that the spirit of democracy has to be lived daily rather than be merely a procedural device for elections. |
| | | | |
| | + | Although pragmatism faded in impiortance in American philosophy after 1930, it has seen a revival since the 1980s with the writings of [[Richard Rorty]], [[Hilary Putnam]], and others. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Democracy== |
| | + | In his writings from the 1920s and 1930s, Dewey placed his concept of participatory democracy in opposition to both classical liberalism and the technocratic elitism of his contemporary, [[Walter Lippmann]] (1889-1974). Whereas classical liberalism saw in democracy the means for reconciling individual interests, Dewey upheld democracy precisely because the communication that it fostered enabled the individual to identify and understand his interests within a moral framework. In practice, however, Dewey found in the individualist assumptions behind classical liberalism the strongest arguments against leaving policy decisions in the hands of Lippmann's "responsible administrator."<ref> Matthew Festenstein, "The Ties of Communication: Dewey on Ideal and Political Democracy," ''History of Political Thought'' 1997 18(1): 104-124. 0143-781x </ref> |
| | ==Progressive Education== | | ==Progressive Education== |
| | Progressive education maintains that children should be the center of the educational universe, that children can be active learners who learn best by experience rather than by memorization, that a nurturing environment is essential to the educational process, and that women are ideally suited as teachers. By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref> | | Progressive education maintains that children should be the center of the educational universe, that children can be active learners who learn best by experience rather than by memorization, that a nurturing environment is essential to the educational process, and that women are ideally suited as teachers. By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref> |
| Line 6: |
Line 10: |
| | Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref> | | Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref> |
| | ==Impact on China == | | ==Impact on China == |
| − | Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. | + | Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. Pragmatism was replaced by Marxism after 1949, but Dewey's reputation has been revived since the fall of Mao. |
| − | | |
| | | | |
| | ==Evaluating Soviet Communism== | | ==Evaluating Soviet Communism== |
| Line 19: |
Line 22: |
| | <small>"Rockefeller shows how Dewey's evolving thought was closely related to the events and experiences in his life, and he interweaves both throughout the narrative, rather than considering them separately--a very effective strategy. . . . Aside from its value as a major study of Dewey's life and thought, this work has great value in showing how contemporary sensibilities which are persuaded by the natural-scientific worldview can, at the same time, maintain a religious orientation."</small> </ref> Dewey viewed conservative Christianity (i.e., protestant [[fundamentalism]] and mainline [[Catholicism]]) as a dark, evil lair harboring political enemies if not intellectual rivals of his own philosophy and its emphasis on "intelligence" as well as "religious" feelings. This can be seen in part in a 1924 essay titled "Fundamentals" written for the ''New Republic''<ref>''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism'', Steven C. Rockefeller, p.442 </ref> | | <small>"Rockefeller shows how Dewey's evolving thought was closely related to the events and experiences in his life, and he interweaves both throughout the narrative, rather than considering them separately--a very effective strategy. . . . Aside from its value as a major study of Dewey's life and thought, this work has great value in showing how contemporary sensibilities which are persuaded by the natural-scientific worldview can, at the same time, maintain a religious orientation."</small> </ref> Dewey viewed conservative Christianity (i.e., protestant [[fundamentalism]] and mainline [[Catholicism]]) as a dark, evil lair harboring political enemies if not intellectual rivals of his own philosophy and its emphasis on "intelligence" as well as "religious" feelings. This can be seen in part in a 1924 essay titled "Fundamentals" written for the ''New Republic''<ref>''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism'', Steven C. Rockefeller, p.442 </ref> |
| | {{cquote|Those traditionalists and literalists who have arrogated to themselves the title of fundamentalists recognize of course no mean between their dogmas and blank, dark, hopeless uncertainty and unsettlement. Until they have been reborn into the life of intelligence, they will not be aware that there are a steadily increasing number of persons who find security in ''methods'' of inquiry, of observation, experiment, of forming and following working hypotheses.}} Dewey was surprised by the strong sway that [[neo-orthodoxy|neo-orthodox]] figures like [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] were coming to hold over the [[liberal]] academy—his 1934 ''A Common Faith'' was a reaction towards, what was to him and other religious/secular humanists, a still very unacceptable and even repulsive form of Christianity. For not only did Niebuhr never deny, but he sometimes upheld biblical supernaturalism. | | {{cquote|Those traditionalists and literalists who have arrogated to themselves the title of fundamentalists recognize of course no mean between their dogmas and blank, dark, hopeless uncertainty and unsettlement. Until they have been reborn into the life of intelligence, they will not be aware that there are a steadily increasing number of persons who find security in ''methods'' of inquiry, of observation, experiment, of forming and following working hypotheses.}} Dewey was surprised by the strong sway that [[neo-orthodoxy|neo-orthodox]] figures like [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] were coming to hold over the [[liberal]] academy—his 1934 ''A Common Faith'' was a reaction towards, what was to him and other religious/secular humanists, a still very unacceptable and even repulsive form of Christianity. For not only did Niebuhr never deny, but he sometimes upheld biblical supernaturalism. |
| − |
| |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Quotes== | | ==Quotes== |
| Line 29: |
Line 28: |
| | *"education consists primarily of transmission through communication," | | *"education consists primarily of transmission through communication," |
| | *"education is a constant reorganizing or reconstructing of experience." | | *"education is a constant reorganizing or reconstructing of experience." |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | ==External Links== | | ==External Links== |
| | | | |
| | *[http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/Euth/Euth05-04.htm Critique of traditional theories of education] | | *[http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/Euth/Euth05-04.htm Critique of traditional theories of education] |
| | + | ==Further reading== |
| | + | * Fott, David. ''John Dewey: America's Philosopher of Democracy.'' (1998). 167 pp. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==References== |
| | + | {{reflist}} |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | [[category:philosophers|Dewey, John]] | | [[category:philosophers|Dewey, John]] |