ISSN 1935-7699
 |
|
|
ISSN 1935-7699 |
|||
|
||||
|
ARTICLE Speculation
on a Missing Link: Dewey’s Democracy and Schools Introduction
In a special issue focusing on the relationship of
democracy and schooling, an essay on the influence of John Dewey seems
necessary. This is because in American and international educational
psyches, Dewey’s name is associated in a progressive tradition with this
relationship. In effect, a historical and contemporaneous trope, a
symbolically discursive unity, has been established of
Dewey and democracy and schools.
The controversy of this essay concerns what it might mean if a missing
link were identified in Dewey’s writings, in which he rarely, almost
never, made the tropic connection himself. That is, when he wrote about
democracy, he did not write about schools. Questions arise: Is there
evidence of a missing link in writings about Dewey and how might it be
manifest? Is there evidence in Dewey’s own writings, and what might be
reasons for what is missing? How might it matter today if there is a
missing link between democracy and schools?
Several preliminary points are important before
considering a possible missing link. One is to emphasize that this
undertaking is a speculation in which philosophical, biographical and
bibliographical, and educational ideas and information are brought
together to form a provisional position: In no way is this speculation a
definitive argument. A second is that its purpose is precisely to
provoke. Whatever the outcome, discussion that brings the central trope
to the fore—and in a new way—might well renew its significance for
schooling today. The third is to underscore the difficulty of taking on
the trope especially because of the iconic status of its central figure.
As will be seen, even those critical of Dewey fully acknowledge his
theoretical if not actual influence in education and for schools. An additional point and premise for what follows is
that critics and supporters alike do recognize the importance of
democracy for Dewey. This standard account is posited by Richard
Bernstein: “[Democracy] was not simply one topic among others that . . .
[Dewey] explored. It stood at the center of his being and his
intellectual endeavors. His words and deeds always emanated from his
concern with the process and precarious fate of democracy” (Bernstein,
1986, p. 260).[1]
Besides writing about democracy, Dewey lived a democratic life,
for example, through contributions to journalism in the popular press
and to public service in professional associations. Organizations in
which he demonstrated national leadership range from the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People to the American
Federation of Teachers. Further exemplars of significant international
public stands in politics are his joining with Woodrow Wilson to endorse
entrance into World War I in the late teens and his defenses of Bertrand
Russell and Leon Trotsky for their controversial views in the late
thirties. The trope of Dewey +democracy +schools is attended
to in the following sections of the paper: First, Schools Today reveals
the current state of democracy, presupposing its importance but
emphasizing its absence. Second, Criticizing Dewey utilizes writings
from educational theorists to indicate Dewey’s lacks of schooling
practicality as well as broader social understanding needed for
realization of his democratic vision. It supports a missing link as
critics offer implicit but not direct connections of democracy and
schools from his writings. Third, Supporting Dewey, offers a second set
of writings and again substantiates the missing link. Herein theorists
make specific positive connections for various educational purposes.
Fourth, a central section, Writings on Democracy, presents two kinds of
evidence from Dewey to further substantiate the speculation. One is a
breakdown of biographical and bibliographic data taken from a careful
reading of thirty published pieces on democracy across his career. The
other is textual illustration from selections that are tied to
connections made by educational theorists from the two preceding
sections. Fifth, Speculation augments previous evidence with suggestions
from other significant scholars of a set of reasons for the missing
link, here especially about schools. Sixth, Penultimate Commentary
returns one last time to the concept of democracy and recalls that to
flourish, schools must exhibit and foster it. The conclusion of the
paper summarizes its thesis about a missing link and asserts that today
direct tropic connection of democracy and schools is vital.[2]
Before turning to the state of schools and
democracy today, a word about reading Dewey is helpful. Given his 150th
birthday in 2009 and over fifty years since his death, various
interpretations of Dewey’s writings have emerged as philosophy and the
times themselves have changed. The authors cited within this paper hold
different interpretive viewpoints but all concur about the importance of
Dewey for schools today. The historicist stance posits that Dewey would
have welcomed new insights about his work pertinent for new times
(Dewey, [1920] 1988). Icons surely should withstand scrutiny and
critique in order to remain useful. The theoretical use of this stance
is returned to near the end of the essay. Schools Today Even a quick look at the tropic connection of
democracy and schools, and indeed of actual presence today, reveals a
somber picture. It is one in which seemingly less and less democracy
exists now than in the past. For example, consider how much time is
spent on achievement testing about which teachers and their students
have little or no say. Consider conventional school governance,
hierarchically if not autocratically ordered, in the hands of ham-strung
administrators with little representation for those not in charge.
Consider the diminished role of student government and indeed the
virtual absence of youth autonomy and choice over daily lives in
schools. Consider the all-too-familiar recognition that some few are
members of and attend school board meetings, and most parents and
community members do not participate. If schools are places where
democracy ought to matter, as training grounds for and exemplars of
larger and more comprehensive democratic societies, one wonders how such
societies flourish at all. One reputable source on perceptions of schools is
the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallop
Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, now forty
years old. Chief focus on last year’s poll (Rose and Gallup, 2007) was
No Child Left Behind and related issues, followed by school governance
and matters of curriculum and personnel. Three results are particularly
salient. One is an overwhelming public belief that beyond academic
achievement, schools should also be responsible for “behavioral, social,
and emotional needs of students” (p. 41). A second is that the biggest
problems are issues of school organization and personnel and
deficiencies of children, with the former twice as important as the
latter. A third is that reform of schools is best when utilizing
existing locally-based governance forms. Of significant note is that the
concept democracy is not
mentioned anywhere in the poll report, although there might be
implications of its value in emphasis on community, school-board
control, and if alternative to public schools, the preference for
charter schools. In general from the poll and elsewhere, across the
political spectrum there is indication of difficulties schools have in
preparing youth for lives ahead. What is interesting is that purposes of
schooling typically tie directly to personal and private needs and
expectations. School mission statements may be one place where lip
service to democracy is given but few schools appear to countenance its
direct, practical relevance for the young. One wonders, again, how
democratically-inclined people and societies develop. Requiring a bit more attention, a significant
dimension of the issue of schools today concerns attitudes toward youth
and their “behavioral, emotional, and social needs.” In an essay related
to their book, The Postmodern
Adventure, Steven Best and Douglas Kellner point to strong
differences of opinion. They are worth quoting at length: From the Right, Allan Bloom . . . [in
The Closing of the American Mind]
infamously excoriated youth as illiterate and inarticulate adolescents
blithely enjoying the achievements of modern science and the
Enlightenment while in the throes of a Dionysian frenzy, drugged by
music videos, rock and roll, and illegal substances. . . . [Such] pejorative characterizations of youth fail to
understand that whatever undesirable features this generation possesses
were in large part shaped by their present and past, and . . . [that]
the younger generation is an unwitting victim . . . [of] global
restructuring of capitalism and the decline of democracy. (Best &
Kellner, 2001, p. 4 [website
pagination]) While their purpose is to describe youth culture
relative to societal conditions, Best and Kellner mention democracy only
twice in the paper, once just above and the other in the final sentence
in which “education . . . must .
. . promote empowering learning and devise strategies to create a more
democratic and egalitarian multicultural society” (p. 16).
Significantly, nowhere in their analysis do they attend directly to
schools, prescient of the missing link of this essay. Before leaving current-day schools, a brief comment
is in order about the presence of democracy in the curriculum. Children
in the Criticizing Dewey Critics abound who decry undemocratic societal
conditions for many adults and youth. Some of this criticism has been
directed at Dewey, both philosophically and educationally.
Philosophically, a debate for another day, his work has been described
as being too speculative, too narrowly instrumentalist, too indecisive
on epistemology and truth, even virtually illogical. In educational
scholarship, the focus of this section, criticism has been both
practical and theoretical. The former is composed of two major ideas,
inaccessibility of Dewey’s ideas for practitioners and lack of concrete
suggestions for implementation. In each of these, it is important to
underscore that Dewey is praised for his democratic vision, when
accessed and understood. The first critique, inaccessibility, has two
sources: a writing style more 19th- than 20th-
century, and as well, an uncommon use of common terms (see Stone, 1999).
Not only has misunderstanding resulted, but also misuse of his ideas.
Most important for this article is lack of
practicality. An example is central to a recently published book titled
Dewey’s Dream: Universities and Democracies in an Age of Education
Reform, written by Lee Benson, Ira Harkavy, and John Puckett. Here
is their principal thesis: Dewey . . . [exhibited a] habitual aversion to the
highly intensive, genuinely ‘scientific’ study of the societal problems
that he passionately wanted to solve, as well as . . . [a] lifelong
resistance to doing the hard, sustained,
practical thinking and work
necessary to solve those problems in any realistic way. (Benson, Harkavy,
& Puckett, 2007, p. 12; emphasis in original) Their position comes in part from an earlier essay
by Ellen Condliffe Lagemann whose words are even stronger, although
mitigated. She writes, However appealing John Dewey’s thought may be, there
is no denying that it lacks a sense of realpolitik. . . . [Despite ideas
that] have stirred the imagination of many people . . . when one reads
Dewey’s writings wanting to know
how the kind of democracy, education, or politics he described might
be developed, one comes up lacking. (Lagemann, 1996, p. 171, emphasis in
original) While acknowledging that a philosopher need not
necessarily be a practical reformer, her own historical project is to
explore the relationship of Dewey to his student, the more practical
educational reformer, Ella Flagg Young. In turning to Young and her own
advocacy of teachers, Lagemann theorizes a change in Dewey: [After] 1904, he seems to have turned away from
consideration of ‘democracy in education’ to concern himself instead with broader issues of
‘democracy and education.’. .
. Although he continued to be deeply interested in education throughout
his life and remained active in many educational organizations, after
leaving Chicago direct participation in educational experimentation was
no longer . . . important. (p. 180, again emphasis in original) What is significant in the Lagemann essay is its
attention to and acceptance of the concepts of democracy and education,
rather than democracy and schools. In their own way also, Benson,
Harkavy, and Puckett imply a similar missing link. They make four moves
in a manifesto for “[transforming] American society and other developed
societies into participatory democracies” through a conception and
organization of university-assisted community schools (Benson, Harkavy,
& Puckett, p. xiii). One is to situate Dewey’s vision in his philosophy
of democracy. Two is to assess his practical projects at
In educational writings, stronger theoretical
blaming of Dewey has largely been the purview of a group of revisionist
educational historians and philosophers writing from the mid-seventies
(see Feinberg and Rosemont, 1975). In an illustrative essay, Clarence
Karier and David Hogan analyze the curriculum Dewey advocated for the [Dewey’s curriculum] excluded economic conflict . . .
that might contribute to a class consciousness, which, in turn, might
increase class conflict. . . . [His content] bore a striking resemblance
to the sanitized, benign social reality which came to dominate much of
the American middle class school curricula by mid-twentieth century . .
. [ironically divorcing the school from society] . . . [in its own
time]. (Karier & Hogan, [1979] 1992, pp. 115-116)
The revisionists’ movement grew out of but came to
be differentiated from earlier traditions of educational progressives
and social reconstructionists. Today, a focus on the relationship of
broad historical trends, comprehensive societal structures, and deep
social problems has evolved into various critical stances toward history
of education. Along with that of Benson, Harkavy, and Puckett, Karier
and Hogan’s specific position on Dewey’s democracy is returned to below. Supporting Dewey Given traditional approval of and utilization of
Dewey for American progressive education at all levels, strong support
has been more prevalent than strong criticism (although supporters can
be critical, too, of course). In this section, three examples
demonstrate such support; again they recognize the tropic unity of
Dewey, democracy and schools and make their own implicit connections. In Experimenting with the World, Harriet Cuffaro tells of her turn to
Dewey to develop a philosophy of education for early childhood education
and educators. She writes, Present within any philosophy of education are certain
basic elements: a view of the learner and teacher, and the choices that
have been made about knowledge. . . . What we choose to think about . .
. [determines] the quality of life in a classroom and the possibilities
it will hold for children and adults. (Cuffaro, 1995, p. 11) She focuses primarily on two concepts, the social
individual and experience, and incorporates mention of others that
include potential, habit, community, quality, inquiry, continuity and
interaction. Not surprisingly, Cuffaro underpins her own vision of
classroom life with Dewey’s concept of a democratic society (see p.
103). Of this she asserts, Dewey’s concept . . . both the community of the
classroom and the Great Community that is to be society, is built on
communication, participation, and association. His vision of democracy
welcomes plurality and diversity and rejects barriers that divide and
exclude. Accepting the spirit of Dewey’s vision, we are challenged to
attend to whatever diminishes the growth of a democratic society. (p.
103)
In this first example, Cuffaro accepts Dewey’s
spirit of democracy and seemingly assumes the role of the school in
posing specific practices for classrooms. A second text example comes from Douglas Simpson,
Michael Jackson and Judy Aycock (2005) titled
John Dewey and the Art of Teaching.
Therein for the education profession, they consider over a dozen
different images of the teacher as developed in and interpreted from
Dewey’s writings. Different from Cuffaro’s stance, their pattern is
largely to equate the teacher and the school in fostering democracy. As
Cuffaro writes primarily from Dewey’s
Experience and Education from
the late thirties, they primarily but not exclusively cite a series of
essays from the same time period. One from 1934 actually refers to
schools but infers democracy: Unless the schools of the world can unite in effort to
rebuild the spirit of common understanding, of mutual sympathy and
goodwill among all peoples and races, to exorcise the demon of
prejudice, isolation and hatred, they themselves are likely to be
submerged by the general return to barbarism, the sure outcome of
present tendencies if unchecked by the forces which education alone can
evoke and fortify. (Dewey, [1934] 1989, pp. 203-204)
From a piece in an earlier period, Dewey asks a
more direct question: “What has the American public school done toward
subordinating a local, provincial, sectarian and partisan spirit of many
to aims and interests which are common to all the men and women of a
country?” (Dewey, [1916c, 1940] 1985, p. 203). Their conclusion of Dewey
reads thus: “[As] far as he is concerned . . . schools have a delicate
and challenging role to play in being counter-culture during times that
antidemocratic tendencies are more pronounced. If they are silent, they
may be viewed as a cause of undemocratic lifestyles, policies, and
practices” (Simpson, Jackson, & Aycock, 2005, p. 100).
In a third essay that they find significant, Dewey does not
mention schools, and he indeed mentions education only twice. Near the
conclusion of the piece, Dewey asserts, “Since the process of experience
is capable of being educative, faith in democracy is all one with faith
in experience and education” (Dewey, [1939] 1991, p. 229). Overall, the
interplay by these authors utilizes separate statements about schools
and about democracy for teachers and their professional purposes; their
link is implicit, as it is from the others.
A third example of support for Dewey is by Stephen
Fishman and Lucille McCarthy out of reflection on their university
teaching experiences. In John
Dewey and the Challenge of Classroom Practice (1998), they take up
the “student-curriculum relationship” from the perspectives of
“[teachers] doing the kind of observing, questioning, and judging for
which Dewey argues” (Fishman and McCarthy, 1998, p. 5). Their “work . .
. [explicates] Deweyan theory by applying it to particular practice, . .
. discussion of his educational philosophy never getting far from
concrete school situations” (p. 3). They conceive of democracy once
again through implicit connection and inference:
[Intelligence for Dewey] involves patience, tolerance
for doubt, and sincerity. It is open and collegial, and to flourish, it
requires diverse points of view, with everyone having equal access to
cultural resources and spheres of public discourse. Alternatively put,
scientific or intelligent thinking . . . can only prosper in democratic
contexts. (p. 59) Fishman and McCarthy emphasize the central idea of
Deweyan community, as do Benson, Harkavy, and Puckett and Cuffaro. Their
own emphasis is on difference in the organic, fully interactive ideal of
community that Dewey espouses. In a summary for a college-based
pedagogy, their debt is this: “Dewey’s approach to classroom politics
and student transformation reveals both his commitment to democratic
society and his recognition of the changing nature of our world” (p.
64). For today, “he does not want students leaving our classes clinging
to rehearsed lines. That just will not do in a world as fluid and
uncertain as ours” (p. 64). In sum, for both those who support and
criticize Dewey, it is clear that his vision of democracy is valued. For
various schooling purposes they utilize his writings, often making their
own connections across the trope of Dewey +democracy +schools without
acknowledging a missing link.
Writings on Democracy Echoing the introduction above, the standard view
on the centrality of democracy for Dewey is found in Robert Westbrook’s
outstanding intellectual biography,
John Dewey and American Democracy
(1991), indeed a major resource for Benson, Harkavy, and Puckett.
Locating Dewey’s position as relative to its own time and itself
changing, Westbrook “[puts] the development of his democratic theory
within the context of the stresses and strains of his own experience and
of American culture generally in the last century” (Westbrook, p. xi).
For Dewey, these are comprised of “situations as mundane . . . [and as
earth-shaking] as his concern about the security of his job . . . in the
1890s . . . [and later of world wars and revolutions]“ (p. xi). Sufficient for this speculation, emblematic but not
definitive, in this section, one strategy to explore the missing link is
to consider Dewey’s writings with the words democracy and democratic in
the title. He penned, presented, and published approximately thirty
pieces; only one actually links democracy and schools, an essay from
1917 referred to below. In an introduction to a recent publication of
the classic textbook, Democracy
and Education (Dewey, 1916a), Sidney Hook provides three meanings of
the concept in Dewey’s writings: “Sometimes
democracy is used in the
narrow political sense; sometimes in the broad sense as ‘openness to
experience’; and sometimes as synonymous with education itself“ (Hook,
[1980] 1985, p. x, emphasis in original). What is clear, Hook continues,
is that philosophical and conceptual distinction is important in Dewey’s
uses. All experiences are not education; all education is not
democratic. Introduced at the outset of this essay, significant
evidence for the speculation is found in biographical and
bibliographical information available in Dewey’s
The Collected Works, with
publications dating from the eighteen-eighties to the nineteen fifties.
These data substantiate a missing link, for indeed if there is one
philosophically, these may be the only types of evidence available.
First, almost twice the number of publications
about democracy with the word or a form of it in the titles are found in
The Later Works 1925-1953
than in those earlier. Here are identifying breakdowns: Book chapters,
including three in single-author works that include
The Public and Its Problems (1927) and
Freedom and Culture (1939); journal pieces in which three of five
are in publications for educators; pamphlets that Dewey wrote for
members of political organizations; two of the latter are the League for
Independent Political Action and the Society for Ethical Culture,
respectively published in 1932 and 1938; several conference and dinner
presentations, also in the late thirties; and one unpublished piece
dated 1946. In total, over half (11 of 19) of pieces titled with
democracy or democratic are published between 1936 and 1939, with the
next greatest concentration (three) written in the mid-forties.
Eleven publications with democracy in the titles
appear across The Early Works
1882-1898 and
The Middle Works 1899-1924.
Two early pieces are written when Dewey is at the Three pieces from across his writings serve as
illustration of Dewey’s comprehensive conception of democracy and of
specific thematic connections. All too briefly, Hook’s meaning of
democracy as a form of government is central to Dewey’s earliest essay,
“The Ethics of Democracy”—utilized centrally by Benson, Harkavy, and
Puckett. Largely a book review, the focus is substantiation of democracy
as not only contra-historical aristocracy, but even as aggregation of
persons. Two links for Dewey are to democratic society as an organism
within which individual personality is isomorphic and for whom it is
ethical. Here is Dewey: “Democracy is a form of government only because
it is a form of moral and spiritual association. . . . [In this organism
there] is not a loss of selfhood or personality. . . . The individual is
not sacrificed; he is brought to reality in the state” (Dewey, [1888]
1969, pp. 240, 241). As well, political meaning is the theme in a
chapter from The Public and Its
Problems titled, “The Democratic State.” In typical fashion therein,
Dewey traces a number of historical social movements out of which the
modern state emerges: These include economic and scientific steps as
they are related to main tenets of liberal theory. He concludes that
“government as the genuine instrumentality of an inclusive and
fraternally associated public . . . is
still largely inchoate and unorganized” (Dewey, [1927] 1988, p. 303). A
third piece from 1939, utilized by Simpson, Jackson, and Aycock,
“Creative Democracy—The Task Before Us,” is a statement of the second of
Hook’s meanings as a general form of experience. Herein Dewey
acknowledges the “fortunate combination of men and circumstances” as
traced in the piece just described (Dewey, [1939] 1991, p. 225). Again
in a wartime context, he asserts, “Democracy is a way of personal life
controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith
in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if
proper conditions are furnished” (p. 227). Reminiscent of his earliest
statement, for Dewey “democracy is a moral ideal . . . a moral fact . .
. [as] a commonplace of living” (pp. 228-229). What is significant
across these pieces are, in fact, two missing links, to education and to
schools. Neither is mentioned in these philosophic explorations. A turn to a sampling of writings about education
and significantly for educators further illustrates and refines the
speculation. In the significant chapter, “The Democratic Conception in
Education” in Democracy and
Education, Dewey begins with human association, society—as above—and
qualifies it with two criteria. In clear, textbook fashion, he
concludes, “Education . . . implies a particular social ideal . . . The
two points . . . by which to measure the worth of a form of social life
are the extent to which the interests of a group are shared by all its
members, and the fullness and freedom with which it interacts with other
groups” (Dewey, [1916b] 1985, p. 105). Of note, three indicators of how Dewey
approaches schools receive brief mention in this important text. First
are the school topics of subject matter, methods, and administration (p.
171). Second is provision of school facilities (p. 104). Third is school
as community and the continuous relationship of learning in and out of
school (p. 368). Additional pieces from the same middle-works era
connect democracy to other educational themes. A first theme is teacher
loyalty in World War One in the only selection, named above, with both
democracy and
schools in the title (Dewey,
[1917] 1985, beginning p. 158). Here Dewey defends due process for
teachers fired for disloyalty. Related in a broad way is a later piece,
“The Basic Values and Loyalties of Democracy,” written too for teachers,
from 1941. “Prussianism” at home in the first becomes “forms of
potential totalitarianism” in the second (see Dewey, 1941, 1991,
beginning p. 275). A second theme is Dewey’s long-term interest in human
occupation and specifically in industrial education. “The Need of an
Industrial Education in an Industrial Democracy,” again from 1916, is
the central source for Karier and Hogan’s critique. This selection
begins with the political meaning of democracy and extends it. Here is
Dewey at length on the subject: A social democracy signifies, most obviously, a state
of social life where there is a wide and varied distribution of
opportunities; where there is a social mobility or scope for change of
position and station; where there is free circulation of experiences and
ideas, making for a wide recognition of common interests . . . and where
utility of social and political organization . . . [enlists warm] and
constant support. (Dewey, [1916d] 1985, p. 138) From this conception, Dewey turns to purpose,
subject matter, and methods (indeed laboratory methods) that complement
”free and universal public education” and ”a system of universal
industry” (pp. 142, 143). One more theme elaborates Dewey’s interest in
economic opportunity. Central to
Liberalism and Social Action from 1935, representative elements
appear in occasional pieces, and in the forties, are joined by a theme
of retaining democratic faith now during World War Two. In the journal
of the education progressives,
Social Frontier, Dewey asks “whether or not the economic structure
of society bears, under present conditions, an inherent relation to the
realization of the democratic idea” (Dewey, [1938a] 1991, p. 306). His
answer is to posit a socialized economy. Once again he refers to facts
and conditions of democracy rather than an abstract concept (p. 306.).
In the five years of publication
of Social Frontier in his
regular feature, he did mention schools occasionally but without
elaboration. Finally another link for Dewey is to science. By 1944,
there is again merely brief attention to schools and their shortcomings
in science and technology (see Dewey, [1944] 1991, beginning p. 251). To close this section on Dewey’s writings on
democracy, it must be acknowledged that a thorough-going analysis of
school writings would complement and fill out the foregoing exploration.
While some attention to schools is included in the next section, one
example must suffice. This is from Dewey’s last book on education,
Experience and Education, in
which democracy is mentioned only twice. He writes, “[A philosophy of
experience] is, to paraphrase the saying of Speculation Speculation in this section draws together evidence
from what has preceded, augmented by brief mention of other pertinent
scholarly contributions. First, a principal point from critics and
supporters above who turned to Dewey for practical educational projects
is two-sided: one, that his democratic vision inspired them and others;
and two, that links could be made implicitly for their projects,
programs, and pedagogies with what he wrote about democracy. They did
not identify a missing link, even as they worked around one. In their
writings, they do acknowledge various of Dewey’s shortcomings
principally, but not exclusively, with specifics of implementation. A second group has had something specific to say
about Dewey’s limitations regarding schools themselves; their writings
suggest possible reasons for the missing link. All too briefly, here are
three illustrations from recognized Dewey scholars: Writing on his
contributions to the history of the American school curriculum, Herbert
Kliebard acknowledges the complexity and comprehensiveness that school
reform necessitated and that made change so difficult. Dewey, he writes,
may “have been out of step . . . with dominant American values . . . [in
which the purpose of schools is to build an efficient and] stable social
order” (Kliebard, [1985] 2004, p. 75). As Westbrook interprets from
Kliebard, Dewey’s views never had the needed following (Westbrook, 1991,
p. 508). Philip Jackson (1991) adds insight as he considers the specific
purpose of the did not intend it as a model for implementation.
From Dewey’s own writings and the report of the school by teachers
Katherine Camp Mayhew and Anna Camp Edwards, it was to be a scientific
laboratory. As To summarize at this point, evidence in the
preceding section from Dewey’s writings on democracy as well as
commentary above leads to several tentative conclusions. A major point
is that Dewey’s scholarship focuses on democracy out of particular
motivations—confluences of historical context, philosophical
commitments, as well as personal and professional opportunities. In
compartmentalizing his writings, it must be clear that motivations are
no more nor less similar than for other philosophers. First, Dewey
writes about democracy in times when war threatens its existence and
especially when it has salience in determining his specific and actually
changing position toward war (see Stone, 2003). He also writes about
democracy when its function is necessary for a nation’s survival in what
might be named a different kind of war, an economic one. Writings around
the two wars and especially in The
Later Works, from the late-thirties and mid-forties, point to these
two motivations. Earlier writings on democracy and education seem built
around his textbook’s publication and reflect almost exclusively
invitations to speak to and write for groups of educators. These appear
to be professional opportunities more so than sustained focus,
especially as school is barely mentioned in these pieces. In this
period, Dewey adds to his publication record at the same time he works
through his mature philosophy. Three of his important books,
Reconstruction in Philosophy,
Human Nature and Conduct, and
Experience and Nature, were
published in twenties. Penultimate Commentary Underlying speculation of a controversial missing
link in Dewey’s writings has been the larger issue of whether democracy
matters for schools then and now. As the section of Schools Today
indicates above, even with exceptions, and surely there are some,
democracy is largely absent in schools today and thus is not present in
students’ formal educational lives. Further, it is not as if democracy
is never mentioned, although mention may be seldom. This section offers
a final comment on democracy prior to conclusion. The point is that
missing somehow today is the enactment of the idea that individuals and
societies must have early planned practice in schools in order to
appreciate and take advantage of participatory opportunity later. Youth
democracy fosters adult democracy. In this speculation, one final reason
for the missing link connects the present with the past. Perhaps
democracy by any other name functions both in Dewey’s writings and in
schools, and this is sufficient. Answer to the latter query requires reading Dewey
in a particular way, named in the introduction as historicist. This
stance builds on his assertion that new times require new philosophy,
but it is even stronger than this. Present context and present
conception always strongly influence context, conception and, indeed,
philosophical understanding of the past. In two sections above, the
speculation has been that when critical and supportive educational
theorists sought direct links from Dewey of democracy for their
schooling and other educational projects, they made implicit connection
because a direct link was missing. Among markers for democracy,
apparently, are experience, community, and inquiry. But the historicist
issue is whether these implicit links are sufficiently meaningful today. In this regard, a reminder of Hook’s three meanings
of democracy is valuable. These meanings, saliently those political and
educational, are evident across Dewey’s writings on democracy. First,
political writings do appear across his career, these primarily intended
for a philosophical audience. Appearing in several decades, his
interests herein are on war and economy. Second, specific educational
writings on democracy, most significantly, are published primarily for
educators in the teen decades. In the thirties out of his alliance and
then dis-alliance with the education progressives, his writings as well
as his professional politics reveal a difference of opinion regarding
the role of schools. An extended
query for another day asks, interestingly, what a compartmentalization
of writings on education means for Dewey’s view of teachers. All along,
by the way, Dewey’s specifics on schools concern institutional
organization and curriculum, especially later of science. Finally the
general experiential meaning of democracy is not as apparent, more
implicit and foundational, in the writings surveyed. In this penultimate commentary, one more issue
requires summary. Historically, it is very clear that Dewey’s vision for
democracy and education has not come to fruition. Neither has implicit
democratic, school-based reform—in spite of well-intentioned and
conceptualized proposals based in Dewey’s vision. Various reasons have
been offered for this lack of fulfillment from Dewey: inaccessibility
and misunderstanding of language, no provision for practical
implementation, and now, as discussed in the previous section,
inadequate connections to schools.
Conclusion This essay has been a speculation on a missing link
in Dewey’s writings between the concepts of democracy and schools. Three
forms of evidence have been utilized, philosophical and educational
application of Dewey’s writings for present schooling and other
educational projects; biographical and bibliographical information, and
illustration from Dewey’s writings particularly on democracy; and
substantive quotation from and commentary about Dewey concerning the
central trope. The trope, significant for today, it has been posed, is
Dewey +democracy +schools. A conclusion, however suggestive—and meant
precisely to provoke controversy and conversation—is this: At least as a
set of writings about democracy indicates, Dewey is interested in both
democracy and schools, but he does not, indeed almost never, link them,
directly or conceptually.
Further, working with several meanings of democracy, his interest takes
two prominent forms: One is to focus on political democracy in times of
national crisis; the other is to focus on democracy and education more
broadly than with schools. In his writings, furthermore, the latter
connection was largely for education audiences. Beyond the scope of this
article and requiring more specific attention in his texts, Dewey does
see the need for the interaction of schools and society, but,
paradoxically, he does not posit democracy for the young as the direct
medium for connection. Early writings describe broad psychological and
sociological processes for children’s development (see, e.g., Dewey,
[1899, 1915]
1991; Mayhew and Edwards, [1936] 1965). Three points remain. First, from a historicist
stance, it is important that Dewey not be blamed for the state of
democracy in schools today. His era, as extended as it was, is not this
era. Moreover, there is no necessary connection of the present and the
past and between philosophy and practice in education. Second, Dewey’s
vision remains theoretically strong both in the References Benson, L., Harkavy, Bernstein, R. (1986). John Dewey on democracy—the
task before us. In Philosophical
profiles: Essays in a pragmatic mode, 260-272. Best, S. and Kellner, D.
(2001).
Contemporary youth and the
postmodern adventure. Retrieved September 2007 from
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/youth.htm. Cuffaro, H. (1995).
Experimenting with the world: John
Dewey and the early childhood classroom. Dewey, J. ([1888] 1969). The ethics of democracy.
John Dewey:
The early works, 1882-1898
(Vol. 1, pp. 227-249).
Dewey, J. ([1899, 1915] 1991). The school and
society. In The school and society
and The child and the curriculum. Dewey, J. ([1916a] 1985). Democracy and education.
In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey:
The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 9). Dewey, J. ([1916b] 1985). The democratic conception
in education. In Democracy and
education. In J. Boydston
(Ed.), John Dewey:
The middle works, 1899-1924
(Vol. 9, pp. 87-106).
Dewey, J. ([1916c] 1985). Nationalizing education.
In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey:
The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 202-210).
Dewey, J. ([1916d] 1985). The need of an industrial
education in an industrial democracy.
In J. Boydston (Ed.), John
Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 137-143).
Dewey, J. ([1917] 1985). Democracy and loyalty in
the schools. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 158-163).
Dewey, J. ([1920] 1988). Reconstruction in
philosophy. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 12).
Dewey, J. ([1922] 1988). Human nature and conduct.
In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey:
The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 14). Dewey, J. ([1925] 1988). Experience and nature. In
J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey:
The later works, 1925-1927
(Vol. 2). Dewey, J. ([1927] 1988). The public and its
problems. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 2).
Dewey, J. ([1934] 1989). The need for a philosophy
of education. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The later works,
1925-1953 (Vol. 9, pp. 194-204). Dewey, J. ([1938a] 1991). Education, democracy, and
socialized economy. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The later works,
1925-1953 (Vol. 13, pp. 304-308). Dewey, J. ([1938b] 1991). Experience and education.
In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 13, pp. 3-62).
Dewey, J. ([1939] 1991). Creative democracy—the
task before us. In J. Boydston
(Ed.), John Dewey:
The later works, 1925-1953
(Vol. 14, pp. 224-230).
Dewey, J. ([1941] 1991). The basic values and
loyalties of democracy. In J.
Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey:
The later works, 1925-1953
(Vol. 14, pp. 275-277).
Dewey, J. ([1944] 1991). The democratic faith and
education. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
John Dewey: The later works,
1925-1953 (Vol. 14, pp. 251-260).
Fishman, S. and McCarthy, L. (1998).
John
Dewey and the challenge of classroom practice. Feinberg, W. and Rosemont, H. (Eds.). (1975).
Introduction. Work, technology,
and education: Dissenting essays in the intellectual foundations of
American education, 1-14. Hook, S. ([1980] 1985). Introduction. Democracy and
education, 1916. In J. Boydston
(Ed.), John Dewey, The Middle
Works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 9, pp. ix-xxiv). Jackson, P. (1991). Introduction.
The school and society and The child and the curriculum, ix-xxxvii.
Karier, C., and Hogan, D. ([1979] 1992). Schooling,
education and the structure of social reality. In J. Tiles (Ed.).
John
Dewey, critical assessments (Vol. 2, pp. 109-130). Kliebard, H. ([1985] 2004).
The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (3rd
Edition). Lagemann E. (1996). Experimenting with education:
John Dewey and Ella Flagg Young at the Mayhew, K. and Edwards, A. ([1936] 1965).
The Dewey school: The laboratory
school of the Popkewitz, T. (Ed). (2005).
Inventing the modern self and John Dewey: Modernities and the traveling
of pragmatism in education. Rose, L. and Gallop, A. (2007). The 39th
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the
public schools. Phi Delta Kappan.
Retrieved January 2008 from
http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/e-GALLUP/kpoll_pdfs/pdkpoll39_2007.pdf,
33-48. Simpson, D., Stone, L. (1999). Doing Dewey today: Teaching with
misunderstandings. International
Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,
2 (2), 136-140. Stone,
L. (2003). Dewey’s contribution to an American hubris: Philosophy of
democracy, education, and war.
Philosophy of Education: 2002, 274-281. Westbrook, R. (1991).
John Dewey and American democracy.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Notes [1] In a recent public forum, Bernstein expressed ‘incredulity’ when I asked about the missing connection. Given the nature of his reply, I believe I was misunderstood. Dewey was interested in schools particularly in the early years of his career. However, such interest does not negate this speculation; it is the trope and the link that I am exploring. [2] Thanks to anonymous reviewers whose comments helped me clarify purpose and process for a greatly revised introduction. [3] Thanks to Lorraine Kasprisin for her editorship and encouragement, and to James Marshall, Kathleen Brown, and graduate students at UNC Chapel Hill for discussion of this essay. Its speculation is solely my responsibility.
|