Changes

Dewey was a longtime supporter of labor unions and in 1932-33 played a key role in purging Communists from the teachers' union, arguing they were not truly dedicated to education. He rejected the then current Stalinist position that the purpose of the union is to join the "[[class war]]" in order to promote the "cause of workers against employers." Nevertheless the Communists took control of the union and in 1935 Dewey helped start the Teachers Guild, a new anti-Stalinist union for teachers in New York City.  In 1935 the national union expelled the Communist local and made Dewey's Teachers Guild the official union.

Dewey was a longtime supporter of labor unions and in 1932-33 played a key role in purging Communists from the teachers' union, arguing they were not truly dedicated to education. He rejected the then current Stalinist position that the purpose of the union is to join the "[[class war]]" in order to promote the "cause of workers against employers." Nevertheless the Communists took control of the union and in 1935 Dewey helped start the Teachers Guild, a new anti-Stalinist union for teachers in New York City.  In 1935 the national union expelled the Communist local and made Dewey's Teachers Guild the official union.

Dewey chaired the 1937 “trial” of [[Leon Trotsky]], held in Mexico City during the [[Great purge]]. The trial absolved Trotsky of attempting to assassinate [[Joseph Stalin]] and incite war against the Soviet Union.<ref>Isaac Deutscher, The Great Purges, edited by Tamara Deutscher (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984), p. 7.</ref> Overall, the hearings constituted a decisive moment in American liberalism, which had previously been uncritical in  its praise of Soviet Communism. By the time of the trial. Dewey and many American liberals began to examine the Russian Revolution more closely and became convinced of its corruption.<ref> Jay Martin, "John Dewey and the Trial of Leon Trotsky," ''Partisan Review'' 2001 68(4): 519-535. 0031-2525 </ref> At no time in his career was Dewey a [[Marxist]]; indeed he was a sharp, hostile critic of Marx.

Dewey chaired the 1937 “trial” of [[Leon Trotsky]], held in Mexico City during the [[Great purge]]. The trial absolved Trotsky of attempting to assassinate [[Joseph Stalin]] and incite war against the Soviet Union.<ref>Isaac Deutscher, The Great Purges, edited by Tamara Deutscher (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984), p. 7.</ref> Overall, the hearings constituted a decisive moment in American liberalism, which had previously been uncritical in  its praise of Soviet Communism. By the time of the trial. Dewey and many American liberals began to examine the Russian Revolution more closely and became convinced of its corruption.<ref>Jay Martin, "John Dewey and the Trial of Leon Trotsky," ''Partisan Review'' 2001 68(4): 519-535. 0031-2525</ref> At no time in his career was Dewey a [[Marxist]]; indeed he was a sharp, hostile critic of Marx.

==Democracy==

==Democracy==

Dewey was perhaps the foremost theorist of democracy since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Dewey's emphasis on grass roots participation rather than elite rule has been adopted by conservatives.

Dewey was perhaps the foremost theorist of democracy since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Dewey's emphasis on grass roots participation rather than elite rule has been adopted by conservatives.

In the 1920s Dewey engaged in a major debate with journalist [[Walter Lippmann]] (1889-1974) on the impact of the technology on democracy. Both agreed that the communications revolution had created a large and more complex world, that political and social institutions had not kept pace with the changes wrought by technology, that the masses were more susceptible to propaganda, and that modernity threatened democracy. Their critiques diverge on solutions, especially whether or not democracy could be saved. While Lippmann saw the public as unredeemable and subject to mass manipulation, Dewey thought that more public involvement in socio-political affairs was needed and that tools of mass communication could be used to this end.<ref> Walter Lippmann, ''Public Opinion'' (1922) and ''The Phantom Public'' (1925); John Dewey, ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)</ref>

In the 1920s Dewey engaged in a major debate with journalist [[Walter Lippmann]] (1889-1974) on the impact of the technology on democracy. Both agreed that the communications revolution had created a large and more complex world, that political and social institutions had not kept pace with the changes wrought by technology, that the masses were more susceptible to propaganda, and that modernity threatened democracy. Their critiques diverge on solutions, especially whether or not democracy could be saved. While Lippmann saw the public as unredeemable and subject to mass manipulation, Dewey thought that more public involvement in socio-political affairs was needed and that tools of mass communication could be used to this end.<ref>Walter Lippmann, ''Public Opinion'' (1922) and ''The Phantom Public'' (1925); John Dewey, ''The Public and Its Problems'' (1927)</ref>

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 Lippmann. 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>  

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 Lippmann. 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>  

Dewey feared that the growth of specialization would cause the fragmentation of both knowledge and the intellectual community. Dewey opposed leadership by social scientists, believing they would alienate people and keep them from participating in the democratic process. Instead, he put his faith in the creation of an educated public, whose individualism would give way to common interests, resulting in a political environment within which social issues could be discussed, debated, and decided.

Dewey feared that the growth of specialization would cause the fragmentation of both knowledge and the intellectual community. Dewey opposed leadership by social scientists, believing they would alienate people and keep them from participating in the democratic process. Instead, he put his faith in the creation of an educated public, whose individualism would give way to common interests, resulting in a political environment within which social issues could be discussed, debated, and decided.

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.

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.

The problem Dewey could not solve was that progressive educators like himself encountered all across America a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that in general was not receptive to new methods. The failure of Dewey's ideas to transform schools can be attributed to his assumption that schools exist to promote the maximum learning by students; more often they produce what parents and administrators really want: happy kids who do not cause trouble.<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), p. 169;  David Tyack, ''The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education'' (1974) p. 197-98.</ref>  

The problem Dewey could not solve was that progressive educators like himself encountered all across America a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that in general was not receptive to new methods. The failure of Dewey's ideas to transform schools can be attributed to his assumption that schools exist to promote the maximum learning by students; more often they produce what parents and administrators really want: happy kids who do not cause trouble.<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), p. 169;  David Tyack, ''The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education'' (1974) p. 197-98.</ref>  

   

   

===Favors local control of schools===

===Favors local control of schools===

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 ==

==Dewey and religion==

==Dewey and religion==

Dewey mostly avoided religious topics.  Important exceptions include his 1892 address "Christianity and Democracy" given to the University of Michigan Students' Christian Association and his 1933 Terry Lectures at Yale University&mdash;the basis of his 1934 book ''A Common Faith''.  In ''A Common Faith'' Dewey attempted to somehow separate the experience of the "religious" from the supernatural aspects of "God" and "religion".<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=lIGBQMkw-v8C ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey''], Daniel F. Rice, 1993, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-1345-4, pages 43-58 (these pages are Chapter 5 titled "A Common Faith") </ref>  According to the scholar Steven C. Rockefeller, Dewey was an American [[Feuerbach]] and keenly interested in gutting what he saw as Christianity's "false" and "harmful" supernatural characteristics.  Both Dewey and Feuerbach believed that they possessed a deep philosophical understanding of Christianity.  Their shared belief rejected the [[Incarnation]] and all other biblical miracles.<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=LOc6q5lmEj8C ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism''], Steven C. Rockefeller, Columbia University Press, 1991, ISBN 0231073488, ISBN 9780231073486, 683 pages

Dewey mostly avoided religious topics.  Important exceptions include his 1892 address "Christianity and Democracy" given to the University of Michigan Students' Christian Association and his 1933 Terry Lectures at Yale University&mdash;the basis of his 1934 book ''A Common Faith''.  In ''A Common Faith'' Dewey attempted to somehow separate the experience of the "religious" from the supernatural aspects of "God" and "religion".<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=lIGBQMkw-v8C ''Reinhold Niebuhr and John Dewey: An American Odyssey''], Daniel F. Rice, 1993, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-1345-4, pages 43-58 (these pages are Chapter 5 titled "A Common Faith")</ref>  According to the scholar Steven C. Rockefeller, Dewey was an American [[Feuerbach]] and keenly interested in gutting what he saw as Christianity's "false" and "harmful" supernatural characteristics.  Both Dewey and Feuerbach believed that they possessed a deep philosophical understanding of Christianity.  Their shared belief rejected the [[Incarnation]] and all other biblical miracles.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=LOc6q5lmEj8C ''John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism''], Steven C. Rockefeller, Columbia University Press, 1991, ISBN 0231073488, ISBN 9780231073486, 683 pages

*<small> Choice v. 29 (March 1992) p. 1094 Title: John Dewey

* Choice v. 29 (March 1992) p. 1094 Title: John Dewey

"The way in which Rockefeller (Middlebury College) has presented the generally accepted two periods of Dewey's development (childhood through the Michigan years and from Chicago on) enables him to show the continuous role of religion in Dewey's life and thought as his thought evolved. What emerges is not only a broadened perspective on Dewey's naturalism, but the best intellectual biography of Dewey that we have. . . . The book fills a need that George Dykhuizen's The Life and Mind of John Dewey {BRD 1973} did not, despite all that work's value as a factual resource."</small>

"The way in which Rockefeller (Middlebury College) has presented the generally accepted two periods of Dewey's development (childhood through the Michigan years and from Chicago on) enables him to show the continuous role of religion in Dewey's life and thought as his thought evolved. What emerges is not only a broadened perspective on Dewey's naturalism, but the best intellectual biography of Dewey that we have. . . . The book fills a need that George Dykhuizen's The Life and Mind of John Dewey {BRD 1973} did not, despite all that work's value as a factual resource."

*Library Journal v. 116 (March 1 1991) p. 91

*Library Journal v. 116 (March 1, 1991) p. 91

<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>

"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."</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&mdash;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&mdash;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.

==Criticism==

==Criticism==

Dewey has been referred to as a "totalitarian socialist who envisioned total government control over all education through the agency of public schools."  Dewey’s book, Democracy and Education, was listed by ''[[Human Events]]'' magazine as fifth in a list of the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries behind ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' by [[Karl Marx]], ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' by [[Adolf Hitler]], ''Quotations from Chairman Mao'' by [[Mao Zedong]], and the ''Kinsey Report'' by [[Alfred Kinsey]]. <ref>http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/porter/2009/09102009.htm</ref>

Dewey has been referred to as a "totalitarian socialist who envisioned total government control over all education through the agency of public schools."  Dewey’s book, Democracy and Education, was listed by ''[[Human Events]]'' magazine as fifth in a list of the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries behind ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' by [[Karl Marx]], ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' by [[Adolf Hitler]], ''Quotations from Chairman Mao'' by [[Mao Zedong]], and the ''Kinsey Report'' by [[Alfred Kinsey]].<ref>http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/porter/2009/09102009.htm</ref>

==Quotes==

==Quotes==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

==External Links==

==External links==

* [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/286671/refounding-america-tiffany-jones-miller The Refounding of America], [[National Review]]

* [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/286671/refounding-america-tiffany-jones-miller The Refounding of America], [[National Review]]

[[category:philosophers|Dewey, John]]

[[Category:Philosophers|Dewey, John]]

[[category:Progressive Era]]

[[Category:Progressive Era]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dewey, John}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dewey, John}}

[[Category:1920s]]

[[Category:1920s]]

[[Category:New Deal]]

[[Category:New Deal]]