Customary and Reflective Morality (1908)

Thus far I have discussed open-mindedness as a sort of active scientific method. So I find it reasonable to consider the following: How does open-mindedness fare as an ethical concept? I believe that this selection answers that question, in which Dewey separates customary and reflective morality.

“[Reflective Morality] make[s] a clear distinction between ‘manners’ and morals, while in customary morality manners are morals[.]”

Customary morality is the morality that combines everything. The decisions of how to act or behave hold equal weight to the decisions of how to dress or what to eat. Morality such as this is commonly seen in religion, but more modernly in professions such as business. A businessman may do something not because it is truly right and good, but because it is custom, and custom is good.

“[M]any business men do not bother themselves about the morality of certain ways of doing business. Such and such is the custom of the trade, and if a man is going to do business at all he must follow its customs – or get out.”

Reflective morality separates act and behavior from culture and custom, and adopts the viewpoint that all things can and should be considered for reform, despite tradition and habit.

The problem of customary morality is that it is hard to change, even if change is necessary. To revolt against the custom is to be deemed impious, and such persons will be exiled or punished for their intelligence. Custom then continues ad infinidum, lest there be a divine intervention or conquering by war.

Indeed even the observance of custom is not enough for Dewey. The reflective mindset goes beyond this mere observance and takes ground in active consideration. A child of customary morality may be taught that the fork is on the left and the knife on the right but the reflective person asks why this is so, and rules out the ethical importance of such customs in exchange for principles more worthy of serious thought. “[T]he individual has to grasp the meaning of these customs over and above the bare fact of their existence, and has to guide himself by their meaning and not by the mere fact noted.”

Dewey is pointing at the fact that unless we adopt a collectively reflective mindset, we are doomed to remain in a vicious circle of ignorance. Custom may give us comfort, for it implies order and society, but what is custom when it is compared to vast conscious consideration and reflection? The reflective mind may look toward the customary mind comically, for the reflective person leaps and walks through the ethical while the mind of custom merely stands blindfolded, taking no interest in their ability to do as the reflective person does.

The adoption of this reflective morality is an inward process, as Dewey describes it. When a person’s experience causes them to question their customs and habits, they realize their ability to judge for themselves the rightness of their actions, that the current standard is not justification of its own conduct. The fact that it exists is no moral warrant (as Dewey describes it.) Thus, reflection is adopted and fostered as a responsibility in a person’s mind. Active consideration becomes an obligation of a person to his or her society.

“In the morally more advanced members of contemporary society, the need of fostering a habit of examination and judgment, of keeping the mind open, sensitive, to the defects and the excellences of the existing social order is recognized as obligation.”

As an ethical concept, open-mindedness is the gateway to transition between customary thought and reflective thought. To adopt the viewpoint that despite what I have been taught and what I believe to be right, there may be something out there that is more right, of which I do not know yet, and I should actively search for what is more right is the means by which a person may actively refine their ethical viewpoints independently, as opposed to the means of some will of God or decree by a King or Dictator. To analogize, customary morality is to be a passenger on a bus and reflective morality to be the operator of your own vehicle. Open-mindedness is the means by which you get off the bus and begin driving your own car. Indeed it implies a sort of moral freedom. 

The means by which a person comes to want open-mindedness is a concept tenfold complex. People like their habits. People cling to their customs. To convince a man/woman to cast their thoughts of the ethical into doubt seems equally as hard as convincing them to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. “This is how it is,” they would say. “To think differently is to err.” How may a student foster this idea and become a reflective thinker, then? What cause can there be for open-mindedness to plague and kill the vicious customary beliefs? When we travel to other societies, our instinct to survive kicks in and we open our minds or perish in the walls of our customs. This is a proven method by which a person may open their mind. They who place themselves in other cultures are akin to they who travel to a place where the sun does not always rise in the morning. (above the arctic circle during the winter solstice, perhaps?) 

So if we wish to ask ourselves “can we foster an active open-mindedness in students?” we truly ask ourselves “can there be something that impresses the mind with such force as experience?” Such questions are ideal starting points for further enquiries. 

Dewey, John. “Ethics. Part 1 The Beginnings and Growth of Morality. 9. A General Comparison of Customary and Reflective Morality. § 2. Elements of Contrast.” The Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol 5 (1908), pp. 166-171

The Joining of Method and Subject (1916)

Past Masters, the elusive mistress of knowledge, is finally in my hands. She is just as fair as I had imagined. Beginning with a search on open-mindedness yielded plentiful results, of which I plan on going through in the next few weeks to grasp a better understanding of how Dewey arrives at this definition of open-mindedness.

In this 1916 work, Dewey is describing the Nature of Method, one of the trinity school topics (the other two being subject matter and administration.) There is immediate mention of education, pedagogy, and theory, so naturally it’s an excitingly relevant piece.

Dualism: The philosophical idea that the mind and the body are separate, that mental states cannot breach the physical and visa-versa.

By the theory of dualism, we can infer the possibility of creating methods of educating that are independent of the subject to which they apply. In other words, it is possible to create methods and theories for learning without observing the student or students to which the theories will apply. This is, of course, a bit ridiculous, as all rationalism is when put to the pragmatic test. As Dewey describes it, “this state of affairs gives opportunity for the retort that pedagogy, as an alleged science of methods of the mind in learning, is futile[.]” The idea that mind and body are separate destroys the concept that pedagogy is useful. While we may be able to devise proofs and theories in logic that support dualism, all teachers will eventually admit to the necessity to consider their reflections on true experience and alter their methods and beliefs accordingly.

Though we may already be aware that Dewey’s open-mindedness is an empirical idea, weighted by reflection both mental AND experiential, The above paragraph serves as a suitable explanation for why he believes this. Rationalistic dualism is useless and prevents us from gaining knowledge as well. Empiricism admits the futility of the metaphysical and focuses on the world at hand. The matter of whether or not this pencil exists is irrelevant and wasteful. The method by which a student is taught to use it is an enquiry of far greater importance.

Establishing that Dewey rejects the idea of dualism, we can draw that he desires to imply their connection. Mind is to body as method is to subject. And method, for Dewey, is “that arrangement of subject matter which makes it most effective in use[,] […] an effective way of employing some material for some end.” He describes this concept of method and how it is not separate from subject matter in detail. I list a few notable quotes below:

“We can distinguish a way of acting, and discuss if by itself; but the way exists only as a way-of-dealing-with-material. Method is not antithetical to subject matter; it is the effective direction of subject matter to desired results.”

“[T]here is no distinction of subject matter and method. There is simply an activity which includes both what an individual does and what the environment does.”

“When a man is eating, he is eating food. He does not divide his act into eating and food.”

“It would be no less absurd to suppose that men can eat without eating something.”

Method is fostered and refined through the empirical mindset, being the scientific method. When we experience something, we apply the successes and failures of our attempts to refine our method into something anew.

Dewey struggled with the practices used in the educational system, as we do today. He states “in instruction and discipline, there is rarely sufficient opportunity for children and youth to have direct normal experiences from which educators might derive an idea of method or order of best development.” The educational system, taking the approach of rationalism and believing that the mind can learn on its own independent of experience, hinders not only the student but the teacher as well. Methods cannot be refined and applied to the individual when there are no experiences to be considered. The individual loses the opportunity to gain the most efficient and beneficial education; the teachers lose the opportunity to experience and reflect upon their methods to further educate themselves.

I've created a list that organizes Dewey’s “evils in education that flow from the isolation of method from subject.”

1.     Neglect of concrete situations of experience

2.     The fostering of false conceptions of discipline and interest

a.     Utilization of Excitement: Reward

b.     Utilization of Consequence: Pain

c.      Utilization of Discourse: Fear

3.     “The act of learning is made a direct and conscious end in itself”

“[W]hen the subject matter is not used in carrying forward impulses and habits to significant results, it is just something to be learned.”

So when we are attempting to create the global citizen, we must do so by means of an empirical approach, accepting the twining nature of method and subject. We must create educational methods as an efficient and pragmatic approach, subject to revision based on further experiences or particular situations. We mustn't neglect experience, foster false conceptions of consequence, or beg the question when asked why we learn. What, then, characterizes the correct approach to pedagogy that will yield educated and open-minded students?

There are four attitudes that must hold constant consideration:

1.     Directness: The straightforwardness/confidence that a person directs towards what they need to do. Being a “decision-maker”

2.     Open-Mindedness: “An attitude of mind which actively welcomes suggestions and relevant information from all sides”

3.     Single-Mindedness: The completion of interest, or true mental integrity toward a subject to be learned.

4.     Responsibility: The acceptance and carefully weighed consideration of consequence of action.

(Further enquiry can be made into these four attitudes, but perhaps that should take place another day)

Dewey identifies the multiple dos and don'ts of education in this work. And among them all is this prevalent idea of the conjoining of method and experience. He describes the deprivations experienced by a student that learns in a setting deprived of true experience, where method and subject are isolated. And at the time he is writing this, I believe he is in a similar state that this hypothetical student is. With regard to open-mindedness to Chinese culture, Dewey is isolated from the subject. Anything he has learned he has learned through second-hand, from researching and reading and general conversation. He lacks the true experience of China, and for that reason he is deprived of the most beneficial education he could receive.

I believe that I have properly identified open-mindedness and it’s necessity (at least to a suitable introductory level,) but one question still haunts me. It stems from the third evil of isolation of method and subject. Namely, Learning simply to learn. What is the point of being open-minded? Thus far I have seen that it functions as a better way to learn for Dewey, but this creates the very evil that Dewey warns us to avoid. How does he escape this evil? What does Dewey believe to be the ends of this proficient method of learning?

Dewey, John. “Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 13: The Nature of Method” The Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol 9 (1916), pp. 172-188

Early Thoughts on Emotion and Response (1918)

Open-Mindedness immediately strikes me as a form of generosity. And it is for this reason that I chose to analyze this work. It is 1918 at the time Dewey writes this review, the year before he leaves for China. I feel it to be important to reflect on his considerations and approaches to generosity and emotion at this time.

Dewey is addressing a concern of Professor Alfred Edward Taylor (1869-1945, a prominent British philosopher of idealism, metaphysics, moral philosophy, and platonic scholarship,) in this work. Professor Taylor is concerned with the motive behind our actions, and specifically brings up the act of being generous. Considering his arguments towards the fact that it is impossible to have an unconscious motive, and an emotion is what it is unmistakably, he imagines the following two cases:

1. [T]he influence of an emotion prompts a person to confer a benefit upon a fellow at some cost to himself, which he takes for an act of generosity.

2. Later on, the same person finds himself not strongly prompted to perform a similar act under circumstances such that there is no chance for the beneficence being known.

Taylor continues to state, “If the man is frank with himself, he will admit that his motive on the first occasion was not the feeling of pure generosity which he had supposed it to be.” Taylor’s problem is that acts of generosity are committed by thought that is independent of the circumstances at hand. A man may encounter the same circumstances twice yet choose to act differently based on other factors. These other factors are considerations of beneficence to the person considering performing generosity. In other words, when a person considers performing an act of generosity, their motive is mixed between the thought of “How much sympathy do I feel?” and “What’s in it for me?” There is both a raw emotion and a careful consideration of benefit in play in order to reach a conclusion. While one of these motives may dominate over the other at times, neither can completely eliminate the other.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Dewey disagrees. At least in part.

Dewey points out that an emotion is only experienced as result of a circumstance. For example, seeing that commercial on TV about the injured animals deliberately themed to “In the Arms of an Angel” makes me sad. But sadness is only aroused as a result of the event. Dewey corrects Taylor by stating that it is the event that is what it is, and emotion follows from that. Hence Dewey’s point, “there is no more reason for supposing that personal events have a nature or meaning which is one with their happening[.]” For Dewey, there is only the event itself and that which instinctively and consciously results from it.

As a result of this point, Dewey raises two notable ways that a person approaches an event. The first being that the event of which I am currently experiencing causes me to experience some sort of emotion, and that emotion in turn coupled with reflection on self-benefit applies to a consideration of action. The second can be stated as such: past experiences of an event similar to this one stimulate thoughts of similar consequence and cause me to experience an initial emotion as I approach the circumstances.

In this pre-China work, Dewey establishes a kind of scientific, psychological approach to emotion and consideration. It only makes sense that his later concept of “open-mindedness” forms itself through the scientific method. Dewey’s recognition of the influence of past events to the emotion and thought experienced in future similar circumstances is most assuredly a concept of the formation of bias. Essentially he is pointing out, at least indirectly, the method and means of which contribute to our closed-minded tendency to create, maintain and defend a comfort zone. Open-Mindedness seems to be an active defiance against this natural method of response in human psychology.

Dewey, John. “Concerning Alleged Immediate Knowledge of Mind.” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol 15, No. 2 (Jan 17, 1918), pp. 29-35

Dewey's Thoughts on Knowledge (1934)

Upon reading this I first thought of how great of a starting point this piece was. It seems to me that Dewey is establishing a connection between academic study and society. And if a dissertation has a sort of telos, it is to be of use to and educate society, and specifically those interested in the field.

Within this work, Dewey concerns himself with the study of science, essentially relating it to knowledge as a whole. His beginning point states, “The field of knowledge cannot be attacked en masse. It must be broken up into problems, and, as a rule, detailed aspects and phases of these problems must be discriminated into still lesser elements.” In other words, the advancement of a field requires a certain degree of specialization and detail. But as a study becomes more specific, it becomes more remote to society as a whole.

Dewey’s pragmatic mindset is immediately evident as he continues to say that advancements in the fields of science and knowledge as a whole have transformed the way society functions and communicates, as they still do today. Intellectual advancement results in consequence as well, however. As an example, Dewey illustrates, “The intellect is at present subdued by the results of its own intellectual victories. It has become a commonplace to refer to consequences of chemistry in its application to warfare.” Knowledge is painted as both a blessing and a weapon by Dewey’s example.

These preliminary thoughts on knowledge and society can heavily relate to the topic of this dissertation. As a field is explored and expanded, its vastness and complexity become harder to master, and so certain subfields are created. As more and more knowledge is fostered, it becomes more remote. This is possibly the reason that we do not study certain rhetorical styles within our culture. The study is so vast and complex that we have come to a point where entire styles are unbeknownst to us throughout our entire formal educational experience due to their remoteness. As chemical weapons are a consequence of chemistry, cultural ignorance can be seen as the consequence of a vast field of rhetoric.

So what must we do when faced with the consequences of intellectual enquiry? As Dewey states, “The wounds made by applications of science can be healed only by a further extension of applications of knowledge and intelligence; like the purpose of all modern healing it must be preventive as well as curative. This is the supreme obligation of intellectual activity at the present time.” Dewey believes that the consequences of knowledge can only be remedied with more knowledge.

It is appearing to me that Dewey’s concept of open-mindedness is rooted in science. He describes that the responsibility of science cannot be fulfilled by specialized study and information; rather it requires attention to “adopt into the very make-up of their minds those attitudes of open-mindedness, intellectual integrity, observation, and interest in testing their opinions and beliefs that are characteristic of a scientific attitude.” Throughout this journal publication, Dewey refers to the necessity of the scientific attitude multiple times. It seems as though this scientific attitude could possibly be his definition of open-mindedness. In contemporary society, one is apt to be confused by this. Generally in the 21^st century, open-mindedness is referred to as a more passive mode of unbiased thought and scientific enquiry as an active form. Indeed, Dewey thinks them one and the same.

Dewey, John. “EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION: The Supreme Intellectual Obligation.” Bulletin of the American Assiciation of University Professors, Vol 20, No. 5 (May, 1934), pp. 306-309

A Quick Introduction

We’re definitely off to an interesting start! I arrived to the writing lab this morning at 9:00, but unfortunately they don’t open until 10:00 :\. So I spent my first hour browsing around Karen’s proposal, searching URI’s online libraries for resources, etc…  Due to the writing center hours, I’ll probably be working from 10:00-2:00 instead of 9:00-1:00 from now on.

I got into the writing lab at 10:00 to figure out that the laptop that I need had been signed out to someone else. Fortunately, URI does have an extensive catalogue of works online, so I was able to do some meaningful work, but I’ll have to see next week if I’d be able to reserve that laptop for each Monday. Ironically, the person that signed out laptop #1 is a friend of mine, so I was able to contact her and I’ll be getting it from her later this week.

I’ll be experimenting with writing style of this blog within the next few weeks, and I welcome any feedback. As of now I’m simultaneously summarizing and reflecting on the pieces that I read to illustrate my thought process more effectively. However if the style is hard to follow, I have no problem with changing it. Looking forward to the semester!