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
I truly appreciated your response this week because it is (as I’m sure you imagined while writing it, especially after our meeting the week before) right up my alley. This is exactly what I’m trying to get at, while focusing on the multicultural composition classroom. I agree with Dewey here, particularly as I see many teachers at JWU struggling in their attempts to somehow adjust their methodology based on the experiences and needs of their international students. They teach based on what they know to be the experiences of the American students, but when those methods don’t work, or the international students don’t respond in the anticipated way, the teachers (and students) get frustrated. I wonder how much teachers look into the past experiences of their international students, or even how deeply they consider their own experiences in terms of the impact that their own experiences have on their teaching methods. In other words, do American teachers recognize that their way is one way of doing things and that their teaching methods most likely reflect their own experiences as students? Culture and habits are so engrained into our very being that we don’t often step back to reflect on what they are or how they came to be that way. Dewey makes us step back and look at our philosophies and habits as being grounded in experience. If we could truly understand this, then I argue that it would be easier to be open-minded to other ways of doing things.
ReplyDeletePragmatism is especially attractive in its practicality, in my opinion. I am drawn to ideas like this : “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.” This seems obvious to me; I can’t relate to a philosophy that spends much time trying to figure out whether or not the pencil exists. Transferring this idea to the frustrating situation between international students and their American teachers these days, I don’t want to simply talk about the frustrations of teaching international students but rather look more closely at how the past experiences of the students and teachers have created this inevitable situation, and more importantly, to figure out how multicultural individuals can learn how to move forward together as a group.
I’m curious about your last paragraph and would like to discuss it further on Wednesday. You say, “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?” I would like to talk more about what you mean by “the very evil that Dewey warns us to avoid.”