My Assumption (Based on Writings of Dewey, Fallace, and Sartre) (1916-2010)

I must admit that I am becoming more inclined to intertwine Sartre’s philosophy into this subject in order to defend Dewey. Perhaps it may be because my classes have recently showed much emphasis on Sartre’s work and it is difficult for me to remove myself from this. Perhaps there is a sort of relation to be made.

Sartre argues that consciousness has the ability to apprehend ‘not-being’, because consciousness is nothingness in itself. One quote that stands out to me in particular is [t]he world does not disclose its non-beings to one who has not first posited them as possibilities (Sartre 253). In quick summation, it is because I expect to find something that I experience its absence. When I ask myself the question “is John here?” and I come to notice that no, he is not here, John’s not-being happens. The nothingness reveals itself to my consciousness and I may apprehend it.

Returning to the quote from Sartre 253 and relating this to Dewey, it can be said that questions of political correctness and social equality did not truly emerge until the civil rights movement. In other words, these questions were not posited as possibilities by Dewey and his colleagues. Because of this, the not-being of social equality and political correctness does not occur as an absence to their minds. Surely if it had, Dewey’s philosophy would support the idea of it. I fail to see conversations of social equality within Dewey’s time and place in American culture. Indeed Thomas Fallace admits himself that his hypotheses are based on historiographical assumptions (Fallace 472). These questions, which we hold so sensitively in contemporary American culture, are simply not considered by the philosophers of Dewey’s time. Must we blame Dewey and the rest of the pragmatists or educational philosophers for not discovering the not-being of social equality? Could we blame Magellan for not discovering the entire world, but just a part of it?

I wish to conclusively argue that Fallace’s claims are focused on specific historiographical assumptions and avoid others. Fallace’s assumptions, though well-rooted, ignore other aspects of Dewey’s philosophy. I understand these assumptions to an extent, for Dewey’s writings are so voluminous it is near impossible to read them all and understand them in their entirety. And yet I take the following quote from the same exact section, of the same exact chapter of Democracy and Education. Some kinds of participation in the life of those with whom the individual is connected are inevitable; with respect to them, the social environment exercises an educative or formative influence unconsciously and apart from any set purpose (Dewey 21). This is Dewey acknowledging the fallibility of human kind. Individuals may be influenced by others and to an extent must engage in inevitable participation. Luckily, Dewey is included in this category. He is a human being.

This is my assumption. Though Dewey does not explicitly say I might be wrong to prelude each and every sentence (and I would argue the merit of any philosopher that would repeatedly emphasize their incapacity for truth), he acknowledges humanity in a way that philosophers seldom do. Individuals may be influenced by their surroundings into a sort of complacency with their social situation and indeed this is inevitable according to Dewey. Dewey acknowledges the potentiality and inevitability for an individual to be influenced by society, and by association he is included in this. These claims against Dewey remove him from the very humanity that he is discussing. Dewey at least acknowledges this inevitability, and such reasoning is suitable explanation for his terminology and complacency. Claims that aim to discredit the ethos of Dewey simply ignore the context of his writing and his overall points.

I believe that I have reasonable argued against the following two points in Fallace’s article:

1.     Fallace’s Historiographical Assumptions

a.     Certain words used by Dewey and his collaborators, such as savage, barbarian, and primitive, reveal underlying beliefs through which the world was viewed by most 19^th-century social scientists. (Fallace 472)

                                               i.     In contemporary American culture we define these words differently than their meaning during Dewey’s time. I argue that the intended use of these words in Dewey’s philosophy is to identify specific groups rather than to attack them.

b.     Unless specifically noted otherwise, Dewey accepted the language and ideas of his peers and collaborators. (Fallace 472)

a.     This acceptance is merely due to the fact that philosophers at the time were not presented with this conversation. The ‘not-being” of social equality had not been posited as a possibility within Dewey’s environment.

c.      General points

                                               i.     These assumptions are based primarily within the earlier works of Dewey and do not focus on his development as a philosopher or the application of his later ideas in contrast to his earlier ones.

                                              ii.     This subject is never specifically discussed in Dewey’s earlier works.

2.     My Assumption

a.     Dewey’s philosophy acknowledges the fallibility of humanity and by association his own capacity for fallibility.

                                               i.     Dewey acknowledges inevitable social acceptance in the very same section that Fallace takes his claims from. This points to the view that Fallace’s claims ignore aspects of Dewey’s philosophy, and fail to contextualize properly.

                                              ii.     These claims remove Dewey from the very humanity that he is discussing.

I must say that had I been tasked to write a research paper rather than a blog, it would probably address this subject. I feel as though I have good points, and I could elaborate and go into much more detailed analysis concerning this, but I also know that it is not the function of a blog to be a detailed analysis. Instead I have listed my points above in the more general sense, to maintain a consistent style in this blog.

Fallace, T. (2010). Was John Dewey Ethnocentric? Reevaluating the Philosopher’s Early Views on Culture and Race. Educational Researcher, Vol 39. No 6. 471-474

Oaklander, L. Nathan. Existentialist Philosophy: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print. Cited material if from the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre

Dewey, John. (1916) Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 2. Education as a Social Function. 3. The Social Medium as Educative. The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899-1924). Vol 9. Pg 21-23