Episode 30 - John Dewey

In this extended episode I share some thoughts on a strand of philosophy known as ‘pragmatism’ as realized in the work of one of its key exponents, John Dewey – who was born in 1859 and died in 1952 at the ripe old age of ninety-three. Here and there I will point out parallels between Dewey’s ideas and the ideas and practices of other Buddhist and non-Buddhist thinkers I have mentioned in earlier talks. Over Dewey’s long life he had a profound influence on American philosophy and on the development of psychology, politics and education within the United States and eventually in many democratic states around the world.

Transcript

John Dewey was born in 1859 in Vermont in the north-east of the United States. Though coming from a long line of Vermont farmers, Dewey’s father, Archibald, left farming to start and run a grocery business. His mother, Lucina, was twenty years younger than her husband and seems to have been very ambitious for her four sons, particularly in relation to getting them a good education and a sound religious grounding. At university, Dewey, studied for a time with Charles Sanders Peirce, who later became known as one of the founders of pragmatism. Dewey doesn’t seem at this time to have been much affected by Peirce’s teaching. Later, when teaching himself at university in Michigan, Dewey struck up a working relationship with George Herbert Mead that lasted for most of Mead’s life. Mead was another of the four early exponents of pragmatism. The fourth of these was William James, whose book, The Principles of Psychology, first published in 1890, had quite an influence on Dewey – particularly James’s emphasis on the study of his patients’ experiences and the biological aspects of mental illness.

So, what is ‘pragmatism’? In philosophical circles the term is associated with the ideas of the early twentieth century American philosophers, C.S. Peirce (pronounced Perce), William James and John Dewey, and with Richard Rorty who lived later in the twentieth century. Although these thinkers were distinctive individuals with many different ideas, they shared an approach to philosophy that shifted away from abstract theories of truth, grounded in a notion that ‘truth’ could be established with certainty and finality, to a notion that judgments about what is ‘true’ are part of an endlessly evolving process of enquiry in which true statements are always provisional and framed within the context of how effective they are at enabling us to do things – to effectively engage with the world in ways that are useful and fulfilling. 

In Peirce's case (he was particularly interested in science) ‘truth consisted in what worked in the sense of being acceptable to scientists in the long run – “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate.”’ (O’Hear 1991) John Dewey suggests that valid truth-claims are those that are found to work towards the common good, or we might say, the relief of suffering and the cultivation of wellbeing and fulfilment. Dewey, like William James, is known for his work as a psychologist as much as his philosophical ideas – in both spheres they wanted to find out what worked and what didn’t, what ideas and practices were actually useful and what weren’t. In this sense they sought to locate mental illness and wellness in the context of social interaction and collective patterns of belief and behaviour.

Many pragmatist thinkers would argue that the categories of true and false are less important to the general good than the categories of useful or not useful - beneficial or not beneficial. When talking about his own philosophical ideas, Dewey preferred to use the terms, ‘experimentalism’ or ‘instrumentalism,’ rather than ‘pragmatism.’ But as ‘pragmatism’ is the term that is commonly accepted for Dewey’s approach I am using it in this talk.

Dewey and the other pragmatists believe that the possibility of error can never be ruled out - even with regard to judgments about our sensory experience. Therefore, our ideas of what is true need always to be open to revision in the light of changing experiences, further investigation and new information. This idea of the relative, changing, evolving nature of truth is seen by many as undermining the notion of truth as something we can believe in or depend on. Truth is no longer an irrefutable absolute but is, instead, a claim that is always open to questioning, criticism and revision. It is important that we recognise that there may be many different, even contradictory, truth-claims competing for validation or acceptance at any particular time. A pragmatist would argue that this is always the case in ‘real life’ and to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. Indeed, embracing the idea that there may be many, equally valid and competing truth-claims relating to many situations and states of affairs in the world, is a good thing. To be open to, and tolerant of, varied truth-claims may enable us to understand each other better and to live together more effectively by reducing misunderstanding, distrust and conflict. 

One of the key features of Dewey’s thinking is the importance he attaches to experience and human action, and the way he conceptualises living and experiencing as process. These aspects of Dewey’s ideas are discussed by Stephen C. Rockefeller (1989) in an essay tracing connections between Dewey and the Japanese philosopher Nishitani Keiji (1900-1990). I’m drawing heavily on Rockefeller’s essay in the following remarks. 

As Rockefeller points out Dewey employs a vocabulary of evolution and growth throughout his writings. As far as Dewey is concerned there is no goal or final destination towards which human beings are progressing. In Rockefeller’s words, ‘Life is process. The self is process. The end of human life is not to attain some static ideal state and stop growing. The only end of living is to be found in a way of living.’ (ibid: 229) Rockefeller argues that Dewey is more concerned with becoming than with being. This is a reasonable claim. But for me (and probably for Dewey) becoming implies a goal, a direction, a leading towards something, and this can be seen as, paradoxically, a marginalisation of the process of becoming in favour of the intention or goal. For this reason, I’m tending to use the terms ‘being’ and ‘living’ instead of ‘becoming’ - while emphasising that being alive is a process, a state of continuing change and adaption.

For Dewey the universe is a relational field, a network of interacting and interdependent processes, constantly changing, constantly evolving. Human beings are agents within this field, weaving narratives and actions into the complex unfolding multi-dimensional tapestry of events. And it is crucial to Dewey’s thinking that things are events. There are no ‘unchanging entities in the universe,’ as Rockefeller puts it, and there are ‘no … immutable substances underlying the processes of change.’ (ibid: 220) Notice how this echoes the ideas of Gotama Buddha about impermanence and interdependence. Dewey argues against the idea of an absolute and eternal transcendent order. His evolutionary ideas are applied equally to the bio-chemical sphere and to the sphere of human thought and aspiration. For him there can be no absolute truths and eternally valid beliefs, laws or theories. All of these are subject to evolutionary change, open to endless revision and reformulation in the light of the ever-changing experiences of living.

Dewey tends to be sceptical of any ideas of pure consciousness or of consciousness somehow detached from the world in which it arises. For Dewey there is no possibility of objective neutrality or standing outside the flux of living in order to get a supposedly ‘true’ picture of how things are. Consciousness arises, or at least moments of consciousness are fired by, whatever we encounter, assimilate and handle. Consciousness is a participatory activity – a manifestation of our changing relationship with whatever surrounds us and passes through us. Consciousness is a process, a doing – even when we are sitting in silent contemplation or meditation. Even in apparent stillness there is perpetual change, the embodied mind is constantly processing the stream of sensations and experiences.

For Dewey each entity and each stream of consciousness is unique, acting within the relational field in a distinctive and unrepeatable way. On the other hand, each entity only exists as a thread in the web of relationships which constitute the universe.  As Rockefeller argues, ‘There is real singularity and individuality in nature, but nothing exists as an isolated entity.’ (ibid: 221) This is as true of the human self as it is of a lemon, a cloud or an amoeba. Diversity is integral to Dewey’s conception of the universe as an ‘infinite complex of interacting events.’ (ibid: 220) Dewey speaks of the ‘miscellaneous and uncoordinated plurals of our actual world’ (ibid: 221) - a world of ceaseless motion and interaction, about which we can never reach any conclusions, final answers or definitive theories. All we can do is try to find an effective way of living with this unending mutability. It could be argued that this is what Thomas Merton and other mystics and sceptics try to do in their different ways. There is also a connection with the process and relational ideas of Buddhism.

Dewey was very critical of the overly individualistic philosophy of liberalism, as he found it in the United States. He believed that people could only be understood and reach fulfilment within a web of social and cultural relationships. He was anti-elitist and critical of any tendency towards authoritarian power structures or of predetermined hierarchies. Instead, he believed that politics should involve the empowerment and fulfilment of all – regardless of background, race or gender. This empowerment, according to Dewey, was best ensured through education, enquiry, emancipation and social justice.

This emphasis on relationship and process is also manifested in Dewey’s approach to the sciences. He considers science as primarily an activity, a dynamic process of finding out. For him, science is a communal process of open-ended enquiry. Dewey argues that we humans are living organisms trying to survive within an environment that is sometimes benign and sometimes hostile. And a fundamental human survival mechanism is the pursuit of knowledge – our ability to explore and investigate ourselves and the environment within which we are embedded, and to try to solve problems that arise in our day-to-day existence. Given that we are an intrinsic part of the world we are finding out about, we are not ‘spectators’ studying something separate from us, we are active agents within the world we are studying. This contrasts with the views and practices of many western philosophers who do tend to adopt a spectator’s view of the world – referring to an ‘observing subject’ as if we could stand apart from the world and observe it from outside. This made no sense to Dewey who believed that we were always inextricably embedded in the world, trying to solve problems and make our way through the tangles and uncertainties of lived experience. (see Magee 1987: 293 -294) Any criteria of meaning and truth, as far as Dewey is concerned, are always bound up with our activity as agents of enquiry and problem-solving - within a universe of relationship and interdependence. Gotama Buddha might well have taken a similar view. 

Dewey’s influence on education in the USA and elsewhere was immense. His views on learning and human development can be seen as being closely aligned with his approach to science and the arts. He was very opposed to the idea that education was something to be imposed on children – as if the only purpose of education is the transmission of an agreed body of knowledge from one generation to the next. Of course, transmission is part of the educational process, but it is equally, or more important, that children should be involved as agents in their own learning – encouraged to ask questions, trying to solve problems and follow lines of enquiry prompted by their own curiosity. Again, Dewey sees education as an activity pursued by individuals within a community of learning and enquiry. In this way each learner can develop her, or his, creative abilities and educational potential. This was a radical departure from the top-down, autocratic and unquestioning approach to education within Victorian Britain and nineteenth-century America. The role of teachers, as far as Dewey is concerned, is to provide the support, guidance, and instruction where necessary, to enable children and young people to realise their unique potential and to benefit society as active, creative, thoughtful citizens. (see Magee 1987: 296-297) For Dewey, there is no fixed end to education – it is a lifelong process of curiosity, enquiry and growth, and, he believed, democratic societies are best able to nurture their citizens in this process of development towards maturity and fulfilment.

I would now like to turn to Dewey’s ideas about the arts. In his book, Art as Experience (first published in 1934), affinities can be identified between the emphasis on open-ended enquiry advocated by Dewey in his book and the ideas of the early Greek sceptics, such as Pyrrho of Elis and in Gotama’s emphasis on contemplative enquiry and awakening. 

Richard Shusterman, in his book, Pragmatist Aesthetics, (1993: 3) argues that, 'In Dewey's pragmatism, experience rather than truth is the final standard... His instrumental theory of knowledge sees the ultimate aim of all inquiry, scientific or aesthetic, not as mere truth or knowledge itself but as better experience or experienced value...' [my emphasis]

Dewey suggests that the arts, like the sciences and philosophy, are agencies of enquiry, criticism and enrichment, functioning within the continuum of experience. He suggests that enhancing the quality of experience is, or should be, a primary function of art, science and philosophy. For Dewey these modes of enquiry and imagining are integral to human living.

Dewey sees art as embedded in life, inseparable from and interdependent upon the rest of life's activities. This is radically different to the belief of a modernist critic like Clement Greenberg who argued that the value of art resides in its autonomy, the practice of ‘art for art’s sake’ and as the unique expression of an individual’s creative identity or ‘genius.’ 

Shusterman notes how Dewey tended to underline ‘the deep similarities of art and science as forms of ordering and coping with experience, noting that they are hardly distinguished in ancient and primitive cultures. (Shusterman 1993: 12) He also points out that Dewey recognized that science as an activity could be emotionally and aesthetically satisfying – as well as being intellectually rigorous and ‘objective.’ In this sense the practice of a science could be as fulfilling as any of the arts. This identification of similarities between the arts and sciences is one example of Dewey’s intention to make connections rather than to divide one activity from another. In this sense, he set himself against the often arbitrary distinctions made in academic circles between increasingly specialist and self-contained subjects. For him the development of understanding and learning was a process towards enhancing our holistic experience of ourselves and the world – a developing sense of interrelationship and wholeness. Again, this can be seen as echoing Buddhist ideas of interdependence, transformation and human fulfilment.

For Dewey, education was foremost a creative, exploratory process in which our experience is widened and deepened. Learning is a process both of enhancing our understanding and enriching our experience. Placing artificial boundaries between subjects and following predetermined avenues of enquiry tends to limit and hinder new discoveries and fresh learning. Dewey was always looking at how we could break down barriers and categories in order to encourage the free flow of investigation. Curiosity, finding out, and a need to try things out, were, for Dewey, innate characteristics of the human organism - enabling us to survive and to flourish. Anything that damped down or inhibited these propensities hindered our development and our chances of living a meaningful and rewarding life. Prescriptive educational syllabi, authoritarian methods, punitive assessment practices and rote learning, all give rise to doctrinaire, passive and uninquisitive receivers of knowledge, rather than questioning, active, critical and creative citizens. If its members are passive and unquestioning a society can become ossified and inflexible - unable to grow and respond to the changing needs of its members.

In Dewey’s view, the value of art lay not so much in the artefacts that most people consider to be ‘art,’ but in the dynamic experiential activity through which artworks are created and perceived. (Shusterman 1993: 25) Dewey considers aesthetic experience as a primary characteristic of the arts – both for the maker (or makers) and for the perceivers of artworks. Shusterman writes that art is defined by Dewey as: ‘a quality of experience rather than a collection of objects […] and aesthetic experience thus becomes the cornerstone of [his] philosophy of art.’ (ibid) The artwork, be it a painting, a film or play, or a piece of dance or music - becomes a vehicle of aesthetic experiencing -  involving processes of enquiry, creation and transformation. Making art involves both doing and perceiving, making and appreciating. 

For Dewey the creation of art is inseparable from its reception, indeed he considers the ‘appreciation’ of the arts as itself a creative activity integral to the production of artworks. There is a democratizing element to this way of thinking about the arts – the ‘audience’ and ‘appreciators’ of artworks are considered by Dewey as equal participants in the realization of the arts as agents of experience. This marks a profound distinction between Dewey’s philosophy and the modernist emphasis on the artist as a special class of person – the individual maker as ‘genius.’ As Shusterman puts it: ‘Art, in its creation and appreciation, is both directed making and open receiving, controlled construction and captivated absorption.’ (ibid: 55) This approach brings us back to the importance of the educational process and Dewey makes the point that while enormous sums are paid for the acquisition and protection of artworks, comparatively little money is spent on what he calls ‘aesthetic education’ – that is the making and appreciation of the arts. (ibid: 54) Indeed in the UK at present the amount spent on arts education at all levels seems to be going down and down – this is despite the fact that more and more people engage with the arts on a day-to-day basis through direct experience and the mediation of digital media.

*

I now want to consider another perspective on Dewey’s thinking and influence as discussed in a book titled, Pragmatism & Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric, by Charlene Haddock Siegfried – first published in 1996.

In this book Siegfried explores some of the ways in which pragmatism (particularly Dewey and William James) can be seen as anticipating in theory and practice important aspects of feminism. Indeed, she argues for a reconsideration of Dewey’s ideas, in particular, as having continuing relevance for the development of feminist thinking and for the development of ideas and values in a positively pluralistic culture. Dewey himself was an early supporter of women’s emancipation and Siegfried points out how Dewey promoted the interests and careers of his female colleagues.

I have extracted a few strands from what is a rich and illuminating book – it is well worth reading!

Early in her book, Siegfried lists some of the main characteristics of pragmatism, including: a tendency to question many of the commonly accepted dualities of modern philosophy – for instance, theory/practice, appearance/reality and facts/values; learning from experience; perspectival views of knowledge, and anti-elitism.’ (Siegfried 1996: 76) She continues: ‘These […] themes of experiment, experience, and democracy recur in the writings of women and men who identified themselves with pragmatism. According to pragmatist theory, experience, even when personal, is always social; it is a developmental process that can be nurtured, frustrated, succumbed to, or redirected. This insight was as empowering for early feminists as it was for later ones who rediscovered the political dimensions of personal experiences through the practice of consciousness raising. Reflection arises in response to problematic situations, and thinking is a powerful means of bringing about morally responsible social change. 

Having demolished traditional claims to dogmatic certainty or privileged perspectives, pragmatists argue that experimentation is the intellectual appropriation of experience most likely to undermine prejudice and direct actions to justifiable outcomes’ - justifiable in terms of how we think and act. (ibid: 78-79) We can connect this to a view of art, and of all education, as a transformative, reconstructive experience – a process of growth, adaptation and response to fresh stimuli and the challenges of living. Note again, the echoes here of the Buddhist emphasis on growth, transformation and awakening. 

Siegfried reminds her readers that ‘male gatekeepers’ need to take note of the pragmatist belief that no one perspective (be it male or female, scientific or artistic) ‘can encompass the totality of truth.’ (ibid: 131) No one individual or group of people can have a monopoly on truth. We all have to learn from each other and from the environments in which we live. This is another reason why democratic political structures, however flawed they may be, are preferable to authoritarian power structures. What is important for the development of knowledge and for human survival is that we embrace and learn from multiple perspectives – diverse cultural, social and political viewpoints. A plurality of views is vital if we are to have a dynamic, inquisitive and critical society able to engage with, let alone solve, the many problems and challenges that face us. This plurality of views, though not emphasized by Dewey, needs to be inclusive of the needs and aspirations of all beings and of our planet earth. Only in this way can living beings survive and flourish. Recognising, valuing and learning from as many views as possible, from the rich diversity of people, of every gender, race and economic background, is a vital part of Dewey’s educational project – a necessity for survival rather than just a political or social choice.

For Dewey, and for many of the other thinkers I have discussed in these talks, philosophy is an activity aimed not at creating one explanatory system of knowledge, or one set of absolute truths, but at developing modes of experiencing that enhance our quality of life and help us to deal with the difficulties we face in the course of our lives. While some have criticized Dewey as being overly optimistic about the generally good, fair and community-oriented nature of human beings – it is worth keeping in mind that Gotama, the historical Buddha, has been criticized for similar reasons. In my view there is plentiful evidence that the vast majority of human beings do wish to live at peace with others, to take care of each other and to live lives of wellbeing and fulfilment. That a small minority do not, doesn’t diminish the community spirit, fairness and peacefulness of the majority – even if the small minority often achieve positions of power and influence through coercion, hatred and violence.

The ideas and values of John Dewey offer us ways of thinking and acting that can enliven and enrich our lives. Like Gotama Buddha, Spinoza, Kierkegaard and others, Dewey is someone we can reflect on and learn from as we tread our own path through the joys and sorrows, and the many challenges and difficulties, we face from day to day. I hope Dewey’s writings and ideas will be useful in helping you to navigate your way along your own Dharma Road.

Thank you for listening and bye for now.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dewey, John. 2005. Art as Experience. USA: Perigee Books. [First pub. 1934]

Magee, Bryan. 1987. The Great Philosophers. London: BBC Books.

O'Hear, Anthony. 1991. What Philosophy Is: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London: Penguin.

Rockefeller, Stephen C. 1989. Nishitani and Dewey’s Naturalistic Humanism, in Unno, Taitetsu, ed. 1989. The Religious Philosophy of Nishitani Keiji. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.

Rorty, Richard. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Blackwell, Oxford.

Russell, Bertrand. 1946. A History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Shusterman, Richard. 1993. Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Siegfried, Charlene Haddock. 1996. Pragmatism & Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric. University of Chicago Press.