The deep purpose of Dewey’s philosophy of education may be said to be the infusion of social meaning and relevance into the learning activity that places in school and the replacement of the individualistic and intellectualistic organization of these activities by the style of cooperative inquiry which he held to be at the heart of democratic social practice. (Olafson 185)

It is beyond ironic – it is unfortunate – that John Dewey is cast as one of the forefathers of modern American higher education and yet the practices of students in higher education today are so divorced from his original intentions. Well, for the most part.

Dewey’s idealized version of the American educational system is one that viewed higher education as a tool of transmission of knowledge from generation to generation, a tool that transmits the accumulated knowledge and skills that would allow students to actively participate in “social” life as engaging members of society. Education was about transmission of social, real-world competence.  This is why the findings of David Foster’s study comparing the roles of student writers from a cross-national perspective are so disappointing (albeit not all that surprising). Foster’s qualitative methodology (interviews, institutional analysis, discourse analysis) of comparing the roles of American and German student writers is appropriate given his goal, which is to identify the degree of agency, control, and preparation of student writers across cultures. If Dewey’s goal was to model educative practices after “real-life” social situations, and this entailed preparing students with the necessary skills that would make them capable of engaging in civic life, then Foster’s findings that the institutional (“deadline-based”) constraints of American higher-educational systems limits this degree of agency and control is indicative of how America is failing in living out Dewey’s mission (utopia?). Our institutional constraints are impeding upon the students’ ability to “unfold from within.”

That being said, Dewey did write at a time when capitalizing “Great Society” was not really that bad of a thing. His educational models, political philosophy, and system of ethics all depended upon a heightened sense of nationalism – fervent, fervent nationalism – that assumed common morals, beliefs, and goals in a unified society. Developing the aims of education is much simpler when there are more cohesive relations among citizens. Now, teachers are not teaching just Americans with goals of bettering the localized community; teachers are teaching students from South Korea, India, Egypt, and most complicated of all, Canada! These students, as shown in Erin Krampetz’s thesis “Writing Across Cultures and Contexts,” draw on different expectations of audience; Krampetz ultimately shows, also through qualitative research methods (transcripts, writing samples, interviews), that cultural factors such as background impact student writing processes the most. How can we teach writing in the Deweyan model of education when the conceptions of writing, and thus rhetoric, and thus action, is so diverse in any given classroom?

Perhaps it is the presence of multiple senses of nationalism that education functions well (?) as merely the transmission of practical skills that are oftentimes divorced from “real-world” life systems. Dewey did not think education was just the transmission of social bodies of knowledge, but that education was so interconnected to social life that they really were not separate at all – education was not preparation for life, but life itself. However, this mission becomes unlikely when the experiences and expectations of students are so diverse so as to render betterment of social communities non sequitur. Perhaps a study like this would allow international students break free from the iron cage.

Works Cited

Olafson, Frederick A. “The School and Society: Reflections on John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education.” New Studies in the Philosophy of John Dewey. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. Hanover, NH: The University Press of New England, 1977. Print.


One thought on “Dewey and Cross-Nationalism

  1. Another very exciting and productive direction for Dewey
    -via Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter

    Dan –
    you must read Vibrant Matter. MUST. Actually, I’d bet that Santos has probably mentioned it to you already … just guessing …
    Anyways, it’s perfect (i think?) for a lot of what you’re doing with Dewey. What Bennett is trying to do is link ecophilosophy and vital materialism, as a means of articulating a political ecology (in Latour’s vein of how political ecology ought to occur). What I really respect is Bennett’s questioning and literal purposing of political ecology (she asks questions like “What is the difference between an ecosystem and a political system? Are they analogs? What is the difference between an actant and a political actor? Does an action count as political by virtue of its having taken place “in” a public? Are there nonhuman members of a public? What … are the implications of a (meta)physics of vibrant materiality for political theory? (94))
    What’s most pertinent about all of this to you, though, is her use – her re-purposing – of Dewey. She writes, “I use (and stretch) John Dewey’s model of a public as the emergent effect of a problem to defend such an idea … (xviii)” “… in [Dewey] the analogy between an ecosystem and a political system is fairly strong and the gap between action and political action relatively small. Key here is Dewey’s notion of the generative field that he calls “conjoint actions” … Dewey’s theory leaves open the possibility that some of the acts of conjoint action originate in nonhuman (natural and technological) bodies” (95).
    After reading the Preface, I decided to focus first on chapter 7, “Political Ecologies,” which is where Bennett maps Dewey with Darwin, as a means of articulating what agency means (for nonhuman life (like worms) and objects) as a way of segueing into political participation and, therefore, Dewey. Pages 100-104 are the most detailed (from what I can tell at this point) for her explanation of how to re-purpose Dewey as a way of answering what “… worms and trees and aluminum … say about political participation” (100); essentially, as a way of articulating how a political ecology can be practiced (i.e. if we understand “Dewey’s account of a public as the product of conjoint action … as a picture of a political system that has much in common with a dynamic natural ecosystem” (103) …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s