Democracy and Education: Review after one hundred years

Abstract

In Democracy and Education, published in 1916, Dewey argues that in an open and democratic society education involves more than just ‘catching up of the child with the aptitudes and resources of the adult group’ (Dewey, 1976 – 1983, IX, Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun 2 p. 85). This is because in a progressive commun ity the adult group is also learning. It follows from his account that the aims of education emerge from activities that learners engage in. These aims are continuously subject to review, and can never be fixed in advance. He also warns that attempts to di rect school work towards accomplishment of predetermined and externally imposed aims are apt to make the ‘work of both teacher and pupil mechanical and slavish’ (Dewey, 1976 – 1983, IX, p. 117). Most of what Dewey says about the aims of education can be con strued as an argument against ends - means dualism and for the intrinsic continuity of ends and means. This is closely connected to his deconstruction of other types of dualism, e.g. views that sharply divide teachers from learners, the vocational from the a cademic, and educational research from school practice. Arguing for open - ended and non - dualistic education Dewey drew simultaneously upon the pragmatism and fallibilism developed by Peirce and a Hegelian, holistic, view of the human individual as socially constituted. Thus, Dewey’s theory of democratic education has deep roots in the philosophy of the nineteenth century. It is, however, not only based on premises from past philosophy. It is also supported by Darwin’s theory of evolution, the social psycholo gy of Mead, and political ideals advocating self - rule of free and equal citizens. Out of these diverse elements Dewey constructed a coherent and balanced vision of education where learners see their educative activity as worthwhile and rewarding in and of itself, and are, consequently, driven by ends - in - views that are internal to what they are working on. In this vision, the role of the teacher is, on the one hand, continuous with the learning activities of the students. On the other hand, it merges with ed ucational research that Dewey thought should permeate school work. For the century that has passed since Democracy and Education was first published, Dewey’s educational philosophy has had little effect in reality. This is partly because his educational ph ilosophy was intertwined with pragmatism and Hegelian holism. These two philosophical traditions fell into disrepute in academic circles in the first half of the twentieth century when logical empiricism became dominant in philosophical departments in US u niversities. Another reason why Dewey’s views did not have much effect on the organisation of public education was that he applied his ideal of self - rule of free and equal citizens to teachers and students. He argued for the importance of allowing them to be driven by their own ends - in - view and unforeseen purposes emerging from their work. From what he says about this, it follows that school - work cannot be directed successfully by mandates from above. A third reason is that the science of education and educ ational research was moving towards psychological behaviourism and away from Dewey’s holistic approach. Those who directed the development of public education were neither ready to accept the uncertainty that followed from an open - ended progress nor to fa ce the limitations that, according to Dewey, were an unavoidable aspect of our human condition. Dewey’s vision was at odds with philosophical schools and educational policies that gained ascendancy for the better part of last century. Although the winds ha ve changed in recent decades and pragmatism is again respected and taken seriously as a philosophical stance, a technocratic attitude still holds sway in public education. Policies emphasising fixed aims, centralised planning, and control from above are still going strong although Dewey’s vision keeps recurring in dreams of better schools.