Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:57:01.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Dewey and the Immigrants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

J. Christopher Eisele
J. Christopher Eisele*
Affiliation:
College of Education, Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Dewey has been the subject of comment and criticism for over three-quarters of a century. Often, especially in recent writing on the history of education, the criticism has been divided between those who, to use Richard LaBreque's colorful language, see Dewey as the “good guy” and those who see him as the “bad guy.” Among the latter, sometimes collectively called “revisionists,” are Clarence Karier, Walter Feinberg, and Colin Greer. Charles Tesconi and Van Cleve Morris have recently co-authored a book emphasizing similar themes. Their attacks on Dewey and other liberals have centered around the rather vaguely defined issue of social control. As Michael Katz says in his discussion of twentieth century school reform in Class, Bureaucracy and Schools, “Nonetheless, there is a darker side to the social thought of even the best progressives, notably Dewey and Jane Addams, … Briefly, the emphasis on community in Jane Addams and the definitions of democracy and experience in Dewey provide particularly subtle and sophisticated instances the widespread attempt in their time to foster modes of social control appropriate to a complex urban environment.”

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Spring 1975 , pp. 67 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by New York University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. For a nearly complete record of comments and criticisms, see Boydston, Jo Ann and Poulos, Kathleen, Checklist of Writings About John Dewey: 1887–1973 (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974). I wish to thank the Center for Dewey Studies and Jo Ann Boydston for help in gathering the sources for this paper and Philip Smith and Ruth Simmons of The Ohio State University and Ron Goodenow of SUNY-Buffalo for critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper, which was read, in a slightly different version, at the combined National History of Education Society-Southern History of Education Society meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, 14–16 November 1974. Their commenting is not meant to imply their agreement with my position.Google Scholar

2. LaBreque, Richard, “Pragmatism at the Crossroads,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 8 (Winter 1974): 183.Google Scholar

3. I do not mean to suggest that those who have been labeled “revisionists” are in agreement on all issues; more correctly, they share conclusions about the deficiencies in American liberalism which have grown from a variety of individual perspectives on the history of American liberal thought and action. See Karier, Clarence, Violas, Paul and Spring, Joel, eds., Roots of Crisis (Chicago, 1973); Feinberg, Walter, “Progressive Education and Social Planning,” Teachers College Record 73 (May 1972); Greer, Colin, The Great School Legend (New York, 1972); Tesconi, Charles A. Jr., and Morris, Van Cleve, The Anti-Man Culture: Bureautechnocracy and the Schools (Urbana, Illinois, 1972); also see Katz, Michael, Class, Bureaucracy and Schools (New York, 1971), pp. 113–125, for a statement of aspects of the revisionist position.Google Scholar

4. Franklin, See Barry, “Essay Review III: Education for Social Control,” History of Education Quarterly 14 (Spring 1974): 131, for a discussion of the concept of “social control” in Roots of Crisis and Green, Maxine, “Identities and Contours: An Approach to Educational History,” Educational Researcher 2 (April 1973): 5.Google Scholar

5. Katz, , Class, p. 118.Google Scholar

6. Karier, , Roots, pp. 92, 93.Google Scholar

7. Greer, , Great, pp. 78, 79.Google Scholar

8. Morris, and Tesconi, , Anti-Man, p. 143; italics in the original, “Bureautechnocracy,” as defined by the authors (pp. 7, 161–162) includes many of the evils mentioned by revisionists in discussing “social control.” Google Scholar

9. Dewey mentioned the immigrant problem in 1945, comparing events then to earlier times; see the “Introduction” to Peace and Bread in Time of War by Addams, Jane (Boston, 1960). On the immigration question see Hartmann, Edward George, The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant (New York, 1948); Higham, John, Strangers in the Land (New York, 1965); Hill, Howard C., “The Americanization Movement,” The American Journal of Sociology 24 (May 1919): 610, Garis, Roy L., Immigration Restriction (New York, 1927); Leonard, Henry Beardsell, “The Open Gates: The Protest Against the Movement to Restrict European Immigration, 1896–1924” (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1967); Korman, Gerd, Industrialization, Immigrants and Americanizers (Madison, Wisconsin, 1967).Google Scholar

10. Morris, and Tesconi, , Anti-Man, pp. 140, 141.Google Scholar

11. Dewey, John, “Universal Service as Education,” New Republic 6 (22 April 1916): 95.Google Scholar

12. Morris, and Tesconi, , Anti-Man, p. 142.Google Scholar

13. Morris and Tesconi incorrectly footnote the Addams speech as being given in 1909; it was read in 1908.Google Scholar

14. Dewey, John and Dewey, Evelyn, Schools of To-morrow (New York, 1915), pp. 205–209.Google Scholar

15. Addams, Jane, Twenty Years at Hull House (New York, 1960), pp. 236–237.Google Scholar

16. Dewey, John, “The School as Social Center,” Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association (1902): 37.Google Scholar

17. Dewey, John, Democracy and Education in the World of Today (New York: Society for Ethical Culture, 1938), reprinted in Dewey, John, Education Today , ed. Ratner, Joseph (New York, 1940), p. 368.Google Scholar

18. Warne, Frank Julian, The Tide of Immigration (New York, 1916), quoted in Higham, , Strangers, p. 242.Google Scholar

19. Gordon, Milton, Assimilation in American Life (New York, 1964), p. 141. Kallen, said, “And as intelligence and wisdom prevail over ‘politics’ and special interests, as the steady and continuous pressure of the ‘inalienable’ qualities and purposes of human groups more and more dominate the confusion of their common life, the outlines of a possible great and truly democratic commonwealth become discernible. Its form would be that of the federal republic; its substance a democracy of nationalities, cooperating voluntarily and autonomously through common institutions in the enterprise of self-realization through the perfection of men according to their kind. The common language of the commonwealth, the language of its great tradition, would be English, but each nationality would have for its emotional and involuntary life its own peculiar dialect or speech, its own individual and inevitable esthetic and intellectual forms. The political and economic life of the commonwealth is a single unit and serves as the foundation and background for the realization of the distinctive individuality of each natio that composes it and of the pooling of these in harmony above them all. Thus ‘American civilzation’ may come to mean the perfection of the cooperative harmonies of ‘European civilization’—the waste, the squalor and the distress of Europe being eliminated—a multiplicity in a unity, an orchestration of mankind. As in an orchestra every type of instrument has its specific timbre and tonality, founded in its substance and form; as every type has its appropriate theme and melody in the whole symphony, so in society, each ethnic group may be the natural instrument, its temper and culture may be its theme and melody and the harmony and dissonances and discords of them all may make the symphony of civilization. With this difference: a musical symphony is written before it is played; in the symphony of civilization the playing is the writing, so that there is nothing so fixed and inevitable about its progressions as in music, so that within the limits set by nature and luck they may vary at will, and the range and variety of the harmonies may become wider and richer and more beautiful—or the reverse.” From Kallen, Horace, “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot,” Nation 100 (18 and 25 February 1915): 220; reprinted in Kallen, Horace M., Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York, 1924), pp. 123–125.Google Scholar

20. Dewey, John to Kallen, Horace, 31 March (1915?), American Jewish Archives, Box number 2493–2521; quoted with permission of the Center for Dewey Studies, Carbondale, Illinois. Underlining in the original.Google Scholar

21. Sidney Hook reports that Dewey considered himself a “cultural pluralist” in “The Snare of Definitions,” The Humanist 31 (September, October 1971): 11.Google Scholar

22. Dewey, John, “Universal Service as Education,” New Republic 6 (22 and 29 April 1916); reprinted in Dewey, John, Education Today, p. 92.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., pp. 93, 94. Morris and Tesconi link Wood's and Roosevelt's positions, apparently not realizing that Dewey argued against Wood's position, which should have at least suggested possible disagreement between Dewey and Roosevelt.Google Scholar

24. Dewey, John, “Nationalizing Education,” Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association (1916): 183.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., pp. 184, 185.Google Scholar

26. Ibid., p. 185.Google Scholar

27. Ibid. Dewey repeats his fear of forced segregation mentioned in the Kallen letter.Google Scholar

28. The Menorah Journal was dedicated to the aims and aspirations of the Menorah movement, i.e., the advancement of American Jewry and Hebraic culture. See “An Editorial Statement,” The Menorah Journal 1 (January 1915): 1; Dewey, John, “The Principle of Nationality,” The Menorah Journal 3 (October 1917): 206.Google Scholar

29. Dewey, John, “America in the World,” Nation 106 (14 March 1918), reprinted in Dewey, , Characters and Events, p. 643.Google Scholar

30. Dewey, John, “Autocracy Under Cover,” New Republic 16 (24 August 1918): 104, 105.Google Scholar

31. Dewey, John, “Racial Prejudice and Friction,” The Chinese Social and Political Science Review 6 (1921 or 1922): 14. In 1916 (“Nationalizing Education”) Dewey, said, “… the American … is international and interracial …” (184); in 1918 (“America in”), “We are truly interracial and international …” (644), hoping that America would provide a model for the post-war world. In this speech Dewey recognized, “The strain of the late war created a distinct hostility to immigrants…. a definite anti-foreign animus in America.” (5) Google Scholar

32. Dewey, John, “Future Trends in the Development of Social Programs Through the Schools: The School as a Means of Developing a Social Consciousness and Social Ideals in Children,” Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, Washington, May 16–23, 1923 (Chicago, 1923), p. 450.Google Scholar

33. Dewey, John, The Public and Its Problems (Chicago, 1954), p. 147.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 115.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., pp. 216, 217.Google Scholar

36. Dewey, , “Future Trends,” p. 452.Google Scholar

37. Roots of Crisis, pp. 1, 2.Google Scholar

38. See for further evidence on other issues, Urban, Wayne J., “Revisionists and Liberals: A Critique of Roots of Crisis,” a paper presented to the Southern History of Education Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 16 November 1973.Google Scholar

39. Katz, Michael B., “Review of Roots of Crisis ,” Harvard Educational Review 43 (Fall 1973): 440, 441.Google Scholar

40. The inaccuracies and misleading claims about Dewey are not limited to the subject of immigrants. For example, Colin Greer in The Great School Legend (p. 79) says, “The school was necessary ballast, especially as Dewey saw it, for the ‘expert manipulation of men in masses for ends not clearly seen by them, but which they are led to believe are of great importance to them.’ “ Perhaps Greer did not check the original material carefully as his source for this quotation is apparently not Dewey but Karier quoting Dewey. I say “apparently” because Greer's source is an unpublished paper, which, when it appeared in a published form contained no such reference; however, another unpublished Karier paper, when it was published (Roots, 91), did contain the quotation. If the original article is review it is obvious that Dewey's statement as quoted out of context is misleading. Dewey rejects manipulation for attaining unclear ends and proposes, as might be expected, a clear statement of conditions and goals, “… [taking] the American people into confidence with respect to what has to be done and the ways of doing it.” (Dewey, John, “What America Will Fight For,” New Republic 12 (15 August 1917): 69.) A second example comes from the Karier selection that Greer relied on. In a discussion of Dewey's uses of history in the Laboratory School, Karier, says, “Dewey stated that ‘historical material was subordinated to the maintenance of community or cooperative group in which each child was to participate.’” (Roots, p. 97.) Karier neglects to quote the first part of the sentence which changes the meaning significantly, as indicated by my underlining: Google Scholar … materials … etc., were used as resources in the creation and development of this immediate social life, and with the younger children—or until the social sense was linked to a sense for history as temporal sequence—‘historical’ material was subordinated to the maintenance of community or cooperative group in which each child was to participate. (Mayhew, Katherine Camp and Edwards, Anna Camp, The Dewey School.) (New York, 1966), p. 472.Google Scholar Karier is correct in questioning Dewey's use of history. But attempting to establish misuse by misquotation is to commit the error he is attacking, misusing the historical record. One page later Karier contends that Dewey relied on experts for social guidance. His substantiation for this contention provides another example of quoting out of context. The quotation he refers to speaks of the school putting various lines of work in charge of experts (Roots, p. 98). However, checking the source reveals that Dewey was speaking of expert teachers, teaching specialists, to teach specific subjects. Dewey was not speaking of experts in the sense Karier implies, he was not speaking of experts for social guidance. Since Feinberg also asserts that Dewey would rely on experts, although without any supporting quotations, it appears that this is an important element in the revisionist interpretation. (“Progressive Educators,” p. 435). If it is, the record would be better served if they looked to Dewey's specific writing on the subject, rather than search for further obscure, out of context, references. In the Public and Its Problems, Dewey deals extensively with the use of experts in the formulation of social policy. His position is quite clear. It is not what the revisionists have suggested. A third example of the selective use of evidence quoted out of context occurs in Feinberg's article where he quotes Dewey's statement, “‘In my judgment, this subordination of the state to the community is the great contribution of American life to the world's history.’” (p. 490.) He suggests that this quotation means that Dewey felt America had achieved the status of a great community in 1941. I would agree that if Dewey had made such a statement, without qualification, Feinberg could claim that Dewey accepted America as a Great Community and, given the conditions in 1941, it might follow that Dewey's goals were indeed, illiberal or conservative. America in 1941 was not what would generally be considered a model of the Great Community as Dewey described it elsewhere. However, Dewey was quoted out of context. In the next sentence Dewey says that, “… recent events have tended to obscure it [i.e., the great contribution of subordination of state to community].” (Dewey, John, Problems of Men (New York: Philosophical Library, 1946), p. 374.) He goes on to describe why 1941 was not a time of the Great Community. In other words, he is saying the opposite of the out of context quotation provided by Feinberg.Google Scholar

41. Dewey, , The Principle, pp. 205, 206, emphasis in the original.Google Scholar

42. Dewey, , “Nationalizing,” p. 184.Google Scholar

43. Morris, and Tesconi, , Anti-Man, pp. 142, 143.Google Scholar

44. Feinberg, , “Progressive Education,” p. 495.Google Scholar

45. An outgrowth of a study seminar in the Polish ghetto of Philadelphia, the Confidential Report: Conditions Among the Poles in the United States was a report written by Dewey for the Military Intelligence Bureau of the War Department. Dewey, in writing the report for the M.I.B. as well as sending copies to President Wilson and others hoped “to alter their policy in a more liberal direction,” according to one participant in the study” (Blandshard, Brand, Interview, Center for Dewey Studies, Carbondale, Illinois, p. 4). The revisionists describe the goal quite differently: Feinberg says, “Paramount in the report is a desire to keep the wheels of industry running, during the war and afterwards as well.” (p. 494) Karier sees Dewey as “reporting how to effectively manipulate the Polish laborer in the national economic interest.” (Roots, p. 21.) Google Scholar

46. Karier, Clarence, “A Revisionist's Response to Maxine Greene's ‘Identities and Contours: An Approach to Educational History,’” (Unpublished paper, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, p. 9 (quoted with permission of the author).Google Scholar

47. Dewey, , “Autocracy,” p. 103.Google Scholar

48. Karier, , Roots, pp. 92, 107.Google Scholar

49. Dewey, , Confidential Report, p. 45.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., pp. 41, 42.Google Scholar

51. Feinberg, , “Progressive Education,” p. 493.Google Scholar

52. Dewey, , Confidential Report, p. 45.Google Scholar

53. Dewey, , “Autocracy,” p. 103.Google Scholar

54. Dewey, , Confidential Report, p. 4.Google Scholar

55. Feinberg, , “Progressive Education,” p. 492.Google Scholar

56. Freeman Butts, R., “Public Education and Political Community,” History of Education Quarterly 14 (Summer 1974): 171.Google Scholar

57. Dewey, , “The School,” p. 378.Google Scholar

58. Phrase in quotes also from Butts' article.Google Scholar

59. Karier, , “A Revisionist's Response,” p. 18.Google Scholar

60. I speak of creating a new myth in the sense of accepting the revisionist position without suggesting its limitations or possible alternative explanations, especially at this time in the rewriting of Progressive history. See for example Walter P. Krolikowski's review of The Life and Mind of John Dewey, where he cites Feinberg and Karier to substantiate the claim that “… John Dewey: The advocate of decisions openly arrived at on the basis of evidence made public, because of the crisis he saw facing the United States, was willing, even eager, to engage in secretly cooperating with the government and, in the report on the Poles, to advocate political manipulation of a group he felt presented a threat to the nation's unity.” (Mid-America 56 (January 1974): 71.)Google Scholar