John Dewey-Pragmatism-World War I

John Dewey's Pragmatism and World War I

John Dewey (front, center) with the editors of the Inlander at the University of Michigan (circa 1885). Dewey was also a member of the Metaphysical Club under C.S. Peirce and William James.

By Johanna Kaiser

Upon his death in 1952, John Dewey was recognized as “America’s philosopher” and there is not a more appropriate title. Most widely known for his educational reforms that are still seen in today’s classrooms, Dewey was applauded for his focus on practical application of education. Born in 1859 in Burlington, Vermont Dewey came of age during a period of great transformation in the country’s accepted schools of thought. Dewey was, as Menand calls him, “the last Vermont Transcendentalist” and his philosophy was greatly influenced and aligned with James Marsh’s belief that the dichotomy between philosophical and theological explanations of the world as a whole was false and Marsh’s disagreement with Lockean individualism. In Marsh’s view there is no distinction between the individual and the state; an individual is defined and shaped by their role in the state, or outside community.1 These views are especially relevant to Dewey’s support of the First World War as a tool for international democracy, and though his was a pragmatic view, as were most of his views, Pragmatism was not Dewey’s first answer to the world.

As one of the first philosophy students at Johns Hopkins University, Dewey was greatly influenced by George S. Morris who he studied under and later worked with at the University of Michigan as head of the Philosophy Department. From Morris he adopted an Hegelian idealist view of the world and did not give much attention to the experimental psychology and formal logic of the time.2 Though he is most recognized as a pragmatist (and his own vision of Instrumentalism), Dewey never sought the teachings of the original pragmatist, or as he would have preferred pragmaticist, C.S. Peirce. Peirce was a professor at Johns Hopkins but Dewey chose the tutelage of Morris and shied away from Peirce’s logistical classes, a subject in which Dewey felt inept. Dewey’s lack of Pragmatic education allowed him to create his own use of the philosophy and Peirce often criticized him and William James for their misuse of the term and for diverting away from its original meaning.

It was not until 1904 that Dewey embraced Pragmatism as a valid philosophy. In his Logic: The Theory of Inquiry published that year, Dewey acknowledged that logic is a vital instrument for arriving at valid claims and this belief was fundamental to his later views of Pragmatism and development of Instrumentalism. As White says in his study of Dewey’s intellectual influences and evolution, “The organic unity of idea and fact gave way to the unity of theory and practice...the Absolute Reason fell before inquiry.”3

For Dewey, and for all Pragmatists, ideas were tools to reach a truth that explained some aspect of the world. But for Dewey he saw the connection between thought and action critical and felt that all philosophy should have consequences as to how we lead our lives and our culture He saw this especially useful in terms of social change, which he believed possible through inquiry and action. Philosophy that did not bring about change was useless in Dewey’s eyes. “Changes which are effected by embodying scientific discoveries in mechanical inventions and appliances endure while matters which absorbed in their day much more of conscious attention and mad much more of a stir in the realm of thought, have sunk beneath waves of oblivion.”4 This is not to say that Dewey did not value intellectual debate. Rather he took intellectual theorizing to a more practical approach and concluded that intelligence is another tool that can be used to affect society and bring about change.

Dewey’s view that social progress was the goal of intellectual thought and action led him to support America’s entrance into World War I in 1917. Debate raged among intellectuals and citizens regarding what role America should play in European affairs, but with the sinking of the Lusitania it was clear that some action would be taken by the States. President Wilson declared America would enter the war to make the world safe for democracy and in this phrase we have Dewey’s basis for supporting the war. Like many progressive liberals of the day, Dewey supported President Wilson’s decision and believed that once America won the war, as it surely would, the country would be able to shape global policy. Dewey’s Pragmatism did not allow him to consider whether the war was necessary or not but made him view it as an opportunity to expands America’s experiment of democracy that could teach the world, not through books, but through direct action and example a model for the future.5 Overall, Dewey saw the war as a tool to bring about change. He believed the social and economic changes that could be brought about by the war were of greater consequence than the original purpose of the war. “Autocracy,” he said, “strains human nature to the breaking point; [democracy] releases and relieves it--such, I take it, is the ultimate sanction of democracy, for which we are fighting.”6 This again is Dewey as a Pragmatist not judging the war based on its direct actions, but its ability to stimulate change in thought and in action.

Bodies of German soldiers in a trench. Just one of the many
examples of the unexpected brutalities of the war. It's original
caption read "And the Trench was a Reeking Shambles."

Dewey was not a war monger by any means, but knowing that he could not stop a conflict like World War I, he attempted to make the best of a bad situation. He could not justify such a war on the arguments of European imperialists, but through his Instrumentalism Dewey used the war as a lesson to improve society and prevent the necessity of future such atrocities. The education Dewey hoped the war would provide was social: “It is proved now that it is possible for human beings to take hold of human affairs and manage them, to see an end which has to be gained, a purpose which must be fulfilled, and deliberately and intelligently to to work to organize the means, the resources and the methods of accomplishing those results.”7 The war taught people that they were responsible for their lives and could therefore make attempts to change those lives. By showing individuals that they could be mobilized to run factories and boost morale they never before thought possible, the war, in Dewey’s opinion, acted as a catalyst of continued action. If people could maintain their vigor and work ethic of war, then they could apply these new found skills in peacetime to create a better society. This experience would give citizens the tools to actively participate in what James called “the moral equivalent of war.”

This new industriousness of the American people (as seen below, depicted in the propaganda poster of the time) would ideally not be for private, financial gain. As a progressive, Dewey saw the best outcome of the war as one that encouraged social change: “It would be, it seems to me, hardly short of a crime if we permit this newly stirred idealism of our youth to dissipate itself, after the war, in colleges and beaten channels.”8 Again, it is apparent that Dewey values the actions of intelligence and inquiry as tools to create a more democratic society. Dewey reiterates the importance of social responsibilities in many other essays, revealing his early belief that the individual cannot exist apart from a social community. Considering this, Dewey probably did not concern himself with the atrocities of war because the individual experiences were just tools in the education and development of society. The war was a necessary evil to cure what Dewey saw as the greater domestic evils of poverty, unemployment, and lack of education. The opportunities created by the war would be especially important for Dewey who saw charity as demoralizing.9 This ideal was most likely fostered by Dewey’s intellectual relationship and personal friendship with Jane Addams, founder of Chicago’s Hull House. Addams, however, was a pacifist during the war and in all events and disapproved of Dewey’s endorsement of America’s role.10 Though Dewey eventually saw eye-to-eye with Addams the conflict of the war was a great tool to educate the public on social issues. Like his policy in the classroom, Dewey wanted experiences to show people how to think; not what to think.

View of Jane Addam's Hull House where Dewey lectured.

Despite his interest in education, Dewey was not willing to sacrifice personal freedom for a better educated society. In Education and Social Direction he criticizes those who admire Germany’s authoritarian education that produced endurance and obedience in our adversaries during the war and those who suggest America adopt a similar policy. “Since they do not perceive the interdependence of ends and means, or of purposes and methods, their error is intellectual rather than perversely immoral. They are stupid rather than deliberately disloyal.”11 To create such a educational system, says Dewey, sacrifices the individual and democratic ideals for efficiency and a subservient populace. Though Dewey supports a socially minded and applicable education, in this case, the ends to not justify the ends for him. “We want that type of education which will discover and form the kind of individual who is the intelligent carrier of a social democracy--social indeed, but still a democracy,”12 writes Dewey. Education was a pragmatic tool for Dewey, but the tool itself was as important as the truth it sought. It is in belief that World War I provides a problem for Dewey’s philosophy.

Dewey viewed ends and their means on a continuum where ends could not be separated from the context of the actions that caused or led up to them. He also considered means an end themselves because though they are done to reach a future goal, they can still provide experience and progress if taken seriously.13 Considering this, it is not clear how Dewey could support a war that caused massive amounts of death and destruction. That is unless he viewed the the spread of democracy and social harmony as a worthy enough end to justify almost any means, which is what many of his writing suggest. A younger Dewey may have condemned the use of war, for he wrote in 1908, “Can there be found ends of action, desirable in themselves, which reenforce and expand not only the motives from which they directly spring, but also other tendencies and attitudes which are sources of happiness?”14 Despite his antagonism towards dualism, Dewey takes a very narrow Instrumentalist view of the war. He does not consider why America is involving itself with this war nor does he consider the negative outcomes that could arise; he focuses instead on the opportunity the war provides in creating a particular end. For this, he was often and greatly criticized.

One of the most vocal critics of the war was Randolph Bourne, a student and close friend of Dewey’s. Bourne criticized the war movement as a whole, and paid special attention in his criticisms to the progressive idea that war would allow for the spread of democracy and freedom throughout the world that Dewey and Wilson prescribed to. Bourne famously asked, “If the war is too strong for you to prevent, how is it going to be weak enough for you to control and mold to your liberal purposes?”15 Bourne paid special attention his former teacher and named an article in which he attacked Dewey’s Instrumentalism “Twilight of Idols”--a poetic and damning title. According to Bourne, Dewey’s Instrumentalism applied in war would be disastrous because Pragmatic ideas become too focused on the techniques of winning instead of on the vision for which we are fighting. This, says Bourne, is due to the fact that intellectuals like Dewey are not fighting the war and they therefore make the false assumption “that the war-technique can be used without trailing along with it the mob-fanaticism, the injustices and hatreds, that are organically bound up with it.”16 Instrumentalism may have been a too narrow interpretation of the war and Dewey was soon very aware of that as the war came to a close.

As history tells us, the progressive utopia envisioned by many Americans was not achieved by the First World War. This failure was most apparent in Wilson’s inability to pass his “14 Points” or League of Nations, acts that would promise a peace without victory. “In 1917 Dewey signed up for the war to end all wars and the war to make the world safe for democracy. Four years later he believed that he had been taken for a ride and that gullible Americans had been duped by the imperialist ruling classes of Britain and France,” asserts Ryan.17 Though he may have felt betrayed by Allies who sought land, power, and revenge after the war, Dewey was not shocked by this behavior. As the war ended, Dewey warned of the “cult of irrationality” that develops after a war in which “the leaders of the cult of irrational then strive to alter the emotions into those of fear, suspicion and hatred, knowing well--even if they have never thought of it--that when these feelings are excited they will attach themselves to lower ends, ends which better serve the purposes of those who instigate the cult.”18 This is targeted at the statesmen of Britain, France, and America who used people’s natural tendency to seek, in the absence of drastic societal duty, immediate and private pleasure and security in post-war society to fulfill their own nationalistic and political goals. Dewey predicts this will cause some impediments in developing a League of Nations and though he can see past his pure Pragmatism here, he still relies on it when supporting the post-war agency.

President Wilson promoted his "14 Points" across America and Europe to ensure a long lasting world peace. His proposal was rejected by the Senate in 1918 . This failure haunted Wilson until he died on February 3, 1924, by many accounts, a broken man.

http://www.box.net/shared/32ayqm03xv

Above is audio of a speech given by Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts opposing the League of Nations. Lodge headed the opposition of the League in the Senate.


Dewey was a strong supporter of the League of Nations, and had a specific vision of how it would succeed. “The past system is not supported by any rational appeal to usefulness; its upholders always decry such an appeal as contrary to its proper elevated and noble nature...so a new type of international diplomacy would stimulated the tendency to use the intellectual power generated in modern industry and commerce for something besides personal advantage.” 19 In an ever more pragmatic world, the League had to be run Pragmatically. In Dewey’s opinion, a League of Nations should not be slow moving nor enact cumbersome laws, but should act as a hands-on guide and an aide to nations’ economic and social problems. Had the League of Nations been adopted Dewey’s suggestion would have been vital to its success.

Dewey's contribution to society was commemorated
when he was featured on a postage stamp by the U.S.
Post Office in 1968
Dewey was not the only intellectual disappointed by the results of World War I. He, like many Americans, believed American self-reliance and democracy could save the ravenous European nations from themselves. The unexpected brutality of the war and the inability to reach a satisfying peace presumably left many questions for Dewey. He relied on his idea of Pragmatism, that the war was a tool to achieve a better social good, to justify the battle and when his expected ends were not met, he was brutally disappointed. The educational experience Dewey hoped the war would give citizens was not lost; when America entered World War II in 1942, the people were ready for sacrifice and again determined to improve global society. Dewey’s theory of the war was not incorrect, but perhaps too narrow in its considerations of human emotion. Though this Instrumental approach was not suited for war, Dewey’s lasting contribution to education has suited America and helped students succeed as citizens for the last 70 years.

A video from the 1940's presents a positive view of the progressive education established by John Dewey.

Works Cited

1 Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2001. 238, 245.

2 White, Morton G. “Conclusion.” The Origins of Dewey’s Instrumentalism. Octagon Books Inc. New York. 1964. 9-11.

3 Ibid. 152.

4 Dewey, John. “What Are We Fighting For?” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 99.

5 Dewey, John. “America in the World” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 72.

6 Dewey, John. “What Are We Fighting For?” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 106.

7 Dewey, John. “Internal Social Reorganization after the War.” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 82.

8 Dewey, John. “Vocational Education in the Light of the World War” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 67.

9 Ibid. 75-76.

10 Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2001. 313.

11 Dewey, John. “Education and Social Direction.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 54.

12 Ibid. 57.

13 Richardson, Henry S. “Truth and Ends in Dewey’s Pragmatism.” Pragmatism. ed. Cheryl Misak. University of Calgary Press. Alberta. 1999. 111-113.

14 Dewey, John. “Ethics” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 5:1908. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982.

15 Bourne, Randolph. “Twilight of Idols.” The American Intellectual Tradition Vol. II 1865 to the Present. eds. Hollinger, David A. and Charles Capper. Oxford University Press. New York. 2006. 183.

16 Ibid. 181.

17 Ryan, Alan. “Pragmatism at War.” John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. 1995. 159.

18 Dewey, John. “The Cult of Irrationality.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 109.

19 Dewey, John. “The League of Nations and the New Diplomacy.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 132, 134.

Media Sources

Photograph of Dewey at University of Michigan courtesy of The Center for Dewey Studies, with the support of Special Collections, Morris Library at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Photographs are free to the public use.

Image of WWI stereocard is in the public domain and was found here.

Image of Propaganda Poster was found here.

Photograph of Hull House is a copyrighted to the city of Chicago. It was found here.

Photograph of Woodrow Wilson is in the public domain as its copyright has expired. It was found here.

Audio of Henry Cabot Lodge is in the public domain. This clip was found here.

Dewey on Stamp is in the public domain as a work of the United States Federal Government. It was found here.