John Dewey and the Burden of Ideology

[syllablelisp]

Wanting free and applicable education for everyone and frowning upon the classist methods of institutional education!? How dare he!! What a horrible person to tell me that just because a painting is in a museum doesn't make it art. That scoundrel helped me to learn the basics of thinking for myself and how to apply the things I've learned. Evil socalist indeed!

[BandMan6100]

Total absolute crap. Dewey supported a system where students would be allowed and prodded to think critically...such a system has never been implemented because those in power to not want students to grow up into independent minded adults. The person who posted this is an idiot.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

@BandMan6100 This is the cover story--well known and often repeated. The true story is that John Dewey and colleagues were socialists, and they believed it was their duty to prepare the US for a socialist future. Dewey declared that a school's primary concern is the social life of the child. This means that they work and play well together. What they learn is secondary. Probably, his followers took his message too far. Still, his doctrine provided a rationale for dumbing down the schools.

[odelisk8]

idiot

[37PercentAndRising]

You have completely taken Dewey out of context. Essentially and ironically you are dumbing down. This work you have done is catastrophe of enormous proportions. I suggest you build on your reading and comprehension skills.

[FirestoneX]

What a stupid video.... Put quotes up out of context and without any prior knowledge is not a good way to prove your point.. Even if you could by doing so, the pure bashing at the end of the video, which comes off as immature to me atleast, would force most sane people to shut off their brains to even the message of the video. Who is really willing to take a message seriously, when it so clearly "throws low blows" to what they oppose. This was almost as worst as a political commercial.

[Ilinizas]

Lenin could have used a few propaganda pointer from you.

Ironically, you seem to be the very picture of that which you claim

to advocate against.

May I suggest a book?

... no book in particular.

[JeffreyDonaldo]

Consistently enough, John Dewey loved the Bolsheviks, at least at first. See his book "Impressions of Soviet Russia"

[keturner1s]

Too bad they didn't teach who ever created this the real-life skills of critical thinking and rhetoric. Pulling a few quotes that have been taken out of context does not prove that Progressivism has been unsuccessful. Going to either extreme with Progressivism or traditional education will leave gaps for students. Teach students how to apply the traditional basics like reading, writing, and math to real world situations- that's what they will be doing the rest of their lives.

[GraMajor2010]

I agree with you tottally! Just the fact the he undermined the work of Montessori makes him a HUGE bastard! The worse thing is that his ideas have been hugely exported to Brazil, which seems to have had a lot of influence in our educational system as well!!! Luckily we have the internet these days so information can travel much quicker and we don't need to waste centuries to find out what a damage his ideas have caused in education! Thank you

[bhayter128]

It is clear that the creator of this video has not closely read Dewey's writings. This video is far more concerned with polemicizing Dewey than in trying to understand what Dewey's views on education and learning really were. Before any thoughtful rebuttal can possibly be made, a thought critique must first present itself.

[muzzster1970]

Telling it like it is doesn't sit well with your detractors.Political views heavily influence education systems.Unfortunately for Western culture,the cancerous influence of Socialism is obvious for all (who choose) to see.The useful idiots will not rest until all our hard fought freedoms are lost-then they will beg for someone to save them.

"The virtue of Socialism is that all get to share in it's miseries".-Sir Winston Churchill

[cookiesonsteve]

Wow. I can tell from the video and your comments that you just don't agree with Dewey because of his political views? Amazing! That's right folks, all instruction and no argument!

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

Please also see my second take on Dewey, the video titled "John Dewey and the Kiss of Death."

[fastws6]

@BruceDeitrickPrice Have you even read Dewey? Do you even know that he was one of the culminating figures of American Pragmatism - that this rich philosophical tradition is most concerned with action and consequence - and not the "Ideal?" Nowhere in Dewey's Educational theory was there otiose ideology - if you would have read (I'm assuming you didn't read Dewey because if you did, then your abject failure to understand and comprehend a single line of his thought is painfully apparent) Dewey's

[fastws6]

@BruceDeitrickPrice work on Education, you would know that he was as critical of Progressive education as he was the Conservative education.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

@fastws6 John Dewey was the leader of Progressive Education in US.

[fastws6]

@BruceDeitrickPrice Instead, you take a bunch of his quotes, which even speak volumes out of their context, and you misrepresent them, seemingly intentionally, and then you claim that they are just nonsense - but wait - why are they nonsense? Because you said so???? HA!!!! This is the mark of a truly uncultivated, anti-intellectual mind. You fail to recognize the basic distinction between unsupported belief and knowledge. But it's ok for you - you said so.

[fastws6]

@BruceDeitrickPrice Instead, you take a bunch of his quotes, which even speak volumes out of their context, and you misrepresent them, seemingly intentionally, and then you claim that they are just nonsense - but wait - why are they nonsense? Because you said so???? HA!!!! This is the mark of a truly uncultivated, anti-intellectual mind. You fail to recognize the basic distinction between unsupported belief and knowledge. But it's ok for you - you said so.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

Bottom line; Dewey was what we would today call a Euro-Socialist, at best. But he couldn't say this too loudly so he drifted into dissembling and lies. He schemed in secret to change American education in ways that no American ever voted for.

[Rocketman740]

And you're a pink unicorn.

...Namecalling is no substitute for actual criticism. You offer nothing elucidating about John Dewey, critical or praiseworthy, and anyone who wastes time with this video will be mis-educated.

There are plenty of intelligent rebukes of John Dewey's work. This is not one of them.

[Rocketman740]

Terrible. Amateur bushwackery of Dewey's philosophy. Nonsense ad hominem attacks. There is literally nothing redeeming in this video worth credibly critiquing. The "Phooey on Dewey" essay is even worse.

If you would like a good critique of Dewey and early 20th century American liberalism, try "The Promise of Pragmatism" by John Patrick Diggins. This video and the website of this author are intellectually fraudulent.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

Socialists and Communists, reading NZ's comments, would say, "How true!"

That's our problem: John Dewey was a Socialist. As a result, his advice about education became debased and counter-productive.

Facts are beautiful and "important" in themselves. The distance to the sun, the names of the oceans, the capital of France--children need to learn as many basic facts as they can reasonably handle. PERIOD.

Also Google "20: The Quizz" for why Facts Are Fun.

[Animalll2003lll]

that's just not true !!!!!!!!!

in socialist and communist cultures, kids read at 3 and they learn instruments alone orelse they get beaten up! it's really strict. on the contrary this educationnal culture is much MUCH more liberal, and it gives kids and youngsters who are curious, and active. it's not a joke!!! I've seen the two and it'S really different, and progessive learning is much better and much more american. it goes with the american type: curious active courageous, entrepreneur!!!

[Animalll2003lll]

facts are awesome, but they are better learned if they are integrated in some kind of activity, especially if it involves peers.

of course you need to learn things, but you need to learn useful things. us humans are not made to learn at a desk, trust me. we are made to walk around, interact with peers, and that's how we build up our capacities and skills.

[Animalll2003lll]

trust me kids getting out of such schools are way more intelligent, articulate, curious etc. they explore more; they have new ideas. a society with such grown up kids is much more likely to be innovative, have more startup businesses and continue to be at the center of the economy!!!!!!!! people who are educated to become machines to do efficient but narrow tasks will not build a sense of criticism nor a sense of self reliability.

I couldn't be more convinced.

[Animalll2003lll]

...about that. But I definately agree with you that reading is awesome and kids need to read more. that couldn't be more true.

[BandMan6100]

@BruceDeitrickPrice

Really? So how does simply memorizing a bunch of "facts" help one to learn about the world? Facts are mutable by the way...I am not saying they do not exist. I am saying they can change. It used to be a "fact" that the earth was the center of the Universe. What if no one had ever questioned that? The facts change and people must by raised to think and QUESTION ALL FACTS. Otherwise there can be no progress.

[NathanZimmerman]

Wow. The creator of this video fails to put any of these quotes into Dewey's intended context. Yea, so he says that reading/science/etc. are not 'the true center of correlation' within education. That COULD be interpreted two ways: 1. is that he is saying they aren't worth learning 2. is that he is saying that they aren't worth learning short of certain goals which are primarily societal and ethical.

The second is contextually accurate and fairly obvious. We learn information so we can apply it.

[NathanZimmerman]

My god. Dewey NEVER said that we should do away with facts. He simply said that facts need to be socially contextualized to be important and that the most central and important goal for an education institution is to teach people how to think.

Anyone with a library card can get more facts than they could use. Hell, I could count the number of dust particles on this desk and give you a fact--Dewey's point is that facts are only useful FOR certain goals and that we need to consider those goals.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

The quotes are from Dewey...That Noam Chomsky would approve of Dewey is like Lenin finding much to like in Marx...It's not simply that Dewey was a Socialist, it's that he tried to do so much in secret....Also Google "John Dewey, Dumbing Down and the Scandal of Dyslexia."

[criticaljunkie]

Mr. B.D.P.- Chomsky and Dewey come from completely different and incompatible epistemological positions (cognitivism and pragmatism) and neither of them connote socialist politics. Regardless, McCarthyism is dead- the word 'socialism' doesn't work as a scare tactic anymore. Get over it.

[roottootie]

False quotations.

Moreover, Noam Chomsky has called John Dewey "America leading 20th social philosopher", from FAILED STATES (2006) page 206. Anyone who has who has any idea of American, German or World philosophies understands how phony this video is.

[criticaljunkie]

i would like to ask the person who made this video to explain her or his definition of intelligence. my guess is that it is in line with reactionaries and fascists who use education to maintain the status quo and to limit the possible outcomes in both schools and society. you completely miss dewey's main premise, that education can't be limited to the memorization of 'facts.' he opens possibilities for real participatory learning. that's NOT communism. saying it is makes you look like an idiot.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

We all know what intelligence is. The question is whether we shall dumb it down for political goals, as John Dewey recommended. Or whether (as I hope) we shall encourage its full flowering in each individual, both for that person's good and for the good of the entire society. Please also see "Educators Against Reading."

[criticaljunkie]

i apologize for the strong wording in my original post. i found your video upsetting. it seems that we share similar concerns about education but have different perspectives about what constitutes 'dumbing down.' my fear is that education is being reified into a long list of facts. those who memorize facts most efficiently are the most successful. consequently, we reward obedience rather than intelligence and creativity.

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

I've just finished a wonderful new book, "The Great Reading Disaster" by McNee and Coleman." It contains this relevant quote: "Deweyism is inherently self-contradictory. For all his talk of child-centredness, he really aimed to sacrifice children's individuality to the group...While he derided the traditional authority he wanted to replace, he did not hesitate to incorporate more intense authority of his own."

[criticaljunkie]

you reply with another attack on dewey without addressing my own concerns. very disappointing to say the least. until you understand that ANY approach to education is poltical (for education itself is an inherently poltical act), you will be unable to reflect on your own ideologies and assumptions. for an educator, that's really unfortunate.

[mieery]

you obviously havnt read john dewey.

[abiddle726]

clearly not, those quotes were taken out of context, misleading and only reflect a misunderstanding

[Hiyellowhornet]

Actually, I think the quotes here are selective and misleading. I've read and studied Dewey extensively and you're full of shit.

[neothomist1275]

Dewey was an Hegelian (and worse, a post-Hegelian), a High Mason and a lackey for the Rockefellers...how much more does one need to know? What is the purpose of Prussian schooling after all?

[4ourthofjuly]

you could teach a great deal without reading, even geography, history, science, facts, knowledge(?), etc. He didnt say dont teach reading, just dont emphasize it to a fault, and you havent argued against that. youre just spitting out quotes, like a jackass. but hey, you can read, so you must be a pinnacle of human perfection.

[neothomist1275]

"He didnt say dont teach reading, just dont emphasize it to a fault"

That's one of the most unintelligent comments I have ever heard. If we were in a country with over 90% literacy and I said "We need to get away from sound/symbol relationships; words need to be viewed like a Chinese pictograph", you'd think me insane, no? G. Stanley Hall asserted that and now America has populace 55% functionally illiterate.

[4ourthofjuly]

i think there are other reasons for our functional illiteracy, i dont think you could convince me it was the likes of dewey.

and you know that wasnt one of the most unintelligent comments you ever heard.

[neothomist1275]

"i think there are other reasons for our functional illiteracy"

Such as...? He was a lackey for the Rcokefellers -- what kind of ruling class wants people to read?

[neothomist1275]

Rockefellers*

[4ourthofjuly]

meh, i presume television and other forms of entertainment have challenged recreational reading. American public schools suck at teaching most topics. And parents are working 80hrs a week (they werent in the 50's), so i assume theyre less able to push there kids to do homework, etc.

[neothomist1275]

Boredom and novelty chasing, sensitization to the authority of "experts" -- including professionally created entertainment: schools are veritable forges of these things. Taking school into the home with homework, parents unable to help because of the "new math" to diminish parental authority. Bertrand Russell assures us that only 3 hours of kindergarten per day and the "contaminated values" will not reach the child. (cont'd)

[neothomist1275]

(cont'd)Mothers working was pushed by the Rockefeller's feminism movement so the other half of the population could pay into the Rockefeller's IRS (and all secular schools in America are a Rockefeller franchise).

[4ourthofjuly]

so the modern world would be substantially different if the rockefeller's hadnt existed?

theres a concept in the sciences called "refutability".

check it out.

[neothomist1275]

John D. Rockefeller, like nearly all American plutocrats, was the creation of the Bank of England. If he didn't have "the right stuff" and believe, religiously, in the agenda they simply would have gotten someone else. There is nobody in America above mid-level power: all the real power is in Europe because those old Norman and Guelph families OWN the legal and commercial systems. Its called Equity and Admiralty. Check it out.

[4ourthofjuly]

Hmm, Rockefeller seemed to be a talented man. I dont see how you need a conspiracy to explain his wealth. Are you saying you can prove that all of the elites are bankrolled by the same group?

What about startups like Gates or Buffet?

Where do they fit in? Rich guys on the sidelines?

[neothomist1275]

Rockefeller would blow up the factories and beat the workers of rival companies who refused to be bought out. "Competition is sin" he'd say.

The person who ran the PR campaign to transform Rocky's image into that of a great philanthropist was Bill Gates' ancestor Frederick T. Gates. Microsoft was given a franchise by IBM for DOS, which they purchased. Buffet apparently didn't start mingling with the Establishment until he bought into the Washington Post in 1973/74.

[4ourthofjuly]

that doesnt begin to answer the three questions.

[neothomist1275]

I thought the query was the extent to which these were self-made men. Rockefeller and Gates were given their franchises to fulfill specific purposes. Buffet apparently played fair before he started using an insurance company for leverage and buddying around with Nathan Rothschild.

[neothomist1275]

"...learning to read in early school...seems to me a perversion." -- John Dewey

"Illiterates escape...vicious and vacuous reading." -- G. Stanley Hall

Great post. Thank you.