-
9. Education for a Democracy
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Science and Democracy John Dewey was an enthusiast for the scientific method, an apologist for democracy, and an advocate of educational reform. He thought that the three—science, democracy, and education—if properly linked could unleash powers of human creativity that would promote “the general social welfare and the full development of human beings as individuals” (1946: 58). As Bruce Kimball puts it, Dewey thought “that science fosters democracy and that democracy encourages science” (1995: 80), and that education was how they could best be linked together. The opposing views of the cultural Right and cultural Left are united in at least this one way: they are both at odds with Dewey’s position. Traditional canonists are wary of democracy, anti-canonists of science. The hierarchical character of a canon is explicitly elitist: those who have mastered the canon, whether it be a content or a procedure, possess the qualities of mind or of character needed in order to be effective in the pursuit of truth or the social good. The general populace lacks the requisite education, the trained judgment , necessary for doing scientific research or running a government. Those who oppose a traditional canon do so in part because of this elitism, since they find it to be at odds with the egalitarian values a democracy institutionalizes . Everyone deserves an equal say in the governing of a people, and so although experts are necessary their role should be clearly subordinate to the will of the general populace, whether expressed at the ballot box or through public opinion polls, in town meetings or by referenda. Science can be tolerated in a democracy only if closely regulated by citizen oversight groups. Chapter 9 Education for a Democracy I have been arguing that the quarrel between canonists and anti-canonists, elitists and egalitarians, can be resolved through the notion of a pragmatic canon. The aim of this chapter is to explore the rationale behind Dewey’s version of this claim. Dewey helps us see why education—if understood as the means by which citizens can learn how to appreciate, utilize, and contribute to their culture’s pragmatic canon—is what makes both good science and good government possible. Dewey was impressed by the ways an experimental approach to problem solving had transformed the natural sciences. Accepting ideas as true only if they could be validated by publicly confirmed empirical evidence, scientists had gained an understanding of nature sufficient to harness it as a resource for improving the human condition. Dewey proposed that this method be extended to the social sciences as well, where the benefits would be even more far-reaching. The American nation would be the better were its policies formulated, implemented, and assessed scientifically. Democracy was in need of what he called “habits of intelligent action”: the rigorous and systematic application of the experimental method to “the problems of men” (1946: 4). In this sense, Dewey is through and through a procedural canonist, a firm believer in the capacity of the scientific method not only to improve the human condition by the material benefits of the technologies its understanding of nature makes possible but also, when applied to societal issues, to improve the human condition by fashioning social structures that liberate people from dehumanizing and inequitable forms of work and leisure. An educational system equal to this challenge was crucial, Dewey argued, because the methods of science obviously needed to be learned in order to be applied. And the earlier in life these methods are acquired, the better. Experimental thinking needs to be a habit of mind, a disposition to approach problems in a certain way. Once young people—and improperly educated adults returning to school for further education—have become practiced in the art of intelligent action, they will be consistent in its use. Rightly educated, people will insist on addressing social problems in the same way they addressed the problem of predicting and controlling the forces of nature. So it is easy enough to see why Dewey could argue that scientific method is an important instrument for social good, and that American democracy would be preserved, indeed strengthened, if what worked to produce our technological benefits were made use of systematically to improve the quality of our community arrangements. It is less clear why he should insist, as he does, that the scientific method and democracy are essential to each other. Granted, if our society happens to...