Abstract

There is general consensus that Randolph Bourne was right in his criticism of Dewey’s support for U.S. participation in World War One. Bourne’s central argument against Dewey was that war is inexorable. War cannot be controlled; pragmatist method becomes inoperable. Jane Addams largely agreed with Bourne, but would question his claim that war’s inexorability is absolute. I will use Addams’s participation with the U.S. Food Administration to show cracks in the inexorability of war and also to raise questions about the pragmatist grounding of Bourne’s attack on Dewey. I argue that although Addams’s participation with the Food Administration was in some ways morally ambiguous, it also demonstrated a more throughgoing, pragmatist understanding of democracy than Bourne’s critique contained.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1558-9587
Print ISSN
0009-1774
Pages
pp. 282-299
Launched on MUSE
2010-10-08
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.