I have been researching the foundaton of modern education in America and have read John Dewey’s Democracy and Education. In this book, I’m reapeatedly reminded of his view that the education of the individual is ultimately for the benefit of society.
For example:
“The answer, in general formulation, is: By means of the action of the environment in calling out certain responses. The required beliefs cannot be hammered in; the needed attitudes cannot be plastered on. But the particular medium in which an individual exists leads him to see and feel one thing rather than another; it leads him to have certain plans in order that he may act successfully with others; it strengthens some beliefs and weakens others as a condition of winning the approval of others.”
(Dewey, 1916).
This declaration directly follows his theory of education identified as, “a fostering, nurturing, cultivating process”. The most shocking revelation is this, though: “Since what is required is a transformation of the quality of experience till it partakes in the interests, purposes, and ideas current in the social group, the problem is evidently not one of mere physical forming.” And he goes on to describe how the "problem " concerns mental and behovioral forming as well.
Dewey speaks of manipulation. Manipulation of the individual to benefit society. I would like your input on a few things:
How do you interpret Dewey?
Do you believe that he is just in believing these things?
Is this not the way society operates today?
And any other topics you can think of for discussion, those are just some of my specific questions.
I was speaking of American society. If it does not operate the way Dewey suggests, can you describe for me how it operates?
It makes sense when he suggests that, “for society to sustain itself, it must continually renew ideals in its immature members,” because without renewing itself, a structure of any kind would have no place because succeeding generations would have no obligations toward it. That seems to me the logical way for any society to operate, which led me to believe that is how American society operates.
No society can function or grow if it is in a constant state of turmoil, in danger of revolution every generation. Just as parents used to teach their children, so now do states.
That’s exactly how society operates today, especially in the US. Ask any high school graduate of the US if communism is a good thing. You don’t have to, do you - you already know the answer. Most of them were only a few years old when the USSR disolved, where did they get this opinion? From the renewal of ideals that the educational system provides.
Umm… “renew” simply implies the continuation of preexisting ideals, regardless of what they are. I don’t see how this term is loaded.
That succeeding generations have no obligation toward prior society has very little to do with my personal desires (i.e. the thousands of social security dollars… what does that have to do with anything?), but more with my logic.
Define American Society please, as I find the term “fluid” rather confusing.
Sorry if that sounds too inflammatory, but you are too quick to associate my post with personal ambitions. I’m rather interested in what you have to say, but I can’t find what you mean by the statements you have given me thus far.
Thank you for your input, Jr. Good example about the communism question.
I wasn’t implying any social ideals that Dewey wanted to implement, I’ve read Democracy and Education and have found no such ideals… I was merely remarking upon society’s need to renew itself…
Still not seeing what soc. security tax has to do with the theoretical obligation that suceeding generations do not have…
No… I really don’t see the problem, mind spelling it out for your mental inferiors?
Btw, if I ask a question, repeating your previous answer defeats the purpose. I already understand that American Society has many different levels… I was speaking of the Education system and thought I made that clear… Maybe if you weren’t so keen on putting a subject to rest with your utterly ingenius maxims, and more keen on answering a question with assertiveness, I would not be posting this response because I would understand what you’re saying.
You’re making very little sense. I may have to, regrettably, start ignoring you.
