of History Education Society
John Dewey and the Immigrants Author(s): J. Christopher Eisele Source: History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 67-85 Published by: History of Education Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/367821 Accessed: 18/03/2010 12:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hes. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [e-mail].
History of Education Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History of Education Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
ARTICLE IV
John Dewey and the Immigrants
J. CHRISTOPHER
Introduction JOHN DEWEY has been the subject of comment and criticism for over three-quarters of a century. (1) Often, especially in recent writing on the history of education, the criticism has been divided between those who, to use Richard LaBreque's colorful language, see Dewey as the "good guy" and those who see him as the "bad guy." (2) Among the latter, sometimes collectively called "revisionists," are Clarence Karier, Walter Feinberg, and Colin Greer. Charles Tesconi and Van Cleve Morris have recently co-authored a book emphasizing similar themes. (3) Their attacks on Dewey and other liberals have centered around the rather vaguely defined issue of social control. (4) As Michael Katz says in his discussion of twentieth century school reform in Class, Bureaucracy and Schools, "Nonetheless, there is a darker side to the social thought of even the best progressives, notably Dewey and Jane Addams,... Briefly, the emphasis on community in Jane Addams and the definitions of democracy and experience in Dewey provide particularly subtle and sophisticated instances the widespread attempt in their time to foster modes of social control appropriate to a complex urban environment." (5) Part of the evidence for the revisionists' stand on the social control issue comes from their perception of Dewey's position on the treatment of immigrants. For example, while discussing Dewey's views about one immigrant group, the Philadelphia Polish community, Karier says, "Dewey viewed ethnic and religious differences as a threat to the survival of society, to be overcome through assimilation. Dewey, as well as other liberal reformers, was committed to flexible, experimentally managed, orderly social change that included a high degree of manipulation." (6) Greer generalizes this position to include all immigrants. (7) Morris and Tesconi continue the theme, although using different language, saying that Dewey's suggestion for the
EISELE
Mr. Eisele is a member of the faculty of the College of Education, Ohio State University.
Spring 1975
67
assimilation of immigrants "leads to the type of homogeneity necessary to bureautechnocracy and contributes to the decline of the person." (8) It is my belief that the revisionists' perception and portrayal of Dewey's position
is incorrect.
To be clear, it is not the revisionists' goals that are questioned; there is no disputing that historians have an obligation to constantly re-examine the past, and that the educational historians who are now re-examining all the various educational institutions, including the schools, are engaged in valuable and needed scholarship. Our schools, among other educating agencies, have failed to keep their great promise and the "new" history can help understand that failure and the myth that covered up that failure. But in the revising of history we must not allow a new myth to replace the old; we come no closer to understanding the limitations of Dewey and liberal reform by misconstruing the record of the past than did our predecessors. In this paper, through a more precise and complete review of the record than previously accomplished, it will be shown that much of the revisionists' interpretation and analysis on the subject of Dewey's stand on immigrants and assimilation has been inaccurate and misleading; that Dewey was not attempting to homogenize ethnic differences or destroy ethnic culture, to the contrary, he favored the preservation of cultural differences and ethnic variables. A caveat is necessary, however. The process of clarifying Dewey's views can only be begun here; a complete analysis of Dewey's position would require the construction of both a larger historical framework, permitting a more complete consideration of all of Dewey's statements in their proper context, and an analytical scheme to overcome possible language difficulties and complexities inherent in discussing the vague and ambiguous concept, assimilation. The task undertaken is limited to the presentation of enough of the available historical data to establish a prima facie case against the revisionist position. A Brief History Dewey's major statements concerning immigrants, which numbered fewer than a dozen, spanned the first two and one-half decades of this century (1902-1927) when immigration was at an all time high, over one million per year at the peak period, and the most crucial years of agitation for immigration restriction. (9) During this period many Americans were caught up in the various issues surrounding the central question of the proper treatment of immigrants, especially "new" immigrants from Southern and Western Europe. Many leaders of public opinion spoke out on the issues. To correctly portray the ideas of these spokesmen on various positions is a difficult task, but an important one. To avoid misleading statements, the historical context
68
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
in which Dewey's writings appeared, not isolated quotations, must be considered. MIorrisand Tesconi fail to do so. In their book, Anti-Man Culture, they link Theodore Roosevelt's and Dewey's positions on immigrant schooling. (10) Belying that linkage, however, is the fact that during the year from which Dewey's statement is quoted, supposedly in agreement with Roosevelt's position, Dewey attacks Roosevelt in the New Republic for his plans for the Americanization of immigrants. (11) A more complete historical review of the statements by each man shows both a vast difference in belief as to what "assimilation" should be and a different role for schooling not reported by Morris and Tesconi. The authors also err, in the opposite direction, by claiming that Jane Addams "took issue with his [Dewey's] view of the school relative to cultural difference." (12) The quotation they offer in support of this assertion is from a speech by Addams which is nearly identical, in many respects, to one given by Dewey, six years earlier, for the same organization, the National Education Association. (13) It is also in agreement with the position taken by Dewey in Schools of To-morrow, written seven years later with his daughter Evelyn, in 1915. (14) Finding Addams and Dewey in agreement on this point should not be surprising; the solution undertaken by Jane Addams at Hull House, to meet the problems she outlines in the speech quoted by Morris and Tesconi, was one which I)ewey helped to formulate. (15) These two examples show that with Dewey, as with any social theorist, the use of isolated quotations is a difficult and possibly misleading method for establishing his position on an issue. Additional illustrations of this point, with specific reference to other revisionist claims will be made following the presentation of a brief historical background. Dewey's first published statements indicating his attitude toward immigrants and their relationship to schooling are found in a speech given in July, 1902, at the National Education Association meeting in Minneapolis. The speech, an analysis of why the school should become a social center, as well as a place of instruction, clearly reflects most of Dewey's major ideas on education and the profound effect of Hull House in the formulation of Dewey's concept of the school. It is also one of his earliest statements on the problems of society and the school's role in solving them. Dewey recognized the assimilative function of the public schools, which they had been successfully performing, to him, through the transmission of knowledge and information. However, he felt that the new circumstances, causing drastic changes in society, required more of the schools: The power of the public schools to assimilate different races to our own institutions, through the education given to the younger generation, is doubtless one of the most remarkable exhibitions of vitality that the world has Spring 1975 69
ever seen. But, after all, it leaves the older generation still untouched; and the assimilation of the younger can hardly be complete or certain as long as the homes of the parents remain comparatively unaffected. Indeed, wise observers in both New York and Chicago have recently sounded a note of alarm. They have called attention to the fact that in some respects the children are too rapidly, I will not say Americanized, but too rapidly denationalized. They lose the positive and conservative value of their own native traditions, their own native music, art, and literature. They do not get complete initiation into the customs of their new country, and so are frequently left floating and unstable between the two. They even learn to despise the dress, bearing, habits, language, and beliefs of their parentsmany of which have more substance and worth than the superficial puttingon of the newly adopted habits. (16) Note that Dewey underscores the "positive and conservative value of the native traditions" of the immigrants. To preserve these traditions he proposes that the school become a social center serving the entire community, suggesting Hull House as a model. Dewey's concern over the use of schools as an agent in building a community feeling was an ongoing concern that extended to the end of Dewey's life. Thus, the goal of community is reflected in much of Dewey's writing on schooling and immigrants, as are his warnings against using the schools to force conceptions of community on various groups. His next published writings specifically on the immigrant question, during the war years, reflect a similar concern, as do many of his publications during the intervening years between 1902 and 1916, when his major statement on the methods of education for democracy and community, Democracy and Education, was published. However, this same theme, the question of the school's contribution to a democratic society, especially for minorities and immigrants, can be seen in a Dewey speech given years later, honoring Felix Adler. Adler was a colleague at Columbia University during this period and a leader in the cultural freedom movement. Dewey asked: Are we entirely free from that racial intolerance, so that we can pride ourselves upon having achieved a complete democracy? Our treatment of the Negroes, anti-Semitism, the growing (at least I fear it is growing) serious opposition to the alien immigrant within our gates, is I think, a sufficient answer to that question. Here, in relation to education, we have a problem: what are our schools doing to cultivate not merely passive toleration that will put up with people of different racial birth or different colored skin, but what are our schools doing positively and aggressively and constructively to cultivate understanding and goodwill which is an essential part of any real democratic society? (17) Dewey's reference to the treatment of immigrants in this speech, given during a time when anti-foreign attitudes in the United States reflected the
70
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
pressures of war in Europe, echoed those he had spoken twenty years earlier. In the years immediately preceding the First World War, the problems of immigration continued a pervading national interest reflected by various groups, although the mass of Americans was not actively involved. Until 1915, the public remained generally disinterested. In 1916, a participant observer described the dramatic change: With startling suddenness the effects flowing out of the war have brought to public attention aspects of immigration that heretofore have been regarded with unruffled complacency. It has consciously become all of a sudden of the very greatest importance to us as a nation that the immigrants whom we have welcomed into our society ... should be an integral part of that society and not foreign to it. We have found that our forces for assimilating this foreign element have not been working... (18) The culmination of the growth of public and private organization at the state and national levels and the increased visibility of immigrants, as the impact of the war spread, led to a crusade for Americanization. One of the earliest and most articulate of those to write in opposition to the Americanizers was Horace Kallen, an advisory editor to the Immigrants in America Review. In what Milton Gordon calls, "The classic statement of the cultural pluralistic position," Kallen challenges their views, rejecting Americanization proposals in theory and practice. (19) In his essay, ideas that were to appear later in Dewey's work can be seen, especially the idea of cultural nationality as distinctive from cultural nationalism. Dewey's response to Kallen's essay is a significant statement of Dewey's views on the subject of immigrants. In a letter to Kallen a month after the Nation articles appeared, Dewey said: I want to see this country American and that means the English tradition reduced to a strain along with others. It is convenient for "Americans" to put the blame of things they don't like on the "foreigners," but I don't believe that goes very deep; it is mostly irritation at some things they don't like and an unwillingness to go below the surface. I quite agree with your orchestra idea, but upon condition we really get a symphony and not a lot of different instruments playing simultaneously. I never did care for the melting pot metaphor, but genuine assimilation to one another-not to Anglo-saxondom-seems to be essential to an America. That each cultural section should maintain its distinctive literary and artistic traditions seems to be most desirable, but in order that it might have the more to contribute to others. I am not sure you mean more than this, but there seems to be an implication of segregation, geographical and otherwise. That we should recognize the segregation that undoubtedly exists is requisite, but in order that it may not be fastened upon us. (20)
Spring 1975
71
This letter is significant for two reasons. First, it is the only source in which Dewey comments directly on the theory of cultural pluralism, as Kallen or anyone else described it. (21) Second, Dewey points out an aspect of Kallen's plan he finds objectionable, the possibility that it is segregationist in a way that could lessen the interaction of cultures and thereby negate the contribution of one culture to another. One of Dewey's first war related writings, in the New Republic, was offered in response to demands for universal military training in the schools. He begins his argument against the concept by pointing out that it is a mistake to attempt to solve a problem in the schools by adding something to the existing structure, rather than making a fundamental change in the structure, if an inadequacy has been detected. He uses assimilation as an example: Just now we have discovered new defects and are having another addition to our educational scheme urged upon us. The defects are that our educational measures do not assimilate the foreign-born and that they do not develop public-mindedness, a sense of public service and responsibility. Some persons might think that the remedy is to improve our existing educational agencies and to make our existing public institutions-including government-more serviceable to the people so that they would arouse greater devotion. But no: let everything else be as it is, and let us add a new agency devised ad hoc. Let us have the school of universal and compulsory military service, and the trick is done. (22) Dewey then suggests that the views expressed by universal military training advocate, General Leonard Wood, a popular military figure and future Presidential aspirant, do not reflect a "true definition of America." He clearly rejects "cultivated New England provincialism" (Anglo-Saxonism) and the melting-pot: I will not even inquire whether inter-racialism is not a truer definition of America than that provided by even the most cultivated New England provincialism, or whether the melting pot is not itself traitorous to the American ideal. It is enough that there is a genuine intellectual and moral problem in connection with the heterogenously diversified factors in our population. But the problem is not to reduce them to an anonymous and drilled homogeneity, but to see to it that all get from one another the best that each strain has to offer from its own tradition and culture. (23) Within three months of his earlier attack on universal military service in the New Republic, Dewey and General Wood both addressed the General Session of the National Education Association.taking opposing stands. Dewey's speech, "Nationalizing Education," is the most often quoted source when scholars refer to Dewey's position on assimilation and produced a famous Dewey aphorism, "the hyphen in the hyphenated American must con-
72
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
nect, not separate." The central theme of the speech and an article published a little more than a year later in the Menorah Journal was the concept of nationality. For Dewey, education, primarily through the public school, must foster the positive aspects of nationalism and defeat the negative aspects. Positive nationalism had, "substituted a unity of feeling and aim, a freedom of intercourse, over wide areas, for earlier local isolations, suspicions, jealousies, and hatreds. It has forst men out of narrow sectionalisms into membership in a larger social unit, and created loyalty to a state which subordinates petty and selfish interests." (24) He then suggests two elements of nationalism that the public schools can "cultivate," the first bearing directly on his attitude toward American immigrant groups: ... the American nation is... composed of a multitude of peoples speaking various tongues, inheriting diverse traditions, cherishing varying ideals of life... which doubtless adds to the difficulty of getting a genuine unity. But it also immensely enriches the possibilities of the result to be attained .... our public schools shall teach each factor to respect every other, and shall take plains to enlighten all as to the great past contribution of every strain in our composite make up. (25) Thus, any Americanism which attempts to homogenize America is a traitor to American nationalism: I find that many who talk the loudest about the need of a supreme and unified Americanism of spirit really mean some special code or tradition to which they happen to be attacht... In thus measuring the scope of Americanism by some single element which enters into it they are themselves false to the spirit of America. (26) Hyphenism is to be welcomed, according to Dewey, in the sense "of extracting from each people its special good, so that it shall surrender into a common fund of wisdom and experience what it especially has to contribute." However, Dewey warns, there is a danger present were "each factor to isolate itself, to try to live off its past, and then to attempt to impose itself upon other elements, or, at least, to keep itself intact and thus refuse to accept what other cultures have to offer, so as thereby to be transmuted into authentic Americans." (27) Parts of this speech may leave a mixed impression about what Dewey was saying; however, when taken in conjunction with his Menorah Journal article, his position becomes clearer. Extending his earlier position, Dewey provides a clarification of his statement at the National Education Association with a similar warning of excess:
Spring 1975
73
The theory of the Melting Pot always gave me rather a pang. To maintain that all the constituent elements, geographical, racial and cultural in the United States should be put in the same pot and turned into a uniform and unchanging product is distasteful. The same feeling that leads us to recognize each other's individuality, to respect those elements of diversification in cultural traits which differentiate our national life. I hope that Chicago will never aim, for example, to become another New York; one New York is quite enough. Where there are many sorts of independent vigorous life, one provides nationality for interchange, for give and take of culture. If this is not carried to a point which prevents a flexible and easy give and take between groups, it stimulates the cultural creativeness of each group. So I believe that in any state of enduring organization for the future we must secure for each nationality an opportunity to cultivate its own distinctive individuality to the point where it does not become dangerous to the welfare of other people or groups. (28) Five months later, in early 1918, during a Washington's Birthday speech delivered at Smith College, Dewey restated his position on the importance of various nationalities in America, relating it to his war goals: But unless our contribution to the present world struggle is to be confined to military and economic force, it must be that we have an idea to contribute, an idea to be taken into account in the world reconstruction after the war. What are the important aspects of this idea? ..the American contribution is radical. We have solved the problem by a complete separation of nationality from citizenship. Not only have we separated the church from the state, but we have separated language, cultural traditions, all that is called a race, from the state-that is, from problems or political organization and power. To us language, literature, creed, group ways, national culture, are social rather than political, human rather than national, interests. (29) Dewey's final thoughts on immigrants, during the war, grew out of a study of Polish immigrants in Philadelphia. In his New Republic article, "Autocracy Under Cover," in which Dewey related some of his experiences from the study, Dewey points to the problems resulting from treatment he had warned against in the past: To know more [about the immigrant], to take the pains to be better informed, would involve overcoming the instinct which leads men to withdraw from the "foreigner." But it would also involve the inconvenience of assuming the responsibilities which knowledge and intercourse would bring. Igorance compensated for by well intentioned effort at "Americanization" is the easier course. And this course is so uncomprehending of causes and so concerned with superficial symptoms that it evokes the sort of response of which the following is typical: "After leaving us alone when we needed close contact with you, personal and human contact, a lot of you Americans are now
74
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
trying to get us to speak a jargon which is neither good English nor good native tongue, and to adopt the use of chewing gum and other American customs." This whimsical expression of the feeling that an attempt is made to impose external habits upon the immigrant instead of bringing about an association of equals and between equals is widespread. The situation of compartmental life that evokes it is the situation which too readily throws the more energetic and able of the immigrants into contact mainly with politicians and others who had something to gain. (30) When Dewey returned from China in 1921, he found the problems of postwar America similar to those he had left. In the period after the war, America exhibited a strongly reactionary mood. Wartime passions were not easily abated, especially those aimed at foreigners. Although the conflict had necessary reduced immigration by the sea, from Europe, it had not reduced the desire to immigrate. Within three years, the number of immigrants was approaching pre-war figures and conflicts between "natives" and immigrants escalated. In a speech to the Chinese Social and Political Science Association, Dewey recognizes the problems and offers a familiar analysis of them; but he is much less sanguine about their solution. He stresses the institutional economic and political factors which intensify the problem and make it less easily or speedily solved. As in 1916 and 1918, Dewey refers to the negative aspects of nationalism, as a source of difficulty, and calls for "internationalism and interracialism" to solve the problem. However, he does not hold up the United States as a working model as he did in the Smith College speech. Realizing that his "general considerations bring no consolation to individuals who have unjustly suffered... ," Dewey proposes a restriction of
immigration:
The simple fact of the case is that at present the world is not sufficiently civilized to permit close contact of peoples of widely different cultures without deplorable consequences. This deficiency of civilization is much more than a personal matter; it may be and is readily overcome in many individual cases. The deficiency extends to fundamental matters of social organisation, political and economic. The same causes that make it necessary, for example, for China to restrict the privileges of foreigners in China make it desirable, under present conditions for some western nations to erect barriers to free immigration. Mere unrestricted immigration and contact would at present only multiply causes of friction. This statement is not a defense of the causes which bring about the present state of affairs. They are to be condemned and altered. But nothing is gained and much will be lost by ignoring the deeper causes and aiming only at effects. The latter method only increases friction. (31) Commenting on several post war issues in a speech to the National Conference on Social Work in 1923, Dewey aligns himself with the forces favor-
Spring 1975
75
ing a restriction of the various moves to Americanize the immigrant. On "Americanization" he says, "We all know that many of us feel like blushing every time we hear the term 'Americanization,' because to such an extent the idea has been seized upon by certain groups as a means of forcing their own conceptions of American life upon other people." (32) He repeats this same general theme, four years later, in The Public and Its Problems: . . . the nature of the democratic idea . . . from the standpoint of the groups, .. demands liberation of the potentialities of members of a group in harmony with the interests and goods which are common. Since every individual is a member of many groups, this specification cannot be fulfilled except when different groups interact flexibly and fully in connection with other groups. (33) Prior to this quotation Dewey describes the conditions among America's immigrants which resulted from a social policy failure, recalling his 1902 speech. Assimilation "occurred so rapidly and ruthlessly that much of value has been lost which different people might have contributed. The creation of political unity has also promoted social and intellectual uniformity, a standardization favorable to mediocrity. Opinion has been regimented as well as outward behavior." (34) Later, in the same work, Dewey describes in hopeful terms, an ideal community arrangement: Unless local communal life can be restored, the public cannot adequately resolve its most urgent problem: to find and identify itself. But if it be reestablished, it will manifest a fullness, variety and freedom of possession and enjoyment of meanings and goods unknown in the contiguous associations of the past. For it will be alive and flexible as well as stable, responsive to the complex and world-wide scene in which it is enmeshed. While local, it will not be isolated. Its larger relationships will provide an inexhaustible and flowing fund of meanings upon which to draw, with assurance that its drafts will be honored.... Competition will continue, but it will be less rivalry for acquisition of material goods, and more an emulation of local groups to enrich direct experience with appreciatively enjoyed and intellectual artistic wealth. (35) Dewey's position remained basically consistent over the twenty-five year period in which he wrote on the question of the proper treatment of America's immigrants. Consider, for example, his most complete statement on the proper role of the school in dealing with diversity, in 1923, to the National Conference of Social Work. There he returns to themes that run through most of his writing on schooling and on immigrants, "the purpose of the public school is to concentrate upon the fundamental elements in the community of our national life." To achieve this end, Dewey proposes:
76
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
As we need a program and a platform for teaching genuine patriotism and a real sense of the public interests of our community, so clearly, we need a program of international friendship, amity, and good will. We need a curriculum in history, literature, and geography which will make the different racial elements in this country aware of what each has contributed and will create a mental attitude toward other people which will make it more difficult for the flames of hatred and suspicion to sweep over this country in the future, which indeed will make this impossible, because when children's minds are in the formative period we shall have fixed in them, through the medium of the schools, feelings of respect and friendliness for the other nations and peoples of the world. (36) Thus far in this paper, what has been accomplished is a recounting of some of the material that must be considered if accepted standards of historical scholarship are to be met in the consideration of Dewey's position on immigrant treatment. It is evidence, historical data, that when ignored by the revisionists, as much of it has been, significantly weakens their case against Dewey. By not considering it, they failed to meet their own standards, described this way, "the evidence with which the historian works must itself be validated by reason, logic, and empirical analysis. Context, internal consistency, cross-referencing, authenticity of documentation-all are tools with which the historian shapes and colors his picture of the past." (37) The remaining part of this essay will be devoted to a more exact documentation of their failure. (38) The Revisionists Dewey, according to Michael Katz, "Stands in the essay ["Katz was reviewing "Liberalism and the Quest for Orderly Change," Roots of Crisis] as a kind of Everyman, exemplifying the strengths and weaknesses of liberal thought and action." (39) The selective treatment accorded Dewey by the revisionists makes more important the accuracy of their statements about him. If their portrayal of Dewey is the product of shoddy scholarship, then their indictment of liberalism which stems from it must be examined very critically. On the subject of Dewey and immigrants, they are often inaccurate. (40) For example, as noted, Karier claims that "Dewey viewed ethnic and religious differences as a threat to the survival of society, to be overcome through assimilation." Dewey says the opposite, as quoted above, "The same feeling that leads us to recognize each other's individuality, to respect individuality between person and person, also leads us to respect those elements of diversification in cultural traits which differentiate our national life." He went on to say: The concept of uniformity and unanimity in culture is rather repellent;
Spring 1975 77
one cannot contemplate in imagination that every people in the world should talk Volapiik or Esperanto, that the same thoughts should be cultivated, the same beliefs, the same historical traditions, and the same ideals and aspirations for the future. Variety is the spice of life, and the richness and the attractiveness of social institutions depend upon cultural diversity among separate units. In so far as people are all alike, there is no give and take among them. And it is better to give and take. (41) In fact, as stated in the dicussion of his 1916 N.E.A. speech, he was willing to undergo some disunity to gain diversity: ... the American nation is ... composed of a multitude of peoples speaking various tongues, inheriting diverse traditions, cherishing varying ideals of life ... which doubtless adds to the difficulty of getting a genuine unity. But it also immensely enriches the possibilities of the result to be attained. (42) What exists in the above is a great disparity between what Dewey says and the interpretation of what he says. A disparity that cannot be explained away by suggesting that the Dewey quotation is out of context or not representative of Dewey's views. Nor can "living in a different world," actually or philosophically rationalize the disparity as the revisionist might suggest. The interpretation is incorrect. Equally questionable is the conclusion of Morris and Tesconi, who suggest clearly that Dewey favored the "melting pot." (43) Dewey wrote specifically rejecting the melting pot, as suggested above, questioning "whether the melting-pot is not itself traitorous to the American ideal." A different label is applied by Feinberg who speaks of Dewey's "overriding commitment to the American nation and to the process of Americanization," which includes "his belief in the established superiority of its culture." (44) Previously quoted Dewey remarks show the accuracy of Feinberg's charge of Dewey's commitment to America as well as the inaccuracy of his statement concerning cultural superiority. On the Americanization process for assimilating immigrants, Dewey says, as noted, "We all know that many of us feel like blushing every time we hear the term 'Americanization,' because to such an extent the idea has been seized upon by certain groups as a means of forcing their own conceptions of American life upon other people." Karier and Feinberg draw most of the support for their position on Dewey and the immigrant from one document, the Confidential Report: Conditions Among the Poles in the United States. (45) Although complete analysis of the document and the revisionists' interpretations of it is impossible here, a brief examination of several questionable claims made about the study suggests a possible weakness in their conclusions. Karier says, "We can, however, say that his [Dewey's] undercover seminar, studying the Polish people
78
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
in Philadelphia for the War Department, clearly illustrates some issues and problems which dogged the heels of America's 'best and brightest' throughout the century." (46) This statement is misleading for two reasons. Characterizing the seminar as "undercover" is unfair in that the group lived openly in a house in the Polish ghetto, conducted door to door interviews and Dewey publicly acknowledged the study, in the New Republic article, "Autocracy Under Cover," published just after the seminar ended, saying, "This idea has been made poignantly concrete through a study with which I have been associated in the last few months of a large Polish settlement in the city of Philadelphia. ..." (47) Also, there is no published evidence that the seminar was conducted, as Karier suggests, "for the War Department." Published accounts and unpublished documents indicate the project was begun as an academic exercise and that contacts with the government occurred three or four months after the seminar was planned. A second Karier position, that Dewey was attempting to "manipulate" the Polish immigrant, is more difficult to refute as it deals with an interpretation of the entire Polish report. (48) Although Karier is not clear as to what he means by "manipulation," it is clearly pejorative and appears to suggest trickery or secrecy in Dewey's proposals. As one of the major recommendations of the study is to appoint a fact finding commission of Americans to study the various issues involved in the relationship of the Polish immigrant to the war, it is difficult to understand the charge of "manipulation." Also, Dewey confesses a readiness and willingness to submit any part of the Report to cross-examination and tests for evidence. (49) In fact, Dewey describes a meeting, in which he confronts members of the conservative faction of the Polish movement with evidence of misleading insinuations against the Radical faction as an illustration of the need for open confrontation with evidence. (50) Karier's failure to explain how Dewey was trying to manipulate the situation makes the verification or refutation of his claim difficult. As Karier refers to Feinberg for documentation and elaboration on the Report, Feinberg's scholarship is important. He suggests that, "throughout the report Dewey is implicitly questioning the loyalty of the Polish citizen, and in two specific places he proposes a concrete test of that loyalty." (51) It is difficult to judge the accuracy of statements about Dewey's "implicit questioning." Explicitly, Dewey is clear. He says in the report, "There is not the slightest doubt that the great mass of Poles in this country, including those who are nominally following the Paderewski-Smulski leadership, are firmly convinced of the importance of American leadership in the war and peace policies regarding Poland." (52) More explicitly, Dewey says in the New Republic, "They [the Polish people in Philadelphia] are very patriotSpring 1975 79
ic; enthusiastic about the war, which they feel to be intimately their war." (53) Feinberg's interpretation of Dewey's implicit position does not reflect Dewey's explicit remarks. Feinberg also appears to be misleading in his discussion of Dewey's motives for writing the report. Dewey in describing the chronology of events on which he is going to report in the Polish study says: The Report begins with European conditions and then takes up American conditions as influenced thereby, and finally takes local, specific and immediate conditions among the Poles in America which have a bearing upon the disposition and morale of the Poles with respect to the war, in that they breed dissention and disturb the unity which is desirable for efficient prosecution of the war. (54) Feinberg quotes part of the last third of this statement to support his conclusion that "Dewey's major concern is... the effect on the American war effort...," which is clearly not what the full quotation indicates. (55) In closing, it should be made clear that I do not see Dewey as part of "a crusade by idealistic reformers whose motives were pure"; nor is this paper "written as apology and celebration" of Dewey, to continue Freeman Butts' description of earlier accounts of Progressive reform. (56) Dewey wrestled with the problems of social control and accepted it in some form, as anyone committed to education by the state, in the sense of schooling, must. Dewey said in 1902: We might as well frankly recognize that many of the old agencies for moralizing mankind, that kept men living decent, respectable, and orderly lives, are losing in efficiency-particularly those agencies whose force rested in custom, tradition, and unquestioning acceptance. It is impossible for society to remain purely a passive spectator in the midst of such a scene. It must search for other agencies with which it may repair the loss, and which may produce the results the former methods are failing to secure. (57) Nevertheless, the revisionist interpretation should not stand as "indictment and conviction" of Dewey, as it may, unless current scholarship is critically reviewed. (58) This paper provides that challenge in a spirit described by Clarence Karier in responding to another criticism of his work: ... ideas can be fairly tested only if they are accurately portrayed. The importance of criticism, I take it, is the life-blood of historical inquiry. If, however, that criticism is to serve the function of advancing inquiry, it ought to deal squarely with the issues as presented. (59) As suggested earlier, historians must not create a new myth in destroying the old, we come no closer to understanding the limitations (and strengths) of Dewey and liberal reform by misconstruing the record of the past. (60)
80
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
Notes 1. For a nearly complete record of comments and criticisms, see Jo Ann Boydston and Kathleen Poulos, Checklist of Writings About John Dewey: 1887-1973 (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974). I wish to thank the Center for Dewey Studies and Jo Ann Boydston for help in gathering the sources for this paper and Philip Smith and Ruth Simmons of The Ohio State University and Ron Goodenow of SUNY-Buffalo for critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper, which was read, in a slightly different version, at the combined National History of Education Society-Southern History of Education Society meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, 14-16 November 1974. Their commenting is not meant to imply their agreement with my position. 2. Richard LaBreque, "Pragmatism at the Crossroads," Studies in Philosophy and Education 8 (Winter 1974): 183. 3. I do not mean to suggest that those who have been labeled "revisionists" are in agreement on all issues; more correctly, they share conclusions about the deficiencies in American liberalism which have grown from a variety of individual perspectives on the history of American liberal thought and action. See Clarence Karier, Paul Violas and Joel Spring, eds., Roots of Crisis (Chicago, 1973); Walter Feinberg, "Progressive Education and Social Planning," Teachers College Record 73 (May 1972); Colin Greer, The Great School Legend (New York, 1972); Charles A. Tesconi, Jr., and Van Cleve Morris, The Anti-Man Culture: Bureautechnocracy and the Schools (Urbana, Illinois, 1972); also see Michael Katz, Class, Bureaucracy and Schools (New York, 1971), pp. 113-125, for a statement of aspects of the revisionist position. 4. See Barry Franklin, "Essay Review III: Education for Social Control," History of Education Quarterly 14 (Spring 1974): 131, for a discussion of the concept of "social control" in Roots of Crisis and Maxine Green, "Identities and Contours: An Approach to Educational History," Educational Researcher 2 (April 1973): 5. 5. Katz, Class,p. 118. 6. Karier, Roots, pp. 92, 93. 7. Greer, Great, pp. 78, 79. 8. Morris and Tesconi, Anti-Man, p. 143; italics in the original, "Bureautechnocracy," as defined by the authors (pp. 7, 161-162) includes many of the evils mentioned by revisionists in discussing "social control." 9. Dewey mentioned the immigrant problem in 1945, comparing events then to earlier times; see the "Introduction" to Peace and Bread in Time of War by Jane Addams (Boston, 1960). On the immigration question see Edward George Hartmann, The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant (New York, 1948); John Higham, Strangers in the Land (New York, 1965); Howard C. Hill, "The Americanization Movement," The American Journal of Sociology 24 (May 1919): 610, Roy L. Garis, Immigration Restriction (New York, 1927); Henry Beardsell Leonard, "The Open Gates: The Protest Against the Movement to Restrict European Immigration, 1896-1924" (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1967); Gerd Korman, Industrialization, Immigrants and Americanizers (Madison, Wisconsin, 1967).
Spring 1975
81
10. Morris and Tesconi, Anti-Man, pp. 140, 141. 11. John Dewey, "Universal Service as Education," New Republic 6 (22 April 1916): 95. 12. Morris and Tesconi, Anti-Man, p. 142. 13. Morris and Tesconi incorrectly footnote the Addams speech as being given in 1909; it was read in 1908. 14. John Dewey and Evelyn Dewey, Schools of To-morrow (New York, 1915), pp. 205-209. 15. Jane Addams, Twenty Yearsat Hull House (New York, 1960), pp. 236-237. 16. John Dewey, "The School as Social Center," Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association (1902): 37. 17. John Dewey, Democracy and Education in the World of Today (New York: Society for Ethical Culture, 1938), reprinted in John Dewey, Education Today, ed. Joseph Ratner (New York, 1940), p. 368. 18. Frank Julian Warne, The Tide of Immigration (New York, 1916), quoted in Higham, Strangers, p. 242. 19. Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Life (New York, 1964), p. 141. Kallen said, "And as intelligence and wisdom prevail over 'politics' and special interests, as the steady and continuous pressure of tlie 'inalienable' qualities and purposes of human groups more and more dominate the confusion of their common life, the outlines of a possible great and truly democratic commonwealth become discernible. Its form would be that of the federal republic; its substance a democracy of nationalities, cooperating voluntarily and autonomously through common institutions in the enterprise of self-realization through the perfection of men according to their kind. The common language of the commonwealth, the language of its great tradition, would be English, but each nationality would have for its emotional and involuntary life its own peculiar dialect or speech, its own individual and inevitable esthetic and intellectual forms. The political and economic life of the commonwealth is a single unit and serves as the foundation and background for the realization of the distinctive individuality of each natio that composes it and of the pooling of these in harmony above them all. Thus 'American civilzation' may come to mean the perfection of the cooperative harmonies of 'European civilization'-the waste, the squalor and the distress of Europe being eliminated-a multiplicity in a unity, an orchestration of mankind. As in an orchestra every type of instrument has its specific timbre and tonality, founded in its substance and form; as every type has its appropriate theme and melody in the whole symphony, so in society, each ethnic group may be the natural instrument, its temper and culture may be its theme and melody and the harmony and dissonances and discords of them all may make the symphony of civilization. With this difference: a musical symphony is written before it is played; in the symphony of civilization the playing is the writing, so that there is nothing so fixed and inevitable about its progressions as in music, so that within the limits set by nature and luck they may vary at will, and the range and variety of the harmonies may become wider and richer and more beautiful-or the reverse." From Horace Kallen, "Democracy Versus the Melting Pot," Nation 100 (18 and 25 February 1915): 220; reprinted in Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York, 1924), pp. 123-125. 20. John Dewey to Horace Kallen, 31 March (1915?), American Jewish Ar-
82
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
21. 22. 23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31.
chives, Box number 2493-2521; quoted with permission of the Center for Dewey Studies, Carbondale, Illinois. Underlining in the original. Sidney Hook reports that Dewey considered himself a "cultural pluralist" in "The Snare of Definitions," The Humanist 31 (September, October 1971): 11. John Dewey, "Universal Service as Education," New Republic 6 (22 and 29 April 1916); reprinted in John Dewey, Education Today, p. 92. Ibid., pp. 93, 94. Morris and Tesconi link Wood's and Roosevelt's positions, apparently not realizing that Dewey argued against Wood's position, which should have at least suggested possible disagreement between Dewey and Roosevelt. John Dewey, "Nationalizing Education," Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association (1916): 183. Ibid., pp. 184, 185. Ibid., p. 185. Ibid. Dewey repeats his fear of forced segregation mentioned in the Kallen letter. The Menorah Journal was dedicated to the aims and aspirations of the Menorah movement, i.e., the advancement of American Jewry and Hebraic culture. See "An Editorial Statement," The Menorah Journal 1 (January 1915): 1; John Dewey, "The Principle of Nationality," The Menorah Journal 3 (October 1917): 206. John Dewey, "America in the World," Nation 106 (14 March 1918), reprinted in Dewey, Charactersand Events, p. 643. John Dewey, "Autocracy Under Cover," New Republic 16 (24 August 1918): 104, 105. John Dewey, "Racial Prejudice and Friction," The Chinese Social and Political Science Review 6 (1921 or 1922): 14. In 1916 ("Nationalizing Education") Dewey
said, ". . . the American .
.
. is international
and interracial
. . ." (184);
32.
33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
39. 40.
in 1918 ("America in"), "We are truly interracial and international..." (644), hoping that America would provide a model for the post-war world. In this speech Dewey recognized, "The strain of the late war created a distinct hostility to immigrants.... a definite anti-foreign animus in America." (5) John Dewey, "Future Trends in the Development of Social Programs Through the Schools: The School as a Means of Developing a Social Consciousness and Social Ideals in Children," Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, Washington, May 16-23, 1923 (Chicago, 1923), p. 450. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (Chicago, 1954), p. 147. Ibid., p. 115. Ibid., pp. 216, 217. Dewey, "Future Trends," p. 452. Roots of Crisis, pp. 1,2. See for further evidence on other issues, Wayne J. Urban, "Revisionists and Liberals: A Critique of Roots of Crisis," a paper presented to the Southern History of Education Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 16 November 1973. Michael B. Katz, "Review of Roots of Crisis," Harvard Educational Review 43 (Fall 1973): 440, 441. The inaccuracies and misleading claims about Dewey are not limited to the subject of immigrants. For example, Colin Greer in The Great School Legend (p. 79) says, "The school was necessary ballast, especially as Dewey saw it, for the 'expert manipulation of men in masses for ends not clearly seen by them, but which they are led to believe are of great importance to them.'" Perhaps Greer did
Spring 1975
83
not check the original material carefully as his source for this quotation is apparently not Dewey but Karier quoting Dewey. I say "apparently" because Greer's source is an unpublished paper, which, when it appeared in a published form contained no such reference; however, another unpublished Karier paper, when it was published (Roots, 91), did contain the quotation. If the original article is review it is obvious that Dewey's statement as quoted out of context is misleading. Dewey rejects manipulation for attaining unclear ends and proposes, as might be expected, a clear statement of conditions and goals, ". . . [taking] the American people into confidence with respect to what has to be done and the ways of doing it." (John Dewey, "What America Will Fight For," New Republic 12 (15 August 1917): 69.) A second example comes from the Karier selection that Greer relied on. In a discu-sion of Dewey's uses of history in the Laboratory School, Karier says, "Dewey stated that 'historical material was subordinated to the maintenance of community or cooperative group in which each child was to participate.'" (Roots, p. 97.) Karier neglects to quote the first part of the sentence which changes the meaning significantly, as indicated by my underlining: . . . materials . . . etc., were used as resources in the creation and development of this immediate social life, and with the younger children-or until the social sense was linked to a sense for history as temporal sequence-'historical' material was subordinated to the maintenance of community or cooperative group in which each child was to participate. (Katherine Camp Mayhew and Anna Camp Edwards, The Dewey School.) (New York, 1966), p. 472. Karier is correct in questioning Dewey's use of history. But attempting to establish misuse by misquotation is to commit the error he is attacking, misusing the historical record. One page later Karier contends that Dewey relied on experts for social guidance. His substantiation for this contention provides another example of quoting out of context. The quotation he refers to speaks of the school putting various lines of work in charge of experts (Roots, p. 98). However, checking the source reveals that Dewey was speaking of expert teachers, teaching specialists, to teach specific subjects. Dewey was not speaking of experts in the sense Karier implies, he was not speaking of experts for social guidance. Since Feinberg also asserts that Dewey would rely on experts, although without any supporting quotations, it appears that this is an important element in the revisionist interpretation. ("Progressive Educators," p. 435). If it is, the record would be better served if they looked to Dewey's specific writing on the subject, rather than search for further obscure, out of context, references. In the Public and Its Problems, Dewey deals extensively with the use of experts in the formulation of social policy. His position is quite clear. It is not what the revisionists have suggested. A third example of the selective use of evidence quoted out of context occurs in Feinberg's article where he quotes Dewey's statement, "'In my judgment, this subordination of the state to the community is the great contribution of American life to the world's history.'" (p. 490.) He suggests that this quotation means that Dewey felt America had achieved the status of a great community in 1941. I would agree that if Dewey had made such a statement, without qualification, Feinberg could claim that Dewey accepted America as a Great Community and, given the conditions in 1941, it might follow that Dewey's goals were indeed, illiberal or conservative. America in 1941 was not what would generally be considered a model of the Great Community as Dewey described it
84
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
46.
47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.
elsewhere. However, Dewey was quoted out of context. In the next sentence Dewey says that, ".. . recent events have tended to obscure it [i.e., the great contribution of subordination of state to community]." (John Dewey, Problems of Men (New York: Philo'ophical Library, 1946), p. 374.) He goes on to describe why 1941 was not a time of the Great Community. In other words, he is saying the opposite of the out of context quotation provided by Feinberg. Dewey, The Principle, pp. 205, 206, emphasis in the original. Dewey, "Nationalizing," p. 184. Morris and Tesconi, Anti-Man, pp. 142, 143. Feinberg, "ProgressiveEducation," p. 495. An outgrowth of a study seminar in the Polish ghetto of Philadelphia, the Confidential Report: Conditions Among the Poles in the United States was a report written by Dewey for the Military Intelligence Bureau of the War Department. Dewey, in writing the report for the M.I.B. as well as sending copies to President Wilson and others hoped "to alter their policy in a more liberal direction," according to one participant in the study" (Brand Blandshard, Interview, Center for Dewey Studies, Carbondale, Illinois, p. 4). The revisionists describe the goal quite differently: Feinberg says, "Paramount in the report is a desire to keep the wheels of industry running, during the war and afterwards as well." (p. 494) Karier sees Dewey as "reporting how to effectively manipulate the Polish laborer in the national economic interest." (Roots, p. 21.) Clarence Karier, "A Revisionist's Response to Maxine Greene's 'Identities and Contours: An Approach to Educational History,'" (Unpublished paper, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, p. 9 (quoted with permission of the author). Dewey, "Autocracy,"p. 103. Karier, Roots, pp. 92, 107. Dewey, Confidential Report, p. 45. Ibid., pp. 41, 42. Feinberg, "ProgressiveEducation," p. 493. Dewey, Confidential Report, p. 45. Dewey, "Autocracy,"p. 103. Dewey, Confidential Report, p. 4. Feinberg, "ProgressiveEducation," p. 492. R. Freeman Butts, "Public Education and Political Community," History of Education Quarterly 14 (Summer 1974): 171. Dewey, "The School," p. 378. Phrase in quotes also from Butts' article. Karier, "A Revisionist's Response," p. 18. I speak of creating a new myth in the sense of accepting the revisionist position without suggesting its limitations or possible alternative explanations, especially at this time in the rewriting of Progressive history. See for example Walter P. Krolikowski's review of The Life and Mind of John Dewey, where he cites Feinberg and Karier to substantiate the claim that ". . . John Dewey: The advocate of decisions openly arrived at on the basis of evidence made public, because of the crisis he saw facing the United States, was willing, even eager, to engage in secretly cooperating with the government and, in the report on the Poles, to advocate political manipulation of a group he felt presented a threat to the nation's unity." (Mid-America 56 (January 1974): 71.)
Spring 1975
85