Search

Against the background of the Deweyan tradition of "Democracy and Education," we discuss problems of complexity and reductionism in education and educational philosophy. First, we investigate some of Dewey's own criticisms of reductionist tendencies in the educational traditions, theories, and practices of his time. Secondly, we explore some important cases of reductionism in the educational debates of our own day and argue that a similar criticism in behalf of democracy and education is appropriate and can easily be based on Deweyan terms. Thirdly, we draw some more general conclusions about complexity and reductionism as challenges for democracy and education. Among other things, we argue that powerful social tendencies of capitalist competition and social Darwinism support reductionisms in education and put the democratic project at risk. The tensional relation between democracy and capitalism constitutes a major challenge for educational philosophy in our own time as much as in Dewey's.

Education is ubiquitous and inevitable; schooling is an institutionalized activity usually confined to designated times and places. Public schooling is subject to public regulation and control, presumably for the common good. The author contends that true democratic education seeks educational equality as a way to educate individuals capable of criticizing and recreating society--not simply reproducing the status quo. Surprisingly, many of the author's student teachers find the notion of creative democracy puzzling. They assume their democracy is complete and only requires preserving. This essay arises out of the author's efforts to reply to their perplexity. The author stresses that educators must assail the very idea of one-size-fits-all standards as a vehicle for educational equality in a democratic society, especially in such a society's public school system. He argues that equality is the antithesis of sameness, at least in the sense of democratic equality, or what Dewey sometimes calls "moral equality." Democratic moral equality celebrates incommensurably unique, one-time-only qualitative individuality. When people interpret equality in terms of quantitative sameness and one-size-fits-all standards, it destroys democratic moral equality while corrupting the ideal of equality of educational opportunity. (Contains 4 notes.)

This is the third of four essays discussing John Dewey's short essay, "Education as engineering", placing the essay into its historical context while also hinting at contemporary connections. This essay aims to show that one must not take the term "engineering" in a narrow, technical sense. Dewey was concerned with how the beliefs and values of unreflective, customary thinking about education not only controls and limits and serious educational reform, but also the patterns of educational research carryied out. Because all inquiry is theory and value-laden, "objectivity" in educational research depends on acknowledging the beliefs and values that are assumed in inquiry.

My paper concentrates on Peirce's late essay, "Issues of Pragmaticism," which identifies "critical common-sensism" and Scotistic realism as the two primary products of pragmaticism. I argue that the doctrines of Peirce's critical common-sensism provide a host of commendable curricular objectives for democratic "Bildung". The second half of my paper explores Peirce's Scotistic realism. I argue that Peirce eventually returned to Aristotelian intuitions that led him to a more robust realism. I focus on the development of signs from the vague and indeterminate to the determinate and universal. The primary example will be the evolution of the very idea of number. I believe we will never arrive at the end of number history because we can never fully contain creativity. I draw similar conclusions for the idea of curriculum. Whether or not there is an end to the evolution of signs in Peirce is a matter of debate. I incline toward the opinion there is not, though I am unsure. I conclude by arguing that rationality itself is but the form and structure of poetic creation and that we should embrace paradox and even contradiction rather that become caught in totalizing and totalitarian end of history stories.

This article presents the author's response to critiques of his essay titled "Individuality, Equality, and Creative Democracy--the Task Before Us." In his essay, the author has started sculpting short polemical pieces that purposefully overstate his case as a way of disrupting dominant educational discourses rather than arguing against them. Quantitative standardization and quantitative sameness are two such instances. Participating in dialogues allows readers to draw their own individual conclusions so they may contribute their own unique perspectives to the ongoing education dialogue about these issues. His respondents have served readers much to think about.