...What
follows now is an apparent quarrel between Russell and Dewey, which has to do
with how the former assesses the latter in the socio-economic context of an
emerging American industrialism, condemned, as we know, by Adorno, Marcuse, and
many others. I doubt that Russell was totally unaware of the implications of
his identification of Dewey with what has thus been condemned as a highly
negative phenomenon, therefore his surprised reaction to Dewey’s alleged
overreaction may have been not a little bit disingenuous. But the following two
paragraphs from Russell’s Dewey chapter are so wonderfully revealing, in
the context of this section’s Americana theme, that I have no choice
here but to quote them in full:
Throughout this book [History
of Western Philosophy] I have sought, where possible, to connect philosophies with
the social environment of the philosophers concerned. It seemed to me that the
belief in human power, and the unwillingness to admit stubborn facts, were
connected with the hopefulness engendered by machine production and the
scientific manipulation of our physical environment. This view is shared by
many of Dr. Dewey’s supporters. Thus George Raymond Geiger in a laudatory essay
says that Dewey’s method “means a revolution in thought just as middle-class
and unspectacular, but just as stupendous as the revolution in industry a
century ago.” It seemed to me that I was saying the same thing when
I wrote: “Dr. Dewey has an outlook, which is in harmony with the age of
industrialism and of collective enterprise. It is natural that his strongest
appeal should be to Americans, and also that he should be almost equally appreciated
among the progressive elements in countries like China and Mexico.” (Honestly,
I can sense an element of British-superiority sarcasm in Russell’s last
sentence, and I am not at all surprised that Dewey took offense.)
To my regret and surprise, this statement, that I had supposed
completely innocuous, vexed Dr. Dewey who replied: “Mr. Russell’s (observe the academically disrespectful Mr. in
Dewey’s ‘title’ for Russell: he knows how to return an insult!) confirmed habit of connecting the pragmatic theory of
knowing with obnoxious aspects of American industrialism is much as if I were
to link his philosophy to the interests of the English landed aristocracy.”
Was
Bertrand Russell right about John Dewey, at the top of this last argument? Sure
he was. Dewey was not some ivory-tower egocentric meditator. He was a
preeminent social activist of his era, and a very successful one, at that. A free
society may allow a person to say whatever he wishes to say, but it does not
necessarily adopt his (or her) ideas on the national level. In Dr. Dewey’s
case, America embraced him wholeheartedly, not only on the domestic social
scene, but also in foreign policy, which acquired an unmistakable quality of
Dewey-esque pragmatism. Thus, to deny a direct and mutually rewarding
connection between a successful social activist and the society that has
ensured his success would be disingenuous.
Was
John Dewey right about Bertrand Russell? No, his retort was argumentative, but
hardly as legitimate as the comment that sent the ball rolling in the first
place. Russell, like Dewey, was a political activist, but his activism was
oppositionist, rather than conformist. Naturally, he was not successful with
his pacifism, and such, and although his political views had many supporters in
England, English landed aristocracy was hardly on his bandwagon as a rule, as
opposed to exception…
But,
anyway, this is an entry on Dewey, and not on Russell, and in so far as this
fact is concerned, I think that its limited purpose has amply been served. I
repeat that this was only a beginning of our conversation about Dr. John Dewey.
He will be featured fairly prominently in my philosophical sections.
No comments:
Post a Comment