Bruce, Michael, and others interested in critical thinking and
democracy,
As much as I hate to leave Hegel and Dewey (maybe grist for
another thread), As Michael G notes, Addamsÿÿ position is very
much about reality, and yes, the Pullman strike was at the
heart of the conversation between Dewey and Addams that I am
referring to (described on pp. 312-315 of The Metaphysical
Club). In order to get a better sense of what Addams is
arguing, here are some of Deweyÿÿs quotes of what Addamsÿÿ said
in their conversation. (And let me add that I take Addams to
be arguing a point that is at the heart of Marxÿÿs idea of
Communism ÿÿ namely that it is possible for us to see the
interest of the whole of humanity as identical with the
interests of the individual):
Regarding Addamsÿÿ position that antagonism was always
unnecessary, Addams told Dewey that antagonisms never arose
from real objective differences ÿÿbut from a personÿÿs mixing in
his own personal reactionsÿÿthe extra emphasis he gave the
truth, the enjoyment he took in doing a thing because it was
unpalatable to others, or the feeling that one must show his
own colorsÿÿ
and as a practical, real-world example, Addams offers the
following: ÿÿwe freed the slaves by war & and had now to free
them all over again individually, & pay the costs of the war &
reckon with the added bitterness of the Southerner besideÿÿ
When Dewey pushed her with examples of capital and labor,
church and democracy [!], Addams insisted: ÿÿThe antagonism of
institutions was always unreal; it was simply due to the
injection of personal attitude & reaction; & then instead of
adding to the recognition of meaning, it delayed and distorted
it.ÿÿ
Despite that fact that Dewey notes that this was ÿÿthe most
magnificent exhibition of intellectual & moral faith I had
ever seenÿÿ, it still took some time for him to be convinced of
this.
As I understand her position, Addams is not saying that these
antagonisms are ÿÿinterpersonalÿÿ in the sense that the
individual people on one side donÿÿt like the individual people
on the other side (although that is often the case). It is
much more than that. The antagonism is intrapersonal ÿÿ it
speaks to oneÿÿs sense of who one is. And both sides of this
debate feel that they are the bearers of Truth and engaged in
a battle (a war?) with that which is UnTrue. (isnÿÿt this what
drives us as academics?).
Regarding this particular debate Bruce, Iÿÿm afraid that you
may have started off on the wrong foot if your desire is
indeed to get beyond antagonisms (and although it was clear
that you didnÿÿt agree with her methods, I wasnÿÿt clear how you
felt about the end goal of Addams ÿÿ getting beyond
antagonisms). If the goal is to have a dialogue with
creationists or intelligent design folks, it seems that it
would be better to start by actually talking to them rather
than starting with what the evolutionists say that
creationists say is the creationist position. If Addams has
anything to tell us, it is that when one side characterizes
the position of the other side, they will likely mis-construe
the other sideÿÿs position, thus furthering antagonism.
[Oddly, this fundamental drive for misunderstanding seems at
the core of much of what we academics do. When this type of
work is poorly done, such as by undergrads or young grad
students, we get frustrated with them on the grounds that they
are being polemical, not realizing that this is precisely what
we are doing ÿÿ only we do it much better. There is little
incentive in academia to say ÿÿthe other gal/guy has a point
with XYZÿÿ, itÿÿs always some variation of ÿÿIÿÿm right, sheÿÿs
wrongÿÿ (at least in every way that matters). This provides us
with the motivation to do what we do ÿÿ we do it not because of
the lavish salaries (HA!), but because we believe that we are
engaged in an endeavor that is fundamentally ÿÿrightÿÿ. It gives
us Worth.]
Just to take one phrase from the description of the book that
you reviewed (and please correct me if this misconstrues the
intent of the book ÿÿ no time to read the whole book!):
ÿÿWill Creationism Win the 2,500 Year War with Materialism and
Reason?ÿÿ
Here we are told that we are engaged in a ÿÿwarÿÿ with creationism?
I canÿÿt help but feel that this war is infused with the feel
of a ÿÿholyÿÿ war ÿÿ on both sides!
This is where Jayÿÿs concerns about the dogmatic faith in
evolutionism seem to really ring true.
What if we were to abandon this laced (implicative?) rhetoric
and let the arguments play themselves out? What if, instead of
focusing on the content of knowledge taught in our schools, we
were to focus on the process of knowledge-making and have that
process be THE core value of our educational system? This
takes us back to the suggestion by others that ÿÿcritical
thinkingÿÿ should be the core value (and I do wonder if there
arenÿÿt a collection of other core values that are necessary.
Martha Nussbaum suggests three: Socratic capacity for
self-criticism, understanding of onself as a part of a
heterogeneous nation, and a narrative imagination through
which one can imagine oneself in the shoes of another. But Iÿÿm
not sure Iÿÿm happy with that list either). If critical
thinking where the one thing that was taught in the schools,
then wouldn't the rest work itself out?
So, getting to where the rubber meets the road: open dialogue
and debate amongst adults is one thing, but I will admit that
it starts to get scary when one thinks about taking these
things seriously in the teaching of children. It is a scary
thought to imagine my children being taught things that I know
are wrong (whether by reason or by faith), but I think that my
role as a parent includes educating my children to think
critically (and if critical thinking were truly the core value
of education, then wrong things would last long in the
schools). But maybe it is even scarier to think about other
peopleÿÿs children being taught things that I know are wrong
since I know that many parents in the US today do not talk to
their children (and letÿÿs be honest ÿÿ having time to regularly
be able to talk to oneÿÿs children is a very bourgeois thing).
I think at bottom of this discussion is a question about faith
in humanity and faith in reason. Do you have sufficient faith
in people to set them free to intensively engage with ideas
that might be wrong? I think Hegel (and Marx) and Dewey are
relevant here precisely because they all seem to have this
kind of faith in humanity and in reason (and even in
history!), but maybe they were wrong to do so (and certainly
the facts of Hitlerÿÿs Germany should give us pause regarding
optimism about humanity and reason).
One point where I feel I may be too optimistic is regarding
the possibility that people will actually talk to each other
(parents to children, Evangelicals to aethists, citizens to
citizens). It seems more and more the case that the sort of
conversation that would be necessary may be one of the most
serious casualties of late modern capitalism which involves a
splitting off of us one from another into neatly targetable
niche markets (the modern day version of Marxÿÿs alienation
from species being ÿÿ an alienation of man from man), and this
troubles me much more than whether my kids will be taught
intelligent design in school (no worries that this will happen
here in Hyde Park, though!).
-greg
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:02:16 -0000
From: "Bruce Robinson" <bruce@brucerob.eu>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Jane Addams, Dewey, and the (Hegelian)
dialectic -
upside down
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <96F009BDCA2E4327BB5013828A410DAD@BRUCEROBINSOPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Greg,
Leaving Hegel and Dewey aside for now, maybe we should return
to the real
world and ask whether "all antagonisms are unreal"? For me,
most serious
social antagonisms (not things such as bad interpersonal
relations) have a
basis in real material relations and are not reconcilable at
the level of
who has the best rhetorical or moral argument, though that
may affect the
eventual outcome.
Putting it in terms of the evolutionist / creationist debate,
what might a
compromise look like? Would it be just a little bit
creationist? Is a
meaningful dialogue between superstition and science
possible? I've just
written a short review of 'Critique of Intelligent Design:
Materialism
versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present' by John
Bellamy Foster,
Brett Clark, and Richard York. They make the point that no
compromise which
advocates two non-overlapping spheres of science and religion
(as advocated
by Steven Jay Gould and moderate religious evolutionists) is
acceptable to
the creationists as they recognise that once science is
allowed to define
its own sway, god can only be reduced to an ever smaller role
ending up with
pantheistic or 'final cause' positions. As they also point
out, the conflict
between materialism and creationism is over 2,000 years old
and is hardly a
question of misunderstandings.
Bruce R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Allan Thompson" <gathomps@uchicago.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:12 AM
Subject: [xmca] Jane Addams, Dewey, and the (Hegelian)
dialectic - upside
down
I continue to be fascinated by the possibilities of Jane
Addamsâÿÿÿÿ description of the unreality of antagonisms.
To recap her point (apologies for the duplication):
Addams saw all antagonisms as unreal. Dewey found this
difficult to understand since he had understood the Hegelian
dialectic as a series of antagonisms that are resolved through
reconciliation. But following a long conversation with Addams,
Dewey wrote: "I can see that I have always been interpreting
the [Hegelian] dialectic wrong end up, the unity as the
reconciliation of the opposites, instead of the opposites as
the unity in its growth, and thus translated the physical
tension into a moral thing" and then he notes "I don't know as
I give the reality of this at all-- it seems so natural and
commonplace now, but I never had anything take hold of me so."
Following Addams' position that all antagonisms are unreal, it
seems that the hindrance to progress in a conflictual issue is
the domination of one side over the other (whether by war or
by court or something else). In this antagonistic pitting of
one against the other, both positions become entrenched and
there is no possibility of the opposites growing into the
unity - of "aufgehoben" to use Hegelâÿÿÿÿs term. As Jay
notes, the
evolutionists accept evolutionary theory as dogma while the
anti-evolutionists, well, it seems to go without saying what
their dogma is. What I take to be the Addams-ian argument is
that if both of these two positions were set free of their
dogmas and allowed to engage in civil conversation, then a
true aufgehoben could be possible, a sublation of both
positions that would simultaneously negate and bring forward
something of each.
Take, for example, the evolutionist/creationist tension,
although educational policies have changed dramatically since
the 1926 Scopes trial, the central opposition still exists.
This courtroom battle was one that, as with all battles, did
not resolve the contradiction. Rather, it was a victory by
fiat of the courts. As a result, there was no sublation of the
opposing sides, and instead the two sides remain. Half of the
problem here can be located on the side of the winners who
took (and continue to take) this as evidence of
âÿÿÿÿprogressâÿÿÿÿ and
âÿÿÿÿtruthâÿÿÿÿ in contradiction to those âÿÿÿÿbackwardsâÿÿÿÿ and
âÿÿÿÿignorantâÿÿÿÿ
people on the other side, and half of the problem certainly
rests on the other side. This contradiction becomes realized
in interpersonal terms âÿÿÿÿ personal attacks, both implicit and
explicit, of one side to the other âÿÿÿÿ the result of which is
the recalcitration and polarization of each side. In fact,
these interpersonal processes lead to hyper-polarization of
positions because each time there is an attack from one side
to the other, the side receiving the blow circles the wagons,
battens down the hatches (sorry for the mixed metaphor âÿÿÿÿ both
seemed appropriate), and engages in intensive discursive work
to justify and further elaborate their position and their
life-world to their own group and eventually to others. [at
the heart of the problem I've outlined is a failure of
*recognition* of those on the opposing side, and the result is
continued struggle, and even the expansion of struggle]
At these times, one can see the power of the group working on
individuals when the group comes together in some form (as I
mentioned these are increasingly mass mediated âÿÿÿÿ esp. of the
Foxnews variety but also of the âÿÿÿÿprayercastâÿÿÿÿ variety).
These
moments of group feeling (collective effervescence) are
powerful instantiators of identity and thus serve as
motivation for further action in that these collective moments
serve to âÿÿÿÿcharge upâÿÿÿÿ the signs and symbols of oneâÿÿÿÿs
own party
with sacred energies of âÿÿÿÿtruthâÿÿÿÿ, âÿÿÿÿjusticeâÿÿÿÿ, and
âÿÿÿÿthe goodâÿÿÿÿ,
and simultaneously cast the opposition as âÿÿÿÿfalseâÿÿÿÿ,
âÿÿÿÿunjustâÿÿÿÿ,
and âÿÿÿÿevilâÿÿÿÿ, and those on the other side are either
laughed at
(as with Foxnews or MSNBC) or pitied (as with the prayercast).
The Addams-ian solution to this problem would be to begin a
civil conversation about these issues. The real difficulty is
to determine the conditions of what such a conversation would
look like and how it could be civilized (Iâÿÿÿÿm not convinced
that Habermas has quite got this figured out, but it seems
like a start; and equally Honneth's emphasis on recognition is
also of critical importance). This may seem a bit
Pollyanna-ish, but I think that even if you can convince one
side of the conversation to commit to the ideal, then you can
make a true civil conversation happen. If Gandhi could do it
with such a violent and domineering interlocutor as the
British, then couldnâÿÿÿÿt we imagine such non-violent action at
the level of discourse when engaging with the considerably
less violent (but possibly no less domineering) interlocutor
of The Evangelical? And can we imagine doing it not just as a
rhetorical strategy to win in the end but because we actually
respect those persons and the life worlds and life projects
that they are engaged in?
What do you think, does this continue to sound too optimistic?
-greg
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Greg Thompson
Ph.D. Candidate
The Department of Comparative Human Development
The University of Chicago_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca