John Dewey defines character, dispositions, and virtues as
interrelated functions of habit, which he views not as mindless repetition but as active, socially-shaped forces that constitute the self. He relates these to social roles, arguing that moral obligations arise naturally from role relationships necessary for society's existence. Definitions and Tracking
- Character as Habit: Dewey defines character as the "interpenetration of habits". It is the enduring, organized system of an individual's tendencies to act, which both shapes and is shaped by their environment.
- Dispositions: These are specific "tendencies to act" or "active predispositions to response". A disposition is effectively "potential energy" that becomes kinetic when given the opportunity.
- Virtues: For Dewey, virtues are dispositions that possess three specific qualities:
- Whole-heartedness: Total commitment to the action.
- Continuity and Persistence: Reliability over time.
- Impartiality: The tendency to treat all interests with an "even measure of value".
- Tracking Character: Dewey "tracks" character through the observation of conduct in social contexts. Because habits are subconscious, character is revealed through the unintended consequences of an agent's actions and the spontaneous praise or blame they receive from others.
Relation to Social Roles
Dewey’s moral philosophy is often categorized as a "pragmatist role ethics". He believes:
- Role-Based Obligations: Moral duties are not abstract laws but are constitutive of role relationships (e.g., parent, citizen, worker).
- Role Enactment: Acting morally is the "enactment of a role" in pursuit of a praiseworthy interest. When we choose how to perform a role, we are choosing the sort of person we want to become.
- Social Training: Social institutions (roles) are the primary sources of habits; individuals must acquire habits that conform to the collective habits or customs of their social group.
Summary of Interconnection
| Concept |
|---|
| Dewey's Definition | |
|---|---|
| Character | The unified system of interpenetrating habits that constitutes the moral self. |
| Disposition | An acquired tendency or "potential energy" to act in a certain way. |
| Virtue | A disposition that is whole-hearted, persistent, and impartial. |
| Role | The social framework where these habits are enacted and judged by the community. |
To help you apply this, I can create a comparative chart showing how Dewey's definitions differ from traditional Aristotelian or Kantian ethics—specifically focusing on how he replaces "fixed rules" with "social intelligence." Should we explore that comparison?
ME:
I don't see anything on roles in Human nature and conduct, but later on I believe he brought some of Mead's work into his own starting a few years later ini Experience and Nature (1925 3 years after Human nature and condduct (1922). It may appear (from memory) on his chapter on symbolic communication in which he takes in Mead's theory of internalization to explain how we are socialized, which involves role-taking. Please check if I'm correct
You are essentially correct: while John Dewey’s
Human Nature and conduct
(1922) focuses heavily on habits as the building blocks of character, it is in EXP & Nature
(1925) and subsequent works that he explicitly integrates George Herbert Mead’s theories of social communication and role-taking to explain the emergence of the self. 1. Shift from Habit to Social Communication
In Human Nature and Conduct,
Dewey defines character as the "interpenetration of habits". However,
critics like Mead argued that this account was "sketchy" because it
didn't fully explain how a self-conscious individual emerges from these
habits.
- The Transition (1925): In Chapter 5 of Experience and Nature, Dewey moves from a focus on individual biological habits to symbolic communication.
- The Influence of Mead: Dewey adopts Mead’s idea that "mind" is not an internal substance but a social process. He describes how individuals become self-conscious by "internalizing" the responses of others—a direct nod to Mead’s theory of the "generalized other".
2. Role-Taking and Internalization
Your
memory of the "symbolic communication" chapter is accurate. Dewey uses
these concepts to bridge the gap between biological impulse and social
morality:
- Communication as Role-Taking: Dewey argues that language is the tool that allows an individual to "take the role of the other". By using symbols, an agent can anticipate how another person will react to their actions.
- Internalization of Roles: Through this process, social roles are not just external masks but become internalized as part of the self. The "Me" (the socialized aspect of the self) is formed by taking on the attitudes and expectations associated with various social roles (e.g., citizen, parent, friend).
3. Relation to Character and Virtue
Once Dewey incorporates Mead’s role-taking, his definition of character becomes more robust:
- Character as Social Coordination: Character is no longer just a set of private habits; it is the ability to coordinate one's actions with the expectations of the social group.
- Virtues as Role-Competencies: In this framework, virtues are the "effective dispositions" that allow a person to fulfill their social roles successfully while remaining open to growth and change.
| Book |
|---|
| Primary Focus | Role of Socialization | |
|---|---|---|
| Human Nature and Conduct (1922) | Habit and Impulse | Social environment shapes habits, but the mechanism of "self-creation" is less detailed. |
| Experience and Nature (1925) | Communication and Meaning | The self emerges through symbolic interaction and taking the role of the other. |
To see how this evolution changed Dewey's practical advice on education, I can look at a summary of how he redesigned curricula to foster "role-taking" skills in children—moving beyond rote learning to social intelligence. Would you like to see those specific educational applications?
ME:In 1922 , Dewey fails to explain just how various habits and dispositions
"hang together" or "interpenetrate yielding a unity" (albeit a unity in flux, ever responsive to and feeding back on environmental conditions within and around us.) He is aware that virtues are only contingently related to felicitous outcomes and are not "causes" of success as such. He even notes that the vice of "egomania and a thirst for glory and power" can lead to actions which "satisfies crying social needs" , while putative virtues may not get us anywhere in given cases due to a plethora of frustrating conditions. Thus , he also refuse to cleanly separate virtue and vices in any absolute way. "We are too inclined to wholesale judgments of character, dividing men into goats an dsheep, instead of recognizing that all character is speckled, and that the problem of moral judgment is one of discriminating the complex of acts and habits into tendencies which are to be *specificall* cultivated and condemned. We need to study consequences more thorougyly and keep track of them more continuously before aw can passs reasonable judment s upon the good an devil in dispositions or results. " But there is never an exact equation of dispostion and outcome, and the role of accident is ineradicable , he also mentions luck (c.f. moral luck). "We can't go beyond tendencies. It is the trend or recurring pattern we should focus on, ando which connects virtues AND ideal ends (we hold in imagination) and particular outcomes seen over time, and across conditions "probable effects of habits in the long term." Dispostions and habits also incorporate environmental conditions including education and values. These can inform dispositions even when outcomes don't allow their realization in given cases (Active Idealism). BUT IN 1922 THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF HOW DISPOSITIONS, TENDENCIES AND VIRTUES HANG TOGETHER IN SOMETHING CALLED "CHARACTER" WHICH APPEARS TO BE DESCRIBED AS AN AGGREGATE OF OUR TENDENCIES AS INTERRELATED IN ONGOING BEHAVIORS. IS THAT ACCURATE REGARDING HUMAN NATURE AND CONDUCT?
REPLY:Your assessment is highly accurate. In
Human Nature and Conduct (1922), Dewey describes character as the "interpenetration of habits", but he struggles to explain the exact mechanism that achieves this "unity in flux" without lapsing into a mere aggregation. 1. The 1922 Definition: Character as Interpenetration
You are correct that in 1922, Dewey views character as a "trend or recurring pattern" of habits.
- The "Hanging Together" Problem: Dewey asserts that habits are not isolated silos; they "interpenetrate". However, he does not yet have a robust sociological mechanism to explain how a "self" emerges from this web. Character is effectively the cumulative sum of these interacting habits as they respond to the environment.
- Active Idealism and Luck: As you noted, Dewey emphasizes that "virtues" are tendencies rather than guaranteed causes of success. Because outcomes are subject to "accident" and environmental friction, character is "speckled" rather than monolithic.
2. The 1925 Shift: Integrating Mead
Your memory regarding the 1925 shift in Experience and Nature is precise. Dewey recognized the "sketchiness" of his earlier habit-based model and integrated George Herbert Mead’s social psychology to provide the missing "unity".
- Symbolic Communication: In Chapter 5 of Experience and Nature, Dewey adopts Mead’s view that the "self" is a social product.
- Role-Taking: Unity is achieved not just through "interpenetrating habits" but through the process of taking the role of the other. By internalizing the community's perspective (the "generalized other"), an individual can view their own habits as a unified whole.
- From Aggregate to Self-Consciousness: Communication allows the individual to "see" their own character from the outside. This social mirror provides the "internalization" necessary to transform an aggregate of habits into a self-conscious, moral agent.
Summary of the Evolution
| Feature |
|---|
| Human Nature and Conduct (1922) | Experience and Nature (1925) | |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Unity | Internal "interpenetration" of habits. | Social communication and "role-taking." |
| Character | An aggregate/trend of tendencies in flux. | A social self formed by internalizing others' responses. |
| Virtue | Persistent, whole-hearted tendencies. | Dispositions coordinated with social roles and expectations. |
| Mechanism | Biological and cultural "habituation." | Symbolic interaction and role enactment. |
To further explore this, I can provide a breakdown of the specific passages where Dewey credits the "social environment" for self-unification, contrasting his 1922 "habit" focus with his 1925 "meaning" focus. Would you like to see that textual comparison?
H N & Conduct
(1922), character is essentially a "summary name" for the ongoing,
ever-shifting interaction of habits. It lacks a formal "center" or
"unifier." By 1925, Dewey explicitly uses social communication as the mechanism that integrates these "speckled" tendencies into a self-conscious unity. The following textual and conceptual comparison highlights this evolution:
1. The 1922 "Habit-Aggregate" Model
In Human Nature and Conduct, Dewey is adamant that character is not a hidden core but the visible trend of one's actions.
- Definition of Character: He calls it the "interpenetration of habits". If a person is "honestly industrious," their habit of honesty and their habit of industry modify each other.
- The Unity Problem: As you noted, Dewey admits that "division of character" (or inconsistency) is common because our various habits are formed in response to different, often disconnected, environmental triggers (e.g., a person is honest at home but ruthless at work).
- Active Idealism and Luck: He explicitly rejects the idea that virtues are "causes" of success. Instead, virtues are "working adaptations" between personal capacity and "environing forces". Luck and "accident" remain ineradicable because a habit is only a tendency toward a result, not a guarantee.
2. The 1925 "Communicative Self" Model
In Chapter 5 of Experience and Nature, Dewey moves from "habit" to "meaning" to explain how the self achieves unity.
- The Unifier: Symbolic Communication: Dewey adopts Mead’s idea that "mind" and "self" emerge through language. By using symbols, we don't just act; we mean something by our acts.
- Role-Taking:
This is the "missing link" you identified. Dewey argues that through
communication, an individual "takes the role of the other". This allows
the individual to:
- Objectify the Self: View their own "speckled" habits from the community's perspective.
- Internalize Social Values: Move from merely reacting to environmental triggers to acting according to shared social meanings.
- Unity through "The Me": The unity of character is no longer just a biological "interpenetration" but a social coordination. The "Me" (the social self) provides the center around which habits are organized to fulfill social roles.
Key Differences Summary
| Feature |
|---|
| Human Nature and Conduct (1922) | Experience and Nature (1925) | |
|---|---|---|
| Core Concept | Habit (Action-oriented) | Meaning/Communication (Reflection-oriented) |
| Character Unity | An "aggregate" or "trend" of interpenetrating habits. | A self-conscious "unity" formed by taking the role of the other. |
| Social Aspect | The environment as a "trigger" for habits. | The social group as the source of "shared meanings". |
| Moral Luck | Acknowledged as the gap between "tendency" and "outcome". | Managed by shifting focus from results to "shared responsibility". |
Since you've identified this specific shift toward Mead's "role-taking," I can look into how Dewey's later works (like The Public and its Problems) use this "communicative self" to define the duties of a citizen. Would you like to see how his "role ethics" specifically informs his theory of democracy?
ME:BTW, there IS a discussion of Active Idealism in Quest for Certainty, 1929, he may rehearse his theory of ethics including virtue/s there, prior to 1932. Can you check?
REPLY:In
THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY
(1929), John Dewey does indeed revisit the concepts of Active Idealism and virtues,
serving as a vital bridge between his earlier focus on habits (1922)
and the later social unification theory found in the 1932 Ethics. 1. Active Idealism in 1929
In The Quest for Certainty, Dewey uses the term "Active Idealism" to critique the traditional search for absolute, fixed truths.
- Idealism as Practice: He defines it not as a belief in a transcendent world, but as the "active pursuit of value" within the world.
- The "Tentative" Ideal: He argues that ideals are not "fixed ends" but are "plans for practical action". They are tools we use to navigate an uncertain world, where outcomes are never guaranteed by the purity of our intentions.
2. Virtues as "Qualities of Intelligence"
While The Quest for Certainty is primarily an epistemological work, it contains a significant discussion of what Dewey calls the virtues of intelligence. This is where he begins to pivot from viewing virtues merely as "interpenetrating habits" to viewing them as the necessary dispositions for effective inquiry:
- Specific Virtues Named: He explicitly names "wide sympathy, keen sensitiveness, persistence in the face of the disagreeable, and balance of interests" as virtues required for intelligent conduct.
- Virtues as Probabilities: He maintains that these are "tendencies" that do not guarantee success but provide the most "precautionary probability" in a world of flux.
- The Link to Roles: By framing virtues as necessary for inquiry, he begins to connect them to the social role of the investigator or citizen. The "unit" of character starts to be defined by the role of the problem-solver rather than just a collection of biological habits.
3. Comparison of Virtue Definitions
| Concept |
|---|
| Human Nature & Conduct (1922) | Quest for Certainty (1929) | |
|---|---|---|
| Virtue | Interpenetrating, reliable habits. | Dispositions that facilitate "intelligent inquiry". |
| Outcome | Contingent on "luck" and environment. | A "precarious probability" based on action. |
| Idealism | Persistent effort despite failure. | Active Idealism: Pursuing values as experimental hypotheses. |
| Unity | An aggregate/trend of tendencies. | The coordination of action and meaning through inquiry. |
By 1929, Dewey has moved past the "habit-aggregate" of 1922 by making intelligence
the central unifier. Character "hangs together" because the individual
must coordinate all their habits toward the goal of resolving a
specific, shared social problem.
To see this in practice, I can provide a breakdown of Dewey's "experimental method" for testing virtues in social contexts, such as how he suggests we "test" the virtue of honesty in a corrupt workplace role.
ME:In 1932 Dewey (with Tufts) significantly revises his Ethics in a new book on the topic, as you note, incorporating The Social Self (first introduced in Exp. and Nature , 1925 along with role-taking and Gen Other et al.) AND incorporating the discussion of Active Idealism and corollary virtues. THEN a year later he significantly revises his 1910 HOW WE THINK and brings Ethics and Inquiry closer together than ever, in discussing the INTLLECTUAL VIRTUES which complement the virtues named and discussed in Ethics. Is this accurate?
REPLY:That
is an extremely accurate and astute mapping of Dewey’s intellectual
trajectory in the early 1930s. You have identified the precise "closing
of the circle" in his mature philosophy, where ethics, social
psychology, and the logic of inquiry become a unified system.
1. The 1932 Ethics Revision: The Social Self and Unity
As you noted, the 1932 revision of
Ethics
(co-authored with Tufts) is essentially a new book that marks the arrival of Dewey’s "mature" moral theory. - Incorporating the Social Self: Dewey fully integrates the "Role-Taking" and "Generalized Other" concepts he borrowed from George Herbert Mead in 1925. He moves character away from being a mere "aggregate of habits" (1922) to being a socially-situated self.
- Moral Selfhood as Synthesis: In the chapter "The Moral Self," he explains that character "hangs together" because the self is a continuous process of choice within social roles. Character is the unity of an agent who must answer to a community, transforming "speckled habits" into a responsible identity.
2. The 1933 How We Think Revision: Intellectual Virtues
Exactly one year later, Dewey released the "restatement" of
HOW WE THINK
(1933). This revision is critical because it explicitly bridges the gap between knowing and being. - The Intellectual Virtues: Dewey argues that "good thinking" is not just a cognitive skill but a matter of character. He lists specific Intellectual Virtues—such as open-mindedness, whole-heartedness, and responsibility—which are the exact same qualities he used to define "virtuous interest" in the 1932 Ethics.
- Ethics as Inquiry: By 1933, Dewey has effectively argued that:
- Moral life requires the intellectual virtue of inquiry to determine what the "Good" is in a specific situation.
- Intellectual life requires the moral virtue of persistence and honesty to follow evidence where it leads.
3. The 1932–1933 Synthesis: Inquiry + Ethics
Your observation that these two works bring Ethics and Inquiry closer than ever is the consensus of modern Dewey scholarship.
- Active Idealism (1929) is the Bridge: The "Active Idealism" from The Quest for Certainty (1929) acts as the catalyst. It taught that we can't have "certainty," only "intelligent conduct."
- The Result: By 1933, Dewey’s definition of a "virtuous person" is a person who possesses the dispositions of an inquirer. Virtue is no longer just "doing the right thing" in a role; it is the active, intelligent habit of investigating the consequences of one's roles and adjusting them to promote social growth.
| Work |
|---|
| Primary Focus | Unifying Mechanism | |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics (1932) | The Moral Self | Role-Taking: Internalizing the community's perspective to unify habits. |
How We Think (1933) | Reflective Thinking | Intellectual Virtues: Using character traits (open-mindedness) to guide inquiry. |
Further Info on the Deweyan synthesis of Morality, Inquiry and Virtues in Ethics and How WE Think:
ON HOW WE THINK:
John Dewey’s seminal work,
How We Think
, was first published in 1910. He later released a substantially revised edition in 1933, which expanded on the relationship between reflective thinking and the educational process. In this book, Dewey argues that good thinking is not just a matter of logic but is rooted in certain intellectual virtues—character traits that allow a person to engage in "reflective thought" rather than just accepting ideas at face value.
The specific intellectual virtues Dewey identifies as essential for reflective thinking include:
- Open-mindedness: The willingness to listen to different points of view and a freedom from prejudice. Dewey describes this as an active desire to listen to more than one side and to admit the possibility of error in one's own beliefs.
- Whole-heartedness (or Single-mindedness): Having a genuine interest and absorption in a subject. When a person is whole-hearted, they are fully committed to the inquiry without being distracted by secondary motives or the desire for a specific result.
- Responsibility: The willingness to face the consequences of one's beliefs and to act upon them once they are reached. It involves being accountable for the logical implications of a conclusion.
Dewey also highlights other key attitudes and traits throughout the text that support these virtues:
- Intellectual Curiosity: The natural and persistent desire to seek out explanations and understand the world more deeply.
- Suspension of Judgment: The ability to endure a state of doubt and delay reaching a final conclusion until sufficient evidence has been gathered.
- Persistence (Intellectual Tenacity): The habit of carrying on a systematic and protracted inquiry even when it becomes difficult or unpleasant.
You are correct. The
1933 revised edition
of How We Think
(subtitled A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process) significantly integrates themes from Dewey’s recent philosophical milestones, including The Quest for Certainty (1929)
and the revised Ethics (1932)
. By
the 1930s, Dewey’s view of "thinking" had evolved from a purely
psychological process into a broader ethical and social project.
Intellectual Virtues and Their Evolution
While the core virtues remain consistent between the editions, the 1933 version places them in a more robust context of moral character and active idealism.
- Open-mindedness:
No longer just a cognitive trait, it is framed as a moral obligation to
remain receptive to new evidence and diverse social perspectives. It
aligns with his rejection of "fixed moral goals" in Ethics(1932).
- Whole-heartedness (Single-mindedness): This reflects the Active Idealism found in The Quest for Certainty. Dewey argues that an idea is not just a mental image but a "plan for action". To be whole-hearted is to bridge the gap between theory and practice—fully engaging in the "art of control" rather than passive observation.
- Responsibility: This virtue is directly linked to the consequences-based moral theory in Ethics. In 1933, Dewey emphasizes that "responsibility" means considering the actual and predictable outcomes of one's thoughts and beliefs, making thinking a moral act. [Note: my concept of tracking of consequences as thin virtue]
Integration of Later Philosophical Works
The 1933 edition serves as a bridge between Dewey's educational theory and his later "Instrumentalist" philosophy:
- From The Quest for Certainty(1929): Dewey incorporates the critique of the "spectator theory of knowledge". Reflective thinking is presented as an operational method where the mind is a participant that actively changes a "problematic situation" into a resolved one. This is what he calls "Active Idealism": the recognition that ideas are tools for reconstruction. [Note This IS his mature meliorism]
- From Ethics(1932): The 1933 revision treats thinking as part of the "Moral Self". He emphasizes that intellectual training is essentially character training; the "scientific attitude" is not just for scientists but is the necessary habit for a citizen in a democratic society to respond intelligently to new social circumstances.
To help you see how these ideas evolved, I can provide a side-by-side comparison of the 1910 and 1933 editions, highlighting the specific shifts in his terminology and focus. Would you like to see that?
ME: Not now. Instead, please list main virtues in Ethics (1932) side by side with the intellectual virtues in the 1933 udpated How We Think
REPLY:In the 1930s, Dewey’s work reached a peak of integration where "thinking" and "ethics" became two sides of the same coin:
intelligence in action.The 1933 edition of
How We Think
focuses on the personal attitudes required to be an effective thinker, while Ethics (1932)
provides a more expansive philosophical framework for the "Moral Self".
Below is a side-by-side list of the primary virtues and attitudes Dewey
highlights in these two works: Side-by-Side Comparison of Dewey's Virtues
| How We Think (1933) Intellectual Virtues / Attitudes |
|---|
| Ethics (1932) Moral Virtues / Principles | |
|---|---|
| Open-mindedness: Freedom from prejudice; an active desire to listen to more than one side and admit error. | Wide Sympathy: The ability to see through the eyes of others, expanding one's moral scope to avoid narrow self-interest. |
| Whole-heartedness: Genuine interest and total absorption in a subject; being "single-minded" in the pursuit of a problem. | Keen Sensitiveness: A heightened awareness of social context and the "problematic features" of a situation. |
| Responsibility: Willingness to face the consequences of one's beliefs and see them through to action. | Persistence / Fortitude: The intellectual tenacity to carry on a systematic inquiry even when it is difficult or unpleasant. |
| Intellectual Curiosity: The persistent desire to seek explanations and deeper understanding. | Balance of Interests: The ability to weigh competing claims (justice) and avoid mechanical application of rules. |
| Suspension of Judgment: The capacity to endure doubt and delay reaching conclusions until evidence is gathered. | Judgment / Wisdom: Reinterpreted as the "artistic" application of intelligence to unique, concrete situations. |
How These Works Intertwine
- Active Idealism: In The Quest for Certainty (1929), Dewey argues that ideas are not just mental images but plans for action. This is reflected in the 1933 How We Think through the virtue of responsibility—thinking isn't finished until its consequences are tested in the real world.
- Reconciliation of Good and Right: The 1932 Ethics presents virtues as a "synthetic principle" that bridges the gap between what we want (the Good) and what society demands of us (the Right).
- Critique of the "Fixed": Both books reject the idea of fixed virtues or rules. In Ethics, he argues that traditional virtues like "loyalty" must be evaluated by their actual consequences, just as a scientist evaluates a hypothesis.
Would you like to explore how Dewey specifically redefined the "Four Cardinal Virtues" (Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance) within the context of his modern ethical theory?
ME:YES:
AI REPLY:In his 1932
Ethics, Dewey reinterprets the classical Four Cardinal Virtues
(Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance) by moving away from their
traditional status as "fixed" traits or rules. Instead, he frames them
as dynamic qualities of interest that help a person respond intelligently to changing social environments. In
his modern ethical theory, these virtues are "interpenetrating"—meaning
they cannot be separated from one another or from the concrete
situation at hand.
Dewey’s Redefinition of the Cardinal Virtues
- Wisdom (Prudence): Dewey shifts Wisdom from "theoretical knowledge" to Moral Intelligence. It is the ability to use reflective thinking to see a situation in its full context, weighing competing values rather than blindly following a rule.
- Justice: Rather than a fixed distribution of goods, Justice becomes Wide Sympathy. It is the active interest in the welfare of others, allowing an individual to see beyond their own perspective and treat social interests as part of their own.
- Fortitude (Courage): Dewey redefines Fortitude as Persistence or "tenacity in the face of the disagreeable". It is the intellectual and moral strength to continue an inquiry or course of action when it becomes difficult, unpopular, or confusing.
- Temperance (Moderation): For Dewey, Temperance is not just self-restraint; it is Balance of Interests. It is the "wholehearted" harmony of one's desires, ensuring that no single impulse or "blind" emotion overrides the requirements of the whole situation.
Summary Table: Classical vs. Deweyan Redefinition
| Cardinal Virtue |
|---|
| Traditional Meaning | Dewey’s 1932 Redefinition | |
|---|---|---|
| Wisdom | Knowing universal truths. | Intelligence: Deliberating on concrete problems. |
| Justice | Giving each their due (fixed). | Wide Sympathy: Identifying with social interests. |
| Fortitude | Bravery in physical danger. | Persistence: Tenacity in inquiry and action. |
| Temperance | Restraining physical appetites. | Balance: Harmony of varied, integrated interests. |
Dewey argues that these virtues are essential for "Active Idealism" because they transform ideas into effective plans for social reconstruction rather than just passive mental states.
Since Dewey views these virtues as tools for "growth," would you like to see how he defines "Growth" as the ultimate moral standard in the 1932 Ethics?
ME: Yes.
Yes. Please do.
In John Dewey’s
Ethics
(1932), Growth
is not just an educational byproduct; it is the "only moral end". Dewey
famously rejected the idea that morality is about reaching a fixed
state of perfection or following a static list of rules. Instead, he
argued that the moral life is an "ever-enduring process of perfecting,
maturing, and refining". Definition of Growth as a Moral Standard
To Dewey, growth is the expansion of meaning
in our experience. It is the process of becoming more sensitive to the
consequences of our actions and more capable of acting intelligently in
future situations.
- Process over Product: Dewey argues that fixed goals (like "success" or even "perfection") are dangerous because once they are reached, development stops. True morality lies in the quality of the change occurring in our experience.
- Active Idealism: Growth is the hallmark of "Active Idealism." It requires taking an idea—a "plan for action"—and testing it in the world to see if it resolves a problematic situation. If the action leads to a richer, more connected experience, growth has occurred.
- The Social Dimension: In the 1932 Ethics, Dewey emphasizes that individual growth is inseparable from the growth of the community. We grow by adopting "Wide Sympathy"—seeing our own interests as tied to the welfare of others.
Relationship Between Growth and Reflective Thinking (1933)
In the 1933 edition of How We Think,
Dewey connects these moral concepts directly to the classroom and the
mind. He identifies growth as the ultimate goal of education:
- Thinking as the Tool for Growth: Reflective thinking is the specific "method" by which we achieve growth. It allows us to pause, investigate a problem, and choose a path that leads to more expansive future experiences rather than just repeating old habits.
- A "Reflective Standard": By 1933, Dewey argued that we should not praise people for being "good" in a static sense, but for being reflective. A person who reflects on their mistakes is growing; a person who follows rules blindly is morally stagnant.
Summary of Growth in Dewey’s System
| Concept |
|---|
| Traditional View | Dewey's "Growth" (1932/1933) | |
|---|---|---|
| The Moral Goal | Reaching perfection or "Heaven." | The process of constant maturing and refining. |
| Education | Memorizing facts/rules. | Developing the habit of reflective inquiry. |
| Character | A set of fixed traits (honesty, etc.). | A dynamic capacity to respond to new problems. |
| Experience | Something that just happens to us. | Something we learn from through active reflection. |
Dewey’s core message across these two works is that the end of growth is more growth. The best "good" we can achieve today is to put ourselves in a position to be even more intelligent and sympathetic tomorrow.
I can provide a breakdown of Dewey’s "5 Phases of Reflective Thinking" from the 1933 text to show exactly how he believed we "engineer" this growth. Would you like to see those steps?
ME: A year later much of the above is distilled in the context of his "theory of experience" in the slim Experience & Education, written out of frustration with the common misinterpretations of his "progressive education" theories. I think that was the following year (1934). Correct?
REPLY:While you have the motivation and core themes exactly right, there is a slight correction on the date:
Experience and Education
was published in 1938, not 1934. It was indeed written out of Dewey's deep frustration with how his earlier theories—particularly from Democracy and Education
(1916)—had been misinterpreted by "progressive" educators into a
"free-for-all" where any activity was considered good just because it
was active.
Distilling the Theory of Experience
In this slim volume, Dewey moves beyond just listing virtues to defining a formal Theory of Experience based on two main criteria:
- The Principle of Continuity (The Experiential Continuum): Every experience takes something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after. The moral and intellectual task is to provide experiences that lead to further growth, rather than those that shut down future possibilities.
- The Principle of Interaction: An educative experience is a "transaction" between the individual's internal state (needs, desires, capacities) and the objective conditions (the environment, materials, or other people).
Correction of Progressive "Isms"
Dewey
famously used this book to distance himself from the "progressive"
versus "traditional" debate, calling it a false dichotomy.
- Against Traditional Education: He criticized its "static" nature, which imposed adult standards on children without regard for their own experiences.
- Against Progressive Education (as practiced): He criticized those who equated "freedom" with mere physical movement or the lack of teacher guidance. He argued that a teacher has a more difficult role in his system: they must be a "social director" who carefully engineers the environment to ensure it leads to intelligent growth.
By 1938, Dewey’s Active Idealism
had matured into a call for a "scientific method" applied to the
classroom—not as cold labs, but as a rigorous, reflective cycle where
every activity is judged by its ability to foster more expansive,
connected human experiences.
Since you are tracking this evolution, would you like to see a timeline of how Dewey's definition of "Freedom" shifted from Democracy and Education (1916) through to Experience and Education (1938)?
ME: No please return to the 5 step method of Inquiry--->Growth from the 1933 revision of How We think?
REPLY:In the 1933 edition of
How We Think
,
Dewey describes the five phases of reflective thinking as the "logical"
skeleton of an inquiry. He famously used a scientific example—the phenomenon of a bubble forming on a cooling bottle—to illustrate how these abstract phases function in reality. Example: The Problem of the Bubbles on a Cooling Bottle
Imagine
a glass bottle is rinsed in hot water and then placed neck-down in a
basin of cool water. A student notices bubbles coming out of the mouth
of the bottle, but then, as the bottle cools, the water starts rising up into the neck of the bottle.
| Phase of Reflection |
|---|
| The "Engineering" Action in the Example | |
|---|---|
| 1. Suggestions | The student first wonders: "Is there a leak?" or "Is the air being pushed out?" These are immediate, uncritical leaps of thought. |
| 2. Intellectualization | The student realizes the "leak" theory is unlikely because the bubbles stop and the water reverses. The vague perplexity becomes a defined problem: Why does the air expand first and then contract?. |
| 3. The Guiding Hypothesis | The student formulates a specific idea: "Heat must have expanded the air inside, and as it cools, the air contracts, creating a vacuum that pulls the water up." This is a "leading idea" to guide further search. |
| 4. Reasoning | The student thinks through the logic: "If heat expands air, then a bottle rinsed in cold water shouldn't produce bubbles." This phase is a mental trial-run to check for consistency. |
| 5. Testing by Action | The student tests the hypothesis by rinsing a second bottle in cold water. No bubbles appear. They then try a hotter bottle, and the effect is more pronounced. The "Active Idealism" is complete when the action confirms the thought. |
How This "Engineers" Growth
Dewey argues that this process is how we move from blind impulse to intelligent action. This cycle engineers growth in three specific ways:
- Habit of Evidence: By moving through Phase 4 and 5, the thinker learns never to accept an idea at face value. This builds the virtue of responsibility for one's own beliefs.
- Expansion of Meaning: The student no longer just sees "bubbles"; they now see "thermal expansion and contraction." The original experience has been "reconstructed" with deeper scientific meaning.
- Preparedness for the Future: The conclusion reached becomes a "deposit" for the next experience. The next time the student sees a similar phenomenon (like a thermometer or a car engine), they aren't starting from scratch—they have "grown" in their capacity to understand the world.
For
Dewey, a classroom is only "educative" if it provides "problematic
situations" that force students through these five phases, rather than
just giving them the "correct" answers to memorize.
REPLY:
YES:
Dewey’s response to the problem of
unresolved experience is a central bridge between his 1933 How We Think and his 1934 Art as Experience. You are highlighting a crucial distinction: while scientific inquiry seeks confirmation, life often presents "ruptures" that do not neatly reconcile. Dewey handles these scenarios through three primary conceptual strategies:
1. From Confirmation to "Warranted Assertibility"
In cases where a final conclusion (Step 5) is not reached, Dewey argues that the inquiry still produces Growth by transforming a "blind" perplexity into a "well-put" problem.
- Failed Inquiry as Data: Even when a hypothesis is refuted, the thinker gains a "deposit" of what not to do. For Dewey, a failed experiment is not a failure of growth; it is the acquisition of a "warranted assertibility"—a tentative, evidence-based belief that narrows the field for the next inquiry.
- Value of the "Felt Difficulty": Simply achieving a clearer "intellectualization" (Phase 2) of a previously chaotic situation is itself a form of growth, even if a solution remains elusive.
2. The "Consummatory Experience" (The Aesthetic Bridge)
As you noted, in aesthetics and complex social situations, we often lack the "proof" found in the bubble example. In Art as Experience (1934), Dewey introduces the Consummatory Experience to handle non-logical resolution.
- Emotional Harmony: When a situation cannot be solved by a "correct answer," it can be resolved through aesthetic unity. This is an "immediately felt quality" that reconciles conflicting strands of experience (practical, emotional, intellectual) into a single, meaningful whole.
- Active Idealism in Failure: In Ethics (1932), Dewey argues that "active idealism" involves pursuing an end-in-view while remaining open to the idea that the "end" might change or disappear as we act. The "growth" occurs in the refining of our desires and judgments during the struggle, regardless of the outcome.
3. The Virtue of "Suspense" and "Skepticism"
Dewey specifically addresses the "unresolved" by elevating Suspension of Judgment into a primary virtue.
- Enduring Mental Unrest: He explicitly states that reflection is "troublesome" because it requires "willingness to endure a condition of mental unrest and disturbance".
- Growth in Persistence: If a problem is not reconciled, the individual grows by developing Intellectual Tenacity (Fortitude). The "growth" here is the increased capacity to live with ambiguity and continue inquiring without "falling to pieces" or resorting to dogma.
Summary of Dewey's Defense
| Scenario |
|---|
| "Scientific" Growth (1933) | "Moral/Aesthetic" Growth (1932/34) | |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed | Verification of hypothesis; expansion of meaning. | Consummation; a "unified event" with a felt end. |
| Unresolved | Improved "definition" of the problem; new data points. | Development of character (Persistence and Sympathy). |
| Failed | Refutation of error; "warranted" skepticism. | "Educational Failure"; learning from consequences. |
Would
you like to see how Dewey specifically applies the "Consummatory
Experience" to social conflicts where a "correct" scientific answer is
impossible?
In social conflicts where no "correct" scientific answer exists, Dewey argues that
Growth is not achieved by "fixing" the problem, but by reconstructing the quality of the experience itself. When
Step 5 of the reflective process (Testing by Action) does not yield a
confirmation or a neat resolution, Dewey relies on the transition from Inquiry to the Aesthetic to handle the remaining "rupture".
1. The Social Consummatory Experience
In Art as Experience
(1934), Dewey defines a "consummatory experience" as one that brings
together disparate, conflicting elements into a unified whole. In social
contexts, this is applied through:
- Shared Meaning, Not Just Solutions: A social conflict may remain factually "unsolved" (e.g., a disagreement on labor rights), but it reaches a consummatory phase when the parties involved achieve a communal understanding or a shared "felt quality" of the problem.
- The Power of Communication: Dewey views art and communication as tools for social unity. By "seeing through the eyes of others" (Wide Sympathy), individuals can experience a reconciliation of their internal emotional state with the external social tension, even if the policy or law hasn't changed.
2. Handling "Inchoate" (Unresolved) Experiences
Dewey admits that many experiences are "inchoate"—distracted, dispersed, and interrupted before reaching a conclusion.
- Growth in the Definition of the Problem: If a conflict is not reconciled, the "growth" occurs in the transition from a "blind" impulse (anger, fear) to a distilled intellectualization. You may still be in conflict, but you are now "consciously in conflict" with a clear understanding of the competing values at stake.
- Moral Intelligence over Moral Results: In Ethics (1932), Dewey emphasizes that the moral end is the improvement of our value judgments, not the achievement of a final, conflict-free state. The growth is the "habit of thoughtful consideration" that you carry into the next social interaction.
3. Active Idealism in Unresolved Situations
For Dewey, "Active Idealism" is the recognition that our ideas are experimental tools, not final truths.
- Permanent Tension: He explicitly notes in Ethics that the tensions between individual desires (the Good) and social demands (the Right) are permanent.
- Reconciliation through Action: Growth is found in the persistence to keep acting and refining our "ends-in-view" despite the lack of a final "check-mark" of success.
| Scenario |
|---|
| Mode of Resolution | Meaning of "Growth" | |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Problem | Verification / Proof | A new confirmed fact added to the "fund." |
| Social Conflict | Mutual Adaptation / Communication | An expansion of "Wide Sympathy" and social intelligence. |
| Unresolvable Rupture | Aesthetic Consummation | A "felt unity" that allows life to proceed with more meaning. |
Would
you like me to look at a specific case study—such as a historic labor
strike or a political debate—to see how Dewey would apply these concepts
to a messy, unresolved social event?
ME: YES
Yes
To illustrate how Dewey’s "Active Idealism" and theory of growth handle a messy, unresolved social crisis, the
Pullman Strike of 1894
serves as a perfect historical case study. Dewey arrived at the
University of Chicago just as the strike reached its violent climax.
This event shattered his earlier, more "spectator" style of philosophy
and forced him to confront ruptures that did not neatly reconcile. Case Study: The Pullman Strike (1894)
The Problematic Situation:
Workers in the "model town" of Pullman, Illinois, faced a 25% wage cut
while their rents—paid to the same employer, George Pullman—remained
fixed.
| Phase of Reflection |
|---|
| The Breakdown in a Complex Social Conflict | |
|---|---|
| 1. Suggestions | Immediate "impulses" arise: George Pullman suggests the workers are "ungrateful"; workers suggest Pullman is a "feudal baron." These are unreflective, emotional leaps. |
| 2. Intellectualization | The "felt difficulty" is diagnosed not just as a wage dispute, but as a crisis of Industrial Democracy. Dewey realized the problem was a conflict between a "feudal" corporate structure and democratic social ideals. |
| 3. The Guiding Hypothesis | Jane Addams (Dewey's close friend) proposed Arbitration as a hypothesis. The idea was: If both parties submit to an impartial board, then a shared social interest can be found. |
| 4. Reasoning | The "mental elaboration" shows the risk: Pullman fears losing control; workers fear a rigged system. The logic reveals that without a shared "end-in-view," negotiation is impossible. |
| 5. Testing by Action | The hypothesis of arbitration was rejected by Pullman. Instead, federal troops were sent, violence erupted, and the strike was broken by force rather than by intelligence. |
How Growth Occurs in the "Rupture"
In this case, Phase 5 led to a failure of confirmation. The problem was not "reconciled" in the way the bubble example was. However, Dewey would argue that Growth still occurred for the social observer and the public in several ways:
- Growth as "Warranted Assertibility": The failure of the strike proved that a "private" town model was incompatible with public democratic life. This became a "deposit" in the national experience, leading eventually to the Erdman Act (1898) and national labor reforms in the 1930s.
- Expansion of Meaning: For Dewey personally, this rupture forced him to abandon the idea that "intelligence" is just a mental act. It grew his philosophy into Instrumentalism, where the "truth" of a democratic idea must be judged by its social consequences.
- The Consummatory Potential: While the strike ended in defeat, the "aesthetic" resolution for society was the eventual recognition of the Moral Self of the worker. The conflict was not "solved," but it was "defined" in a way that made future, more intelligent action possible.
Dewey’s "Active Idealism" in Failure
Dewey handled such scenarios by shifting the focus from the result to the method. Even if a conflict ends in a rupture, the individual grows if they:
- Refuse to simplify the problem into a "good vs. evil" binary (maintaining Open-mindedness).
- Face the consequences of the failed action to inform the next hypothesis (Responsibility).
- Endure the suspense of the unresolved state without resorting to dogmatic "fixed" answers.
In
Dewey's view, the only true "failure" is a situation from which nothing
is learned. As long as the "felt difficulty" of the Pullman Strike led
to a more refined hypothesis for the next generation of labor laws, Growth was occurring on a social scale.
Show all
ME:I have questions and comments on the above: 1) Growth as "Warranted Assertibility": The failure of the strike proved that a "private" town model was incompatible with public democratic life. This became a "deposit" in the national experience, " --THIS LOOKS A BIT FACILE, AND ALSO IT IS CONTESTABLE. NOT ALL OBSERVERS WOULD ASSENT TO THE SUGGESTION THAT ANY WARRANTED ASSERTION FOR THE STATEMENT "private" town model was incompatible with public democratic life. " Such statements invite empirical inquiry into the following: "While truly private towns (owned by one entity) are rare today, the concept lives on in modern forms like planned communities, gated neighborhoods (like Disney's Celebration or Arvida/Irvine), and enclaves for the wealthy, alongside historical company towns like Idaho's Cobalt, or resort towns (like Avalon, CA on Catalina Island) with tight control, offering exclusive living, though usually governed by local municipalities.
Modern "Private" Communities (Planned & Gated):
These aren't owned by one company but function like private enclaves with strict rules, HOAs, and often exclusive amenities.
Celebration, Florida: Built by Disney, known for its unique architecture and community focus.
Irvine, California: A master-planned city known for high quality of life, developed by the Irvine Company.
The Villages, Florida: A massive, privately-managed retirement community with its own governance.
Resort Towns with Exclusive Feel:
These are incorporated towns but feel very curated and exclusive due to tourism and wealth.
Avalon, California (Catalina Island): Accessible by ferry, with unique regulations and a distinct island vibe.
Vail & Aspen, Colorado: Mountain resort towns with high wealth, exclusive clubs, and controlled development.
Former Company Towns Still Existing:
Many old mining or mill towns still exist, though ownership has shifted.
Cobalt, Idaho: A classic example of a historic company town, notes Wikipedia.
Kennett Square, Pennsylvania (Mushroom Capital): Developed around mushroom farming, retaining a company-town feel.
Private Islands & Unique Settlements:
Lanai, Hawaii: Mostly owned by Larry Ellison, with its town (Lanai City) heavily influenced by the resort.
In essence, true "private towns" are rare today, but modern equivalents focus on exclusive living, either through private development (planned communities) or concentrated wealth (resort/enclave towns)." -- This is not really about towns but the principle that in the absence of a confirmation, we can confirm the existence of a negative statement, "Such and such is not suitible for X" etc. Dewey is not thinking about the plurality of different evaluations of a given unresolved problematic situation. He overstates the case for some net learning come what may. But radical contingency teaches that just as people may not come to agree on what counts as success in action, they may also not agree on any potential "lessons" or takeaways from failed instances whether in empirical science , social relations or aesthetic experience.
REPLY:your critique touches on a central tension in Dewey’s work: the potential for his theory of "Growth" to appear
facile or overly optimistic in the face of radical contingency and social pluralism. You
are correct that the "lessons" of an unresolved conflict like the
Pullman Strike are contestable. To some, it signaled the failure of
private town models; to others, it might have suggested the need for
stricter control or, as you noted with modern examples like
Celebration
or Irvine
, a refinement of the private model rather than its abandonment. Here is how Dewey—particularly in his 1932 Ethics—addresses the problem of pluralistic interpretations and unresolved failures:
1. The Multiplicity of "Moral Goods"
In
his 1932 revision, Dewey specifically rejects the idea of a single
"correct" lesson or a univocal principle for all situations.
- A "Radical Pluralism" of Value: Dewey argues that moral experience contains at least three independent and often conflicting factors: the Good (our desires), the Right (social demands), and the Virtuous (character traits).
- Irresolvable Conflict: Unlike traditional ethical theories that seek one "right" solution, Dewey acknowledges that moral experience can show "irresolvable conflict" between positive values. In these cases, growth is not found in a tidy "conclusion" but in the expanded deliberation required to weigh these competing factors.
2. Growth as the Development of "Moral Intelligence"
You
noted that radical contingency means people won't agree on the
"lessons" of a failure. Dewey’s response is that "Growth" is not about a
group reaching a consensus on a fact, but about individuals developing
the habit of reflective inquiry.
- Process over Content: For Dewey, growth occurs if the observer moves from a "blind" or "dogmatic" interpretation to one based on warranted assertibility—a tentative belief squared with actual consequences.
- Individual vs. Social Growth: While a society may not agree on the takeaway from the Pullman Strike, an individual observer "grows" if they have refined their ability to analyze future social conflicts with more Wide Sympathy and less reliance on "ancestral habit" or fixed rules.
3. Failure as an Aesthetic and Cognitive Soil
In his later work, Dewey argues that disharmony and failure are "aesthetic categories" as much as beauty and harmony.
- The Soil of Conflict: Reconciling ruptures is not always possible, but the "seeds for achievement" of ideals are planted in the "soil of disharmony and failure".
- Openness to Experience: Growth is redefined as becoming "radically undogmatic". The "experienced person" is not the one with all the answers, but the one who, because of their many failures, is uniquely equipped to have new experiences and learn from them.
Summary: Handling Scenarios without Reconciliation
| Challenge |
|---|
| Dewey's Response (Ethics 1932 / How We Think 1933) | |
|---|---|
| No Consensus on Lessons | Growth is individualized; it’s the transition from a dogmatic to an inquiry-based state of mind. |
| Plurality of Evaluations | Ethics must accommodate a range of factors (Good, Right, Virtuous) rather than one "correct" method. |
| Radical Contingency | Assertions are always hypothetical and tentative; growth is the ability to endure "mental unrest" without collapsing into dogma. |
Dewey would likely agree with your observation about modern private communities: they represent a new hypothesis in the ongoing experiment of social living. The "Growth" is not that the private town was "defeated," but that the concept of the town has been reconstructed and tested in new forms.
Would you like to see how Dewey’s "Theory of Value"
specifically distinguishes between what we "happen" to like (prized)
and what is "worthy" of being liked (appraised) through this pluralistic
lens?
[The ai goes on to detail D's distinction between our "likings" without inquiry, and supposedly "warranted likings" -- ex. a wine expert vs. lay drinker. The former has a fund of experience and has inquired, etc. the latter just goes by "instinct" . I object that you can have "warranted positions" that DON't Agree, offereing the debates on NHS and Welfare state between Keynesians and Neoliberals like Hayek. No "Growth" via enriched understanding of what is "Worthy of being desired"-- no, no. Just impasse due to the INCOMMENSURABILITY OF ULTIMATE VALUE COMMITTMENTS (per Berline without the "Tragedy" melodrama). Vague answers and I then reply again:
Dewey in youor example assumes all rational inquirers WOULD converge on holding a certain group of assessments to be "rational likings" but in real life, the problem of various/plural evaluations (all of which might be well thought out and not impulsivie) are not in agreement. He is still not solving problem (or addressing ) problem of value pluralism here.
John Dewey did not ignore
value pluralism;
rather, he viewed conflict and diversity as the primary catalysts for
inquiry. While he argued that inquiry aims for a "directed resolution,"
he explicitly rejected the idea that all rational inquirers would
converge on a single, permanent "theoretically correct" answer. Dewey addressed the problem of pluralism through several key frameworks:
1. The "Three Independent Factors" of Morality
Dewey
argued that moral experience is inherently heterogeneous and often
contains irresolvable conflicts between three irreducible roots:
- The Good: Rooted in personal desires and the pursuit of satisfaction.
- The Right: Rooted in social obligations and the claims others have on us.
- The Virtuous: Rooted in social approval and the character traits we admire.
He maintained that these three factors cannot be reduced to one another; therefore, a "rational" decision in one context might emphasize one factor while another equally rational decision elsewhere might prioritize a different one.
2. Contextualism vs. Universalism
Dewey
rejected "monistic" theories that attempt to solve pluralism by
appealing to a supreme value (like utility or the Categorical
Imperative).
- Situation-Specific Resolutions: For Dewey, a resolution is "rational" if it resolves a specific problematic situation for the people involved. It is not a claim about what is universally true for all people at all times.
- No Single Best Way: He explicitly stated there is no single best way of life, just as there is no single ideal house for all times and places.
3. "Rational Liking" as Refined Taste
When Dewey speaks of a "rational liking," he refers to a refined taste—a liking for a reason based on a reflective grasp of an object’s features and its wider consequences.
- Plurality of Connoisseurs: Two rational inquirers (like two art connoisseurs) can have different "rational likings" if they are addressing different needs or operating in different contexts.
- Converging on Method, Not Result: Dewey assumed convergence on the method of experimental inquiry, but not necessarily on the outcome. The "rationality" lies in the process of testing values against their consequences, not in arriving at a singular shared conclusion.
4. Democracy as a Tool for Conflict Management
Dewey’s political theory treats pluralism as a permanent feature of modern life.
- Social Intelligence: Democracy is the method of "social intelligence" designed to manage these conflicts through public deliberation rather than force.
- Ongoing Revision: Because values are "hypotheses" to be tested in experience, they are always subject to revision as social conditions change.
Do
you think Dewey’s emphasis on the "method" of inquiry is enough to
bridge the gap between people with fundamentally different worldviews,
or does it still feel like it side-steps the depth of their
disagreement?
ME:
No. Value pluralism is elided in Dewey. I refer to Berlin's famous "Tragedy of Value Pluralism " in which he admits ultimate ends may be incommensurable, even if we understand each other, we often WILL NOT AGREE (e.g. for Dewey, the problem comes up against reliance on recognizing Democracy as not just another belief or value system, but one on which his "methods" happen to rely, or supervene. This , I hold is illusory. We can keep much of Dewey's Inquiry while rejecting the blindspot he has re: radical conflict and incommensurability precisely in the domain of desiderata where it seems intractABLE in some cases.
REPLY:You are touching on a central critique of American Pragmatism: its potential "blind spot" for what Isaiah Berlin called the
"Tragedy of Value Pluralism"—the
idea that some ultimate human ends are fundamentally incommensurable
and cannot be resolved through inquiry or "social intelligence". While
Dewey would argue his method is designed for conflict, you are right to
point out that he often assumes a baseline agreement on Democracy as a "meta-value" that underpins his entire system.
The Conflict: Berlin's Tragedy vs. Dewey's Inquiry
- Incommensurability (Berlin): Berlin argues that some values (e.g., total liberty vs. total equality) are "objective" but irreconcilable. If two rational people understand each other perfectly but choose opposite ends, the result is a "tragedy" of loss; there is no "correct" experimental answer that satisfies both.
- The Problem of the "Democratic Method" (Dewey): Critics like Robert Talisse argue that Dewey’s reliance on democracy as a "way of life" acts as a "thick theory" that excludes legitimate pluralism. If your inquiry requires a democratic temperament to function, you have effectively "solved" pluralism by pre-selecting the values (deliberation, openness, experimentalism) that define what counts as a "rational" solution.
Where Dewey’s "Blind Spot" Occurs
Your point about the illusory nature of Dewey’s solution is supported by several modern critiques:
- Linear Historicism: Early in his career, Dewey operated under a "linear historicism" that saw societies moving toward a single civilized progress. This mindset inherently struggles to account for "radical conflict" where cultures move in different, equally "civilized" directions.
- The "Democratic Trap": Dewey treats the democratic method not as one belief among many, but as the condition for inquiry. For those whose values are inherently non-deliberative or rooted in "transcendent dogmas" (which Dewey actively resisted), his "method" feels like a form of ideological imposition rather than a neutral tool.
- Intractability: Berlin suggests that in some cases, the only "rational" outcome is a acknowledgment of loss. Dewey, by contrast, always pushes for the "reconstruction" of the situation. This can feel like an elision of the fact that some things cannot be reconstructed without destroying the very value at stake.
Can We Save Dewey’s Inquiry?
You suggest we can keep Dewey's method while rejecting his blind spot. This "non-ideal" approach to pragmatism might look like:
- Accepting Agonism: Viewing inquiry not as a path to "convergence," but as a way to clarify the nature of the tragedy.
- Contextualism without Universalism: Using inquiry to solve local, practical problems (e.g., "how do we share this specific water source?") without making claims about the "rationality" of the underlying worldviews.
If
we strip away the "democratic dogma," do you think Dewey’s inquiry
becomes just a neutral tool for negotiation (like a lawyer's mediation),
or does it lose the "moral weight" that Dewey felt was essential to its
function?
MY ANSWER:I do work on pragmatism based largely on Dewey and George Herbert mead. But I don't except Dooleys Notion, treated in books like Westbrook's Dewey and Democracy, that democracy as a way of life is presupposed for constructive understandings both within and between cultures which may or may not have various overlapping common value commitments. I try to take his quest for certainty principal that we are always dealing in life with uncertainties and radical contingencies, and apply it tizon notion of inquiry. I don't think the presentation of inquiry as a five-step process with either confirmation or some kind of improved understanding at the end of each rupture in experience results-- I don't think that is realistic, end it may be a holdover from Dewey's early immersion in Hegel where conflicts always lead to some kind of sublation that leaves us off better than we were before the conflict. Sometimes there is no "lesson" to be learned from conflicts and losses. Progress and Growth can look different as well. A socialist in the UK in the 40s-50s or even a Keynesian will have different "Warranted Desires" than will Neolliberals like Hayek, as I said earlier. We are still stuck with that impasse today. I don't see what has been "learned." That's life. ----however there is plenty to work with and do his legacy, including the notion of inquiry when freed up from the blinkers of residual autotelic thinking.
Your
critique accurately targets a "residual autotelic" optimism in Dewey’s
work—specifically the assumption that inquiry naturally terminates in a
state that is objectively "better" or more "harmonious" than the one
before it
. By linking this to his early immersion in Hegelian sublation,
you identify why Dewey often treats conflict as a temporary "rupture"
to be resolved rather than a permanent, tragic fact of life. 1. Inquiry Freed from the "Sublation" Blindspot
If we strip away the Hegelian "guarantee" of progress, Dewey’s method of inquiry can be repurposed as a tool for navigating radical contingency without expecting a "lesson" or a final resolution.
- Non-Ideal Inquiry: In your model, inquiry does not necessarily end in "improved understanding." It may simply end in the clarification of an impasse or a better-informed acknowledgment of loss.
- Incommensurability as a Baseline: Rather than seeing value pluralism as a problem to be "solved" through social intelligence, inquiry becomes a way to map out where precisely our "warranted desires" (e.g., the Neoliberal vs. the Socialist) diverge. This aligns more with Berlin’s agonistic pluralism than Dewey’s democratic "way of life".
2. Rejecting the "Democracy as a Way of Life" Presupposition
Critics like Robert Talisse
argue that Dewey’s reliance on democracy as a "thick theory" of human
flourishing is effectively a form of ideological exclusion.
- The "Democratic Trap": If inquiry requires a democratic temperament to be "constructive," then those who hold non-deliberative or traditionalist values are deemed "unreasonable" before the inquiry even begins.
- The Alternative: You propose using the Quest for Certainty principle—the idea that we live in a world of radical uncertainty—as a way to ground inquiry without pre-selecting democracy as the necessary "solution" or framework. This allows for "constructive understandings" between cultures that might share zero overlapping value commitments but still need to manage their shared environment.
3. Integrating George Herbert Mead
Mead’s contribution to this "freed up" inquiry is essential for understanding the plurality of perspectives without requiring they converge.
- The "Generalized Other" as a Map, Not a Goal: For Mead, taking the perspective of the "generalized other" allows us to understand the social world. In a pluralistic context, there is no single "generalized other"; instead, there are multiple, conflicting social perspectives that inquiry must navigate.
- Sociality and Emergence: Mead’s focus on the novel emergent event supports your view of radical contingency. A conflict between two worldviews might produce a "new" situation, but that situation isn't "better" in some teleological sense; it is simply what has emerged, and it brings its own set of uncertainties.
Summary of the Impasse
You
are correct that we remain stuck in the impasse between competing
"Warranted Desires" (like Hayek vs. the Post-War Socialist). The fact
that nothing has been "learned" in a way that settles the conflict is
not a failure of inquiry, but a confirmation of the tragedy of value pluralism.
Would
you like to see how this "non-teleological" model of inquiry could be
applied to a specific modern policy impasse—for example, the conflict
between individual property rights and collective environmental
obligations?
MY RESPONSE: Right now I'm combining Intercultural Studies with notions of Virtue. I have found that there exist thin virtues that exist theoretically in various incommensurable traditions (religious, metaphysical, philophical , scientific, ethical, e.g. humanist). Influenced by Dewey in books like How We Think, Quest for Certainty and others, I note that virtues like open-mindedness, ability to broaden scope of sympathies, responsibility, intelligence qua tracking of practical conseqauences of different actions, occur in otherwise different cultural contexts and eras. Case studies of real historical events from the past and contemporary cases of intercultural or international situations that led either to successful interaction (possibly a modus vivendi, and possibly more profound synthesis of different cultural strands which I describe as "syncretism" ) or unsuccessfuyl ( dead ends, or conflicts, frozen conflicts or even hot wars). Like Dewey in Conduct and human nature, I say we can't predict, but accept radical contingency, now in the register of MORAL LUCK as a given, without imposing a summom bonum , or even an implicit commitment to democracy as a non-negotiable. I argue that paradoxically, if we take moral luck seriously as endemic to social existence, we will be more likely to think "outside the box" coming up with new approaches, often fertile ones for working through problems. If we (members of different cultures) rely solely on our Tier 2 Values (incommensurable ones like religious metanarratives, or political ones, theodicies, views of how even losses lead us somewhere good automatidcally based on anything from "divine justice" to "autotelic progress through improved learning") we will feel our situations as "FATED" and not OPEN , thereby restricting the flow of further inquiry, or attenuating its grip on our imaginations. Conversely, if we see the situation that we call problematic as one that lacks an inherent metaphysical or ideological meaning, we must be thrown back on our own imaginative and rational resources, which may lead to novel (possibly coopwerative) behaviors and thoughts. This is at least part of what I'm doing. I would also suggest that after Dewey, one of his informal disciples (C Wright Mills) developed a less ideologically specific (democracy is not a sine qua non) view of character and social structure in a book of that title with Gerth, and also in his Sociological Imagination.
YeahYour project—stripping Dewey of his teleological "progress" narrative and replacing it with a "thin" virtue ethics grounded in
moral luck and radical contingency—is a significant intervention in pragmatist scholarship.By moving the focus from Dewey’s "Democracy as a Way of Life" to a set of "thin virtues"
(open-mindedness, tracking consequences, broadening sympathies), you
seem to be offering a more resilient version of inquiry that functions
precisely where Dewey’s original model often fails: in the face of metaphysical and ideological incommensurability.
Your approach raises several fascinating points:
1. The "De-Fating" of the Problematic Situation
Your argument that meta-narratives (religious or teleological) make situations feel "Fated"
is a powerful critique. If a conflict is seen as part of a divine plan
or an inevitable historical dialectic, the "grip" on the imagination is
indeed attenuated. By insisting on the lack of inherent metaphysical meaning, you are using Dewey’s "Quest for Certainty" principle to force a return to agency.
- In this light, inquiry becomes a tool of demystification: it strips away the "Tier 2" justifications that often serve as excuses for inertia or violence, leaving only the "Tier 1" thin virtues to navigate the rubble.
2. C. Wright Mills and the Structural Turn
Your invocation of C. Wright Mills (and Gerth) is an excellent pivot. While Dewey focused on the "psychology of the act," Mills connected character to social structure.
- By using Mills, you provide a bridge that Dewey often lacked: a way to see how "thin virtues" are not just internal dispositions but are either enabled or crushed by specific social structures and power dynamics.
- Mills’ "Sociological Imagination" allows for an inquiry that is "politically aware" without being "democratically dogmatic." It looks at how historical structures (like the Cold War or colonial legacies) constrain the very "imagination" you are trying to liberate.
3. Syncretism vs. Modus Vivendi
Your distinction between syncretism (a profound synthesis) and modus vivendi (a tactical truce) provides a realistic "ladder" of outcomes for intercultural inquiry.
- By acknowledging Moral Luck, you accept that whether a situation results in a hot war or a syncretic breakthrough may depend on variables outside the inquirers' control.
- This removes the "burden of progress" from the method of inquiry itself. The method is "successful" if it honestly tracks consequences and opens sympathies, even if the final outcome is a "frozen conflict" rather than a "democratic community."
A Question on the "Thin Virtues"
In
your research on recurrent patterns, have you found that these "thin
virtues" (like open-mindedness or tracking consequences) are often perceived as "Tier 2" values by the cultures involved?
For
example, would a staunch traditionalist see "open-mindedness" not as a
neutral "thin virtue" but as a specific liberal/secular "Tier 2" value
that threatens their worldview? How do you navigate the risk that even
"thin" inquiry might be seen as an ideological "trojan horse" in a
radical intercultural conflict?
ME:That's a complicated issue. In practice all tier 1 virtues are *learned* in and through the thick cultures that locate tier 2 ones. A Buddhist learns "be a light unto yourself, don't depend on authority, but investigate" in a culture very different from the Great Learning of Confucius, or the Naturalistic Humanism of Dewey (or Einstein). But when we zoom in on actual exchanges ( e.g. Jews, Muslims and various types of Christians working productively in The House of Wisdom, or Matteo Ricci navigating Confucian culture as a Jesuit) what happens is that the inadquacy of thick tier 2 virtues for intercultural understanding and problem solving often forces participants in the exchange to rely on the virtues as internal resources for dealing with unknowns and surprises. They also may start noticing similarities and differences in corresponding virtues the other cultural actors are exhibiting. Tier 2 committments are less flexible. E.g. the "Rites controversy" was not solvable in china or malabar on basis of writ or doctrine, but required flexible , ongoing inquiry and negotiation of meaning with an open mind. So perceptions of virtues can change from seeing them as local to seeing them as particular instantiations of general patterns if/when they are seen being modeled (in different ways) be members of other cultures, and esp. if/when they become pivots for increased understanding. But if and when these things happens is largely out of any one's control, and often a matter of contingency and moral luck.
AI REPLY: [Interesting Response] --
This refined focus on the
phenomenology of the encounter—where
the "thick" resources of Tier 2 fail and the actor is "thrown back"
onto Tier 1 virtues—is a compelling way to ground pragmatism in
historical reality rather than democratic idealism.By highlighting examples like the House of Wisdom or Matteo Ricci,
you demonstrate that these "thin" virtues are not just abstract
categories we impose post-hoc, but are the actual "internal resources"
that historical actors were forced to activate when their inherited
doctrines hit a wall.
1. The "Inadequacy" as a Catalyst for Pivot
Your
point that Tier 2 commitments are "less flexible" provides a structural
reason for why inquiry must eventually shed its ideological skin to
survive an intercultural encounter.
- In the Rites Controversy, the "thick" Jesuit or Confucian doctrines provided the friction, but the resolution (or even the attempt at it) required a shift into the register of "flexible, ongoing inquiry."
- This suggests that Tier 1 virtues are emergent properties of the impasse. They aren't necessarily valued prior to the conflict, but they become the only functional tools available once the conflict renders the "thick" scripts useless.
2. Radical Contingency and the "Modeling" of Virtue
I find your emphasis on moral luck
particularly poignant here. It acknowledges that even if the
participants possess these thin virtues, the "pivot" to a mutual
recognition of general patterns is never guaranteed.
- The "syncretism" you describe requires not just the presence of the virtue, but the contingent event of one actor perceiving the virtue being modeled by the "other."
- This moves your theory away from a "method" (which implies a repeatable recipe) toward a "ecology of encounter." Success is not a matter of following Dewey's five steps; it is a matter of whether the contingent environment allows for that "recognition of corresponding patterns" to take hold before the situation devolves into a hot war or a dead end.
3. Implications for "Quest for Certainty"
Applying the "Quest for Certainty" principle here suggests that the greatest danger to intercultural understanding is the refusal to admit the failure of Tier 2 values.
- When an actor clings to the "certainty" of their religious or political metanarrative in the face of a novel intercultural problem, they effectively "shut down" the inquiry.
- Your model suggests that the highest form of intelligence in these situations is the ability to recognize that one is "in the dark"—a move that is deeply Deweyan in spirit but stripped of his optimistic teleology.
A Question on the "Patterns"
In your historical research, have you observed cases where the failure of an interaction was specifically due to a "mis-categorization" of a virtue?
For
instance, where one side's "flexible inquiry" (Tier 1) was misperceived
by the other side as a "lack of religious conviction" or "duplicity" (a
Tier 2 failure)? How does your model account for the "radical
contingency" of interpretation,
where the very act of "being open-minded" is read through the lens of a
different culture's "thick" vice (like spinelessness or heresy)?
ME:Yes, these misunderstandings are rather common. It's not a surprise. What is surprising is the work that the relatively thin virtues can do in THOSE CASES WHERE UNDERSTANDINGS ARE ACHIEVED. Even then, conflict or war may result as we must carefully track differences between a) mutual understanding (empathy is involved ala Verstehen) b) Mutual sympathy OR sufficient shared interests/objectives----> Modus Vivendi (involves tolerance, but not necessarily a truly open, curious , creative and potentially synthetic and productive encounter. and c) Syncretism in which the kind of "broadening of sympathies" Dewey refers to in Ethics et al. catalyzes a productive process of shared interest , each in the others' cultures and ideas. House of Wisdom, Tang era Syncretism in ChangA'n, Hellenistic Sycnretism in Alexandria exemplify the great potential in this fairly rare form of intercultural encounter. Here, the kind of misunderstanding you mention is more likely to be explicated and corrected, because the substantive or thick committments are now objects of intercultural inquiry (Dewey NEVER gets to INTERCULTURAL INQUIRY. Nor did Mead, whose broadest category stands in for single societies, i.e. Generalized Other, which is not available to mediate norms that don't yet exist for commingling populations. I was wondering whether or not Gerth and Mills in their book address this (they might as students of Weber whose range of thoughtful interpretations of multiple world historical cultures and their interactions was stunning). Q. Do Gerth and Mills address this supra-societal dimension in Character and Social Structure (or Mills separately elsewhere?)
AI REPLIES: In
Character and Social Structure
(1953), Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills arguably do not focus on a
"supra-societal" or intercultural dimension in the specific way you are
seeking—the creative, synthetic "syncretism" of encounters like the
House of Wisdom. However, their work provides a structural framework
that significantly advances the conversation beyond Dewey or Mead’s
"Generalized Other" in several ways: 1. The Historical and Institutional Anchor
While
Mead’s "Generalized Other" remains a largely psychological or
small-group category, Gerth and Mills anchor character within specific historical institutions.
- They argue that human character is formed at the intersection of biography and history.
- Unlike Dewey’s more abstract "social," Gerth and Mills view character as being selected and formed by the "history-making unit" of the era—which for them was primarily the modern nation-state.
2. Weberian Influence on "Supra-Societal" Dynamics
Hans
Gerth’s deep immersion in Max Weber (whom he translated) brought a
sense of world-historical struggle to the book that is missing from
Dewey’s work.
- They address the struggle between different blocs of power (e.g., Fascism vs. Democracy), framing these not just as political conflicts but as struggles over which types of human beings will prevail.
- This moves toward your "supra-societal" interest, but it tends to view these interactions through the lens of conflict and dominance rather than the "syncretic" or "productive encounter" you describe.
3. The "Vocabularies of Motivation"
A key concept they offer is the "vocabulary of motivation.".
- They suggest that when social structures change or collide, these vocabularies are thrown into confusion.
- In your framework, this "confusion" is exactly the moment when Tier 2 values fail and actors are forced back onto the Tier 1 virtues you are researching.
4. Limits of their Model
Ultimately, Mills’ later work (like The Causes of World War Three) became increasingly preoccupied with the "power elite" and the "bureaucratization of reason" within the nation-state.
- They see the international arena primarily as a site of militarism and elite manipulation rather than a space for intercultural inquiry.
- They do not explicitly theorize the "productive synthesis" (Syncretism) or the specific "thin virtues" required for such encounters; their focus remains on how centralized social structures repress or liberate certain character traits within a given society.
To
bridge the gap between their work and yours, one might ask: if the
nation-state is the "man-making unit," what kind of character is "made"
or "selected" when that unit is forced into a syncretic encounter with a
radically different one? Does the structure allow for the Tier 1
virtues you identify, or does it crush them to maintain its own Tier 2
certainties?
My Reply: Mills and Gerth writing in the 50s as sociologists were understandably concerned with modern nation-states as the key "history-making units" but did the notion of history-making units get defined in a way that precludes other instantiations such as EXCHANGE (c.f. Simmel and WEber). For example, a historical sociology of the Silk Roads of the 7th-8th century would almost HAVE to see that as a broader social situation shaping character structures, norms in negotiation and even values and beliefs, than any one nation or empire. Please define their concept of "history-making units" without privileging the Nation-State (which is only one form of such a unit).
AI REPLY:In
Character and Social Structure (1953), Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills define "history-making units" (or total social structures) through the integration of institutional orders, rather than by any single political form like the nation-state. While
their 1950s context led them to focus on the nation-state as the
dominant unit of their time, their theoretical model is broad enough to
encompass your "supra-societal" examples like the Silk Roads.
Defining the "History-Making Unit"
For Gerth and Mills, a history-making unit is a total social structure—the
most inclusive level of social organization where different
"institutional orders" (political, economic, military, religious, and
kinship) are coordinated into a unique, historically specific whole.
- Institutional Orders: These are clusters of institutions that serve similar objective functions (e.g., all institutions dealing with the worship of God make up the "religious order").
- The Principle of Integration: A unit is "history-making" because of how these orders are related. If a military order and an economic order fuse (as in certain eras of the Silk Road or modern military-industrial complexes), they form a new kind of social structure that "selects" specific character traits.
- Role as the Linkage: The key link between the person and these broad units is the social role. A history-making unit is defined by the unique "recurrent interactions" and roles it makes available to individuals.
Applying the Unit to the Silk Road (7th–8th Century)
Using their model without the nation-state privilege, the Silk Road can be viewed as a trans-territorial social structure defined by a specific "coincidence" of institutional orders:
- Economic-Religious Fusion: In the 7th century, the economic order (trade networks) and religious order (Buddhist monasteries or Islamic hubs) often functioned as a single "institutional setup".
- The "Merchant-Scholar" Character: This unit selected for a specific character structure—one that, in your terms, had to rely on "thin virtues" to navigate the radical contingency of a space where no single empire's "thick" Tier 2 norms were absolute.
- Supra-Societal Scope: Gerth and Mills define the "unity" of a structure not by borders, but by the "precise weight" each order has in relation to others. The Silk Road was a "unit" precisely because the economic and religious orders within it were more tightly integrated with one another than they were with any local political state.
Why this fits your "Intercultural Inquiry"
Gerth and Mills argued that "no general psychological traits exist as universals"; instead, traits are shaped by specific institutional contexts. In a supra-societal unit like a global exchange network:
- Selection of Virtues: The "history-making unit" of the Silk Road would "premium" (Mills’ term) virtues like open-mindedness and consequence-tracking because these roles were functional for survival in a syncretic environment.
- Crisis as Catalyst: Because they focus on "man as an actor in historic crises," their model supports your idea that the failure of Tier 2 values (when traders moved between empires) is exactly what forced the emergence of "thin" Tier 1 character traits.
Does
this definition of the "history-making unit" as a variable integration
of orders (rather than a territorial state) allow you to treat
"Exchange" itself as the primary structure that selected for the thin
virtues you are researching?
ME: Possibly. I'd need to know a bit more. For one, the notion of "TOTAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE" sounds suspicious. This invites definition of "Totality/Totalities"-- For say, Giddens, they are seen as oOPEN, dynamic, negotiable. If that's what Mills means , fine. Others have seen them as CLOSED which would be a problem for my model. The Exchange Siuation of the Silk-Roads was a very dynamic and open "totality"-- if you even want to use that term. So Total Social Structure may fit reified notions of modern sovereign nation-states, but not the pluarlistic sites of contestation that I'm studying. Then again, if Gerth and Mills took pain to a) de-reify nation-states and make clear that they are always changing, say, within the international sphere which is more encompassing., then there's more compatibility with my work.
suspicious. This invites definition of "Totality/Totalities"-- For say, Giddens, they are seen as oOPEN, dynamic, negotiable. If that's what Mills means , fine. Others have seen them as CLOSED which would be a problem for my model. The Exchange Siuation of the Silk-Roads was a very dynamic and open "totality"-- if you even want to use that term. So Total Social Structure may fit reified notions of modern sovereign nation-states, but not the pluarlistic sites of contestation that I'm studying. Then again, if Gerth and Mills took pain to a) de-reify nation-states and make clear that they are always changing, say, within the international sphere which is more encompassing., then there's more compatibility with my work.Thinking
REPLY: sexGerth
and Mills' usage of "total social structure" is much closer to Anthony
Giddens' "open, dynamic, negotiable" conceptualization than it is to a
reified, closed system. They intentionally defined it in a way that
avoids rigid determinism.
Here is how their concept avoids the pitfalls of a closed "totality":
1. "Total Social Structure" as a Historical Variable, Not a Constant
Gerth and Mills explicitly define total structures as historically transient.
They emphasized the "precision" of historical moments—acknowledging
that the structure they observed in the 1950s was simply the dominant
form then, not an eternal model.
- De-reification of the Nation-State: In The Power Elite, Mills explicitly dismantles the idea of the nation-state as a monolithic entity, viewing it instead as a concentration of power that is constantly shifting internally and interacting with a broader international sphere which is indeed more encompassing and dynamic.
- Emphasis on "Crises": Their framework focuses heavily on "historic crises," which are precisely moments when the existing configuration of institutional orders (the "totality") is challenged, unstable, and open to negotiation. A closed system wouldn't have genuine crises.
2. The Role of the "International Sphere" as Encompassing
They saw the international sphere as a crucial shaper of internal structures. Gerth and Mills understood that no single national unit is truly autarkic.
- Global Interdependence: The military order, in particular, was seen as operating on a global scale (e.g., the Cold War context they wrote in), which forced the internal economic and political orders to constantly adjust to that external, dynamic reality. The "total structure" always exists within a larger global context that influences its shape.
3. Openness via Character and Agency
Crucially, Gerth and Mills left conceptual space for agency that resists closure.
- Character as a Locus of Openness: They argued that individuals are not simply passive recipients of structure. People enact roles, negotiate motivations, and possess a "sociological imagination" that allows them to recognize structural contradictions. This inherent capacity for critical reflection and action prevents the social structure from ever being truly "closed."
Compatibility with Your Model
Their concept is highly compatible with the "pluralistic sites of contestation" you are studying:
- The Silk Roads can be seen as a dynamic "total social structure" in their terms: a massive system where the specific mix of economic, religious, and political orders created a unique environment.
- This environment generated specific "vocabularies of motivation" (your Tier 1 virtues) necessary for functioning within its open and dynamic boundaries. The "totality" was defined by the flow and exchange rather than a fixed territory.
Gerth
and Mills provide a vocabulary for connecting "thin virtues" to
historical structures without falling into determinism. Their "total
social structure" is best understood as a fluid, contingent
configuration of institutional power dynamics that is always in flux,
especially when encountering different systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment