What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberalism and Social Action
In this, one of Dewey's most accessible works, he surveys the history of liberal thought from John Locke to John Stuart Mill, in his search to find the core of liberalism for today's world. While liberals of all stripes have held to some very basic values-liberty, individuality, and the critical use of intelligence - earlier forms of liberalism restricted the state function to protecting its citizens while allowing free reign to socio-economic forces. But, as society matures, so must liberalism as it reaches out to redefine itself in a world where government must play a role in creating an environment in which citizens can achieve their potential. Dewey's advocacy of a positive role for government - a new liberalism - nevertheless finds him rejecting radical Marxists and fascists who would use violence and revolution rather than democratic methods to aid the citizenry.
93 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1935
12 people are currently reading
535 people want to read
About the author
John Dewey
874 books716 followersJohn Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism and of functional psychology. He was a major representative of the progressive and progressive populist philosophies of schooling during the first half of the 20th century in the USA.
In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.
In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 9, 2024
Dewey postulates a rational movement to a harmonious whole, thus adopting a sappy progressivism.
December 16, 2021
In Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey lays out the history of liberalism, starting with Locke and the supremacy of the natural rights of man, through Smith’s laissez faire liberalism and Bentham’s utilitarianism, up to the humanitarians and Romantics, which influenced the creation of a new liberalism, one which Dewey is advocating for.
Dewey faults old liberalism for focusing solely on the individual to the exclusion of the person as a social creature situated within a collective. The old liberals saw the role of government solely as a negative force to protect against the infringement of individual rights. However, Dewey thinks this framing is short-sighted. People are more or less free based on their social circumstances and relations. The function of liberalism is the mediation of social change which takes place in every generation, and by mediating this change correctly, government can take on a positive role to actively secure people’s rights and liberty.
Although Dewey faults old liberalism for its exaggeration of individualism and willingness to drift along with the status quo, he critiques Marxism for the opposite mistakes: chiefly, for its advocacy of violence as the sole means of social change but also for oversimplifications, like exaggeration of the collective at the expense of individuals and also the lumping together of engines of change. For Dewey, the right engine of change is education. Education reform will lead to greater intellectual freedom and institutional reforms that will secure greater liberties for everyone.
“Flux does not have to be created. But it does have to be directed” (61).
“Even so, the cause of the liberty of the human spirit, the cause of opportunity of human beings for full development of their powers, the cause for which liberalism enduringly stands, is too precious and too ingrained in the human constitution to be forever obscured. Intelligence after millions of years of err act has found itself as a method, and it will not be lost forever in the blackness of night. The business of liberalism is to bend every energy and exhibit every courage so that these precious goods may not even be temporarily lost but be intensified and expanded here and now” (92-93).
It was interesting to glean from this book how the liberal ideas of today’s generation become the conservative ideas of the next. Dewey’s approach seems reasonable and sheds light on the formation of the modern idea of the role of government in America and what is expected. However, it seems to me that Dewey completely missed a crucial question. If education is the key to social change, who decides what is taught? That question seems to be a battleground between modern conservatives and liberals that Dewey leaves unanswered.
Dewey faults old liberalism for focusing solely on the individual to the exclusion of the person as a social creature situated within a collective. The old liberals saw the role of government solely as a negative force to protect against the infringement of individual rights. However, Dewey thinks this framing is short-sighted. People are more or less free based on their social circumstances and relations. The function of liberalism is the mediation of social change which takes place in every generation, and by mediating this change correctly, government can take on a positive role to actively secure people’s rights and liberty.
Although Dewey faults old liberalism for its exaggeration of individualism and willingness to drift along with the status quo, he critiques Marxism for the opposite mistakes: chiefly, for its advocacy of violence as the sole means of social change but also for oversimplifications, like exaggeration of the collective at the expense of individuals and also the lumping together of engines of change. For Dewey, the right engine of change is education. Education reform will lead to greater intellectual freedom and institutional reforms that will secure greater liberties for everyone.
“Flux does not have to be created. But it does have to be directed” (61).
“Even so, the cause of the liberty of the human spirit, the cause of opportunity of human beings for full development of their powers, the cause for which liberalism enduringly stands, is too precious and too ingrained in the human constitution to be forever obscured. Intelligence after millions of years of err act has found itself as a method, and it will not be lost forever in the blackness of night. The business of liberalism is to bend every energy and exhibit every courage so that these precious goods may not even be temporarily lost but be intensified and expanded here and now” (92-93).
It was interesting to glean from this book how the liberal ideas of today’s generation become the conservative ideas of the next. Dewey’s approach seems reasonable and sheds light on the formation of the modern idea of the role of government in America and what is expected. However, it seems to me that Dewey completely missed a crucial question. If education is the key to social change, who decides what is taught? That question seems to be a battleground between modern conservatives and liberals that Dewey leaves unanswered.
December 23, 2017
Five stars because I will reread and consider it an important addition to my library. As its content is from lectures, it doesn’t read as well as it could if given literary structure. That said, it is foundational in nature and gives the reader something from which to build through independent study if interested in exploring the subjects further.
His conclusion is that liberalism needs to recover its historic value through its genesis of responding to the changing needs of society and not constricting itself to what was done in the past to solve problems. Society changes and liberalism must respond in kind with new ideas and solutions, not dependence on what has always been done if that old solution no longer works. Obvious yes, but look around you. This 1935 publication is relevant today. He eschews violence, propaganda, and all manipulation of the political persuasion.
His conclusion is that liberalism needs to recover its historic value through its genesis of responding to the changing needs of society and not constricting itself to what was done in the past to solve problems. Society changes and liberalism must respond in kind with new ideas and solutions, not dependence on what has always been done if that old solution no longer works. Obvious yes, but look around you. This 1935 publication is relevant today. He eschews violence, propaganda, and all manipulation of the political persuasion.
April 9, 2014
I give up. This book is brilliant. It doesn't seem brilliant when you're reading it--instead it seems vague and unanchored--but the ideas that first seemed unrevelatory stick in your mind and I keep thinking it's like a central puzzle piece that I'm glad I found, because I needed it to fill an important gap. What a guy, Dewey.
April 16, 2024
کتاب لیبرالیسم و عمل اجتماعی به تازگی توسط نشر کرگدن منتشر شده و آقای رضا یعقوبی ترجمه ی قابل قبولی از آن را ارائه داده.
بیشتر کتابهای ترجمه شده در زمینهی لیبرالیسم درواقع اشاره به لیبرالیسم کلاسیک دارند و در شرایط کنونی جامعهی ما ناکارآمدند. این کتاب یکی از بهترین کتابهای ترجمه شدهایست که میتوانید دربارهی لیبرالیسم مدرن بخوانید.
بیشتر کتابهای ترجمه شده در زمینهی لیبرالیسم درواقع اشاره به لیبرالیسم کلاسیک دارند و در شرایط کنونی جامعهی ما ناکارآمدند. این کتاب یکی از بهترین کتابهای ترجمه شدهایست که میتوانید دربارهی لیبرالیسم مدرن بخوانید.
September 14, 2007
Ah John Dewey, oh voice of reasonable engagement with Hegel and logic. Why does no one talk about you much anymore? At the risk of sounding old fashioned, I will say that I think there is lot to be said for Dewey and his brand of pragmatism. Maybe we can blame Richard Posner on him, but I still think there is something there. This is the only book of his I have read, and frankly, it was a little while ago now. Maybe I should go back and revisit the guy.
March 30, 2022
I will give five stars for the first portion and the second portion of the book. In the first portion we get a really nice laid out history of liberalism starting with John Locke and ending with laissez-faire capitalism or as we would call them today the neoliberals. Particularly in this chapter. I enjoyed learning about Bentham and his utilitarian philosophy that sort of changed the way that liberals thought about what was good. Bentham believed that, as utilitarians do, "good" meant good for the most amount of people and not for as many freedoms or rights for the individuals.
Where this book really went off The rails for me is in part 3 which is the chapter on renaissant liberalism. In this chapter which was relatively hard to read because of the way that it was written and worded, John Dewey, Basically makes the argument for socialism while being clear that he is not in favor of violent revolutionary communism. The most telling and disappointing quote in this book is on page 89 where he says "every significant religion and moral teacher and profit has asserted that the material is instrumental to the good life." Well I don't know what religions John Dewey had been reading about but this is a fucking stupid statement. That is pretty much universally antithetical to every religion and moral teaching. It is only true of socialists and perhaps laissez-faire capitalists. But certainly not a religious assumption.
Unfortunately for Dewey, if he believed this then there is no argument I can make that would persuade him, If he was still alive that is, of the spiritual void that comes about from both capitalism and its extreme forms and socialism. Both of these economic systems if you can call them that put extreme emphasis on the material as bringing about the well-being of the individual but this ignores the spiritual side of humanity. To Dewey, The human problems caused by laissez-faire capitalism can be solved with a new system namely liberalism. I disagree with this wholeheartedly and believe that it is the individual who acts and therefore fulfills his spiritual needs - This is something that happens regardless of the economic system you find yourself in. It cannot be fixed or fulfilled through a system. It must be fulfilled through the individuals action.
Ultimately, I would say I was disappointed to get to the end of this short book only to find the Dewey is making a case for soft socialism. He says "But the cause of liberalism will be lost for a considerable period if it is not prepared to go further and socialize the forces of production not at hand so that the liberty of individuals will be supported by the very structure of economic organization."
You can see in this idea that he is not only arguing for socialism via using the means of production, He's also reinventing what it is for a person to express liberty and individuality. To Dewey, he believed in the rejection of the Lockean idea of what an individual is and what the rights are to a newer more modern version of what an individual and the rights are. Namely that the individual can only be individualized when he has the freedom to express himself and this is done through economic freedom and social change, presumably.
To be fair, it does seem the Dewey is making more of a Democratic socialist argument. He seems to be very against violent revolution, both of the fascist kind and of the Communist kind. But ultimately, his goal for social mobility and action is to get a large enough coalition of people together to democratically vote on the socialization of the economy. So while I appreciate his continued emphasis on the lack of violence necessary for society to continue, I still vehemently disagree with his prognosis on how we can fulfill the spiritual void and cause people to express themselves in a more fulfilled way.
He also seems to continually rag on the material while simultaneously making argument for how we need to make the material more available to more people. On the one hand he seems to think that the material is the ultimate cause of the ills of the United States while simultaneously prescribing those very materials, although through a socialized economy, As the very thing that will liberate the individual to express themselves. There is an obvious contradiction here that I could not help but point out.
If I were to recommend this book I would say I recommend part one and part two, but part three, which is his recommendation for the direction of liberalism today - which of course was like 50 or 60 years ago - falls into the all too familiar trap of socialism will solve the problem. There's a nice little history lesson in part one and some good critiques of liberalism in part two, but part 3 was kind of a waste of time. Both in the way it was written and what its contents were.
Where this book really went off The rails for me is in part 3 which is the chapter on renaissant liberalism. In this chapter which was relatively hard to read because of the way that it was written and worded, John Dewey, Basically makes the argument for socialism while being clear that he is not in favor of violent revolutionary communism. The most telling and disappointing quote in this book is on page 89 where he says "every significant religion and moral teacher and profit has asserted that the material is instrumental to the good life." Well I don't know what religions John Dewey had been reading about but this is a fucking stupid statement. That is pretty much universally antithetical to every religion and moral teaching. It is only true of socialists and perhaps laissez-faire capitalists. But certainly not a religious assumption.
Unfortunately for Dewey, if he believed this then there is no argument I can make that would persuade him, If he was still alive that is, of the spiritual void that comes about from both capitalism and its extreme forms and socialism. Both of these economic systems if you can call them that put extreme emphasis on the material as bringing about the well-being of the individual but this ignores the spiritual side of humanity. To Dewey, The human problems caused by laissez-faire capitalism can be solved with a new system namely liberalism. I disagree with this wholeheartedly and believe that it is the individual who acts and therefore fulfills his spiritual needs - This is something that happens regardless of the economic system you find yourself in. It cannot be fixed or fulfilled through a system. It must be fulfilled through the individuals action.
Ultimately, I would say I was disappointed to get to the end of this short book only to find the Dewey is making a case for soft socialism. He says "But the cause of liberalism will be lost for a considerable period if it is not prepared to go further and socialize the forces of production not at hand so that the liberty of individuals will be supported by the very structure of economic organization."
You can see in this idea that he is not only arguing for socialism via using the means of production, He's also reinventing what it is for a person to express liberty and individuality. To Dewey, he believed in the rejection of the Lockean idea of what an individual is and what the rights are to a newer more modern version of what an individual and the rights are. Namely that the individual can only be individualized when he has the freedom to express himself and this is done through economic freedom and social change, presumably.
To be fair, it does seem the Dewey is making more of a Democratic socialist argument. He seems to be very against violent revolution, both of the fascist kind and of the Communist kind. But ultimately, his goal for social mobility and action is to get a large enough coalition of people together to democratically vote on the socialization of the economy. So while I appreciate his continued emphasis on the lack of violence necessary for society to continue, I still vehemently disagree with his prognosis on how we can fulfill the spiritual void and cause people to express themselves in a more fulfilled way.
He also seems to continually rag on the material while simultaneously making argument for how we need to make the material more available to more people. On the one hand he seems to think that the material is the ultimate cause of the ills of the United States while simultaneously prescribing those very materials, although through a socialized economy, As the very thing that will liberate the individual to express themselves. There is an obvious contradiction here that I could not help but point out.
If I were to recommend this book I would say I recommend part one and part two, but part three, which is his recommendation for the direction of liberalism today - which of course was like 50 or 60 years ago - falls into the all too familiar trap of socialism will solve the problem. There's a nice little history lesson in part one and some good critiques of liberalism in part two, but part 3 was kind of a waste of time. Both in the way it was written and what its contents were.
June 21, 2019
As a pragmatist philosopher Dewey holds the priority of experience over theory.
He believes in the primacy of democracy as civic experimentation though action that takes place not only in the political arena but also in other social domains, such as school, the workplace and civil associations, where individuals get involved and learn to practice democracy.
Dewey’s liberalism binds the individualism of the American liberal tradition with the reformist spirit of the European Social- Democracy.
The book “Liberalism and Social Action” brings together three lectures given at the University of Virginia in 1935. In these lectures, he surveys the history of liberalism by focusing on the causes of the crisis that liberal democracy was facing in the United States in the early 20th century.
It is very important to note that through his criticism of liberalism Dewey does not aim to deconstruct liberalism as an idea . He does not reject individualism.
On the contrary, he highlights all the positive aspects of the fundamental virtues of initiative, independence, free choice and responsibility which shaped the history of mankind.
His primary objective is to trace the lost meaning of liberalism, to identify all of its forgotten elements and bring them into line with the requirements of his time.
He therefore, attaches particular importance to the work of John Locke, whom he considers as the founder of the evolution of the various persuasions of liberalism due to the particular emphasis he placed on individualism and freedom.
Locke believed that individual liberty is somehow guaranteed because it is built into the very nature of things as part of the rational essence of human nature. Thus, the State’s role should be limited as a mere guardian of this “natural” and fixed freedom.
Dewey refused to ground liberalism in such a metaphysical doctrine of inalienable rights. As he rejected a fixed world of essences, and was insisting instead on change, and the plasticity of the world.
He was highly critical to Locke’s approach, arguing that the basic thought behind this view gradually led to the formation of a negative perception concerning the role of the government which was was eventually treated as the worst enemy of individual freedom.
“Classical liberalism”, that is liberalism in its original historical form, once successfully completed its early stage ended up in crisis when contemporary societies were confronted with the problem of new social organization.
Liberalism was found absolutely unprepared to respond to the new changing circumstances . For Dewey, the “Achilles’ heel” of liberalism lies in the inability to understand and adapt to the changing circumstances of the modern world.
This is due both to the embrace of the extreme version of «laissez faire» and brute individualism and secondly due to the fact that the values developed by early liberals were established as eternal truths, as doctrines regardless of time and thus eliminating any historical relevance.
This lack of historicity, the entrenchment in static concepts which corresponded in other times and in other circumstances, led to the perpetuation of outdated institutions and models, who completely ignored the fact of the temporary relativity of concepts.
This in turn resulted in the construction of a social doctrine that for Dewey does have parallels with political authoritarianism.
The lack of new institutional framework also resulted in the liberation of some social groups which gained wealth and privileges.
On the other hand, however, other social groups were condemned in inequality and exploitation.
These were the circumstances which militated against Dewey’s underlying belief that real individual liberty is guaranteed and maintained only through equality in economic conditions.
The pragmatist philosopher was not limited to criticism. He believed that liberalism could be revived provided it would abandon the “eternal truths”, dogmatism and stand critically against the heritage of principles corresponded to other times and realize that they are no longer functional.
Another requirement was to realize that in order to have any future, liberalism as an idea should be redefined and become historically and socially adaptive.
After realising the historical relativity, a constant struggle is essential in order to ensure the positive freedoms of individuals. Equally essential, however, is a creative experimentation realized through the active, sustained and collective action of the citizens in a process of exploring imaginary possibilities.
He believes in the primacy of democracy as civic experimentation though action that takes place not only in the political arena but also in other social domains, such as school, the workplace and civil associations, where individuals get involved and learn to practice democracy.
Dewey’s liberalism binds the individualism of the American liberal tradition with the reformist spirit of the European Social- Democracy.
The book “Liberalism and Social Action” brings together three lectures given at the University of Virginia in 1935. In these lectures, he surveys the history of liberalism by focusing on the causes of the crisis that liberal democracy was facing in the United States in the early 20th century.
It is very important to note that through his criticism of liberalism Dewey does not aim to deconstruct liberalism as an idea . He does not reject individualism.
On the contrary, he highlights all the positive aspects of the fundamental virtues of initiative, independence, free choice and responsibility which shaped the history of mankind.
His primary objective is to trace the lost meaning of liberalism, to identify all of its forgotten elements and bring them into line with the requirements of his time.
He therefore, attaches particular importance to the work of John Locke, whom he considers as the founder of the evolution of the various persuasions of liberalism due to the particular emphasis he placed on individualism and freedom.
Locke believed that individual liberty is somehow guaranteed because it is built into the very nature of things as part of the rational essence of human nature. Thus, the State’s role should be limited as a mere guardian of this “natural” and fixed freedom.
Dewey refused to ground liberalism in such a metaphysical doctrine of inalienable rights. As he rejected a fixed world of essences, and was insisting instead on change, and the plasticity of the world.
He was highly critical to Locke’s approach, arguing that the basic thought behind this view gradually led to the formation of a negative perception concerning the role of the government which was was eventually treated as the worst enemy of individual freedom.
“Classical liberalism”, that is liberalism in its original historical form, once successfully completed its early stage ended up in crisis when contemporary societies were confronted with the problem of new social organization.
Liberalism was found absolutely unprepared to respond to the new changing circumstances . For Dewey, the “Achilles’ heel” of liberalism lies in the inability to understand and adapt to the changing circumstances of the modern world.
This is due both to the embrace of the extreme version of «laissez faire» and brute individualism and secondly due to the fact that the values developed by early liberals were established as eternal truths, as doctrines regardless of time and thus eliminating any historical relevance.
This lack of historicity, the entrenchment in static concepts which corresponded in other times and in other circumstances, led to the perpetuation of outdated institutions and models, who completely ignored the fact of the temporary relativity of concepts.
This in turn resulted in the construction of a social doctrine that for Dewey does have parallels with political authoritarianism.
The lack of new institutional framework also resulted in the liberation of some social groups which gained wealth and privileges.
On the other hand, however, other social groups were condemned in inequality and exploitation.
These were the circumstances which militated against Dewey’s underlying belief that real individual liberty is guaranteed and maintained only through equality in economic conditions.
The pragmatist philosopher was not limited to criticism. He believed that liberalism could be revived provided it would abandon the “eternal truths”, dogmatism and stand critically against the heritage of principles corresponded to other times and realize that they are no longer functional.
Another requirement was to realize that in order to have any future, liberalism as an idea should be redefined and become historically and socially adaptive.
After realising the historical relativity, a constant struggle is essential in order to ensure the positive freedoms of individuals. Equally essential, however, is a creative experimentation realized through the active, sustained and collective action of the citizens in a process of exploring imaginary possibilities.
March 3, 2023
Ο Dewey είναι ένας από τους σημαντικότερους φιλοσόφους του προηγούμενου αιώνα. Καταπιάστηκε με πολλούς κλάδους της φιλοσοφίας και της σκέψης γενικότερα. Δυστυχώς στην Ελλάδα είναι κυρίως γνωστός για τις εκπαιδευτικές του σκέψεις.
Το παρόν πολιτικό δοκίμιο είναι μια σύντομη,αλλά νηφάλια και στοχευμένη ιστορική μελέτη του φιλελευθερισμού. Αναφέρει όλα τα στραβά της, όλα τα καλά της, τις παρερμηνείες και τις αποκλείσεις από τις αρχικές τοποθετήσεις των μεγάλων φιλελεύθερων στοχαστών.
Στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο, έχοντας εντοπίσει το πρόβλημα του φιλελευθερισμού στην εποχή του στα προηγούμενα κεφαλαία, προσπαθεί να δώσει τη δίκη του λύση στο τέλμα του φιλελευθερισμού.
Το πρόβλημα θα λυθεί μέσω της εκπαίδευσης που εστιάζει στην πράξη, μέσω την ανύψωσης του πνευματικού έναντι του υλικού και τέλος της επιστροφής της «διάνοιας» εκεί που θα έπρεπε να είναι.
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι υπάρχει μια σχετική ασάφεια στις προτάσεις του. Αυτό όμως δεν μπορεί να στερήσει κάτι από την δύναμη αυτού του κειμένου.
Καλή ανάγνωση.
Το παρόν πολιτικό δοκίμιο είναι μια σύντομη,αλλά νηφάλια και στοχευμένη ιστορική μελέτη του φιλελευθερισμού. Αναφέρει όλα τα στραβά της, όλα τα καλά της, τις παρερμηνείες και τις αποκλείσεις από τις αρχικές τοποθετήσεις των μεγάλων φιλελεύθερων στοχαστών.
Στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο, έχοντας εντοπίσει το πρόβλημα του φιλελευθερισμού στην εποχή του στα προηγούμενα κεφαλαία, προσπαθεί να δώσει τη δίκη του λύση στο τέλμα του φιλελευθερισμού.
Το πρόβλημα θα λυθεί μέσω της εκπαίδευσης που εστιάζει στην πράξη, μέσω την ανύψωσης του πνευματικού έναντι του υλικού και τέλος της επιστροφής της «διάνοιας» εκεί που θα έπρεπε να είναι.
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι υπάρχει μια σχετική ασάφεια στις προτάσεις του. Αυτό όμως δεν μπορεί να στερήσει κάτι από την δύναμη αυτού του κειμένου.
Καλή ανάγνωση.
January 21, 2026
i think he gave quite a comprehensive history run through of the past thinkers of liberalism e.g. starting from locke to so on. i guess thats the highlight for me. after the first section, i'm like eh. bro kept repeating many things and it sounded whiny. if you want to shortcut dewey's thoughts, just read the first section. he does state all the problems he have with everyone and what he wants looking forward from there. like really, thats ENOUGH. unfortunately, i'm not a fan of his suggestions. the mobilization sounds too impractical and idealistic. but i do get the intent, it sounds good on paper. i for one, crave authority lol.
March 25, 2020
This surveys the movement toward liberalism.
Before the industrial revolution.
Woman and civil rights.
People didn't have common decency.
These pioneers of human rights.
Pushed the boundary of social order.
Trying to create a more forgiving trusting
Caring world.
Nishe and ww2 brought and end to it.
Nialist and athiest.
Still some seek liberal change.
Before the industrial revolution.
Woman and civil rights.
People didn't have common decency.
These pioneers of human rights.
Pushed the boundary of social order.
Trying to create a more forgiving trusting
Caring world.
Nishe and ww2 brought and end to it.
Nialist and athiest.
Still some seek liberal change.
March 6, 2025
من نمیدونم شمایی که راه حلت برای مسئلهی کنش اجتماعی لیبرالیسم اینه مالکیت ابزار تولید مشارکتی بشه تا بره در مسیر آموزش و پرورش و افزایش سطوح فرهنگی و فلان و بیسار، چه اصراری داری همچنان خودت رو لیبرال بنامی؟ جدی خیلی رو مخه که ببینی یه عده چون میدونن به خودشون بگن سوسالیست کنار گذاشته میشن، میان میگن "ما لیبرالیم" و شروع میکنن به تغییر دادن معنا و محتوای لیبرالیسم.
April 20, 2022
Liberalisme en maatschappelijk handelen. Een boekje uit 1935 dat aantoont dat liberalisme niet zo individualistisch hoeft te zijn, zoals we het vandaag aantreffen. Met een zeer verhelderend overzicht van het ontstaan van die strekking.
June 4, 2025
Phenomenal little book on the tension between individualistic liberalism and embedded-embodied socialized intelligence.
October 8, 2011
"The ultimate place of economic organization in human life is to assure the secure basis for an ordered expression of individual capacity and for the satisfaction of the needs of man in noneconomic directions" (p 88). Dewey characterized laissez faire perspective on the economy as a beginning-level stage of economic development, and those who advocated for such perspective as reactionary, whose work to develop policy reflecting laissez faire philosophy in effect damaged social development. Dewey advocated for innovative solutions for contemporary conditions stating, "Remaking of the old through union with the new is precisely what intelligence is" (p 56). Views expressed by Dewey acknowledge the complexity of a modern world and the fluid conditions of a contemporary and ever-changing society. He writes, "Nothing is blinder than the supposition that we live in a society and world so static that either nothing new will happen or else it will happen because of the use of violence" (p 61).
October 20, 2014
This is an impressive short read that everyone should spend time with. For me, it was helpful to have elucidated the historical progression from the pre-industrial revolution Lockeian/laissez faire mode of liberalism (that quickly became the entrenched american status quo) to the next-generational utilitarian mode of liberalism (thanks to Bentham and the Mills) that took hold in Europe in the early nineteenth century that roughly forms the basis of post-deal america. By interpolation, this also implicitly "explains" why Europe always seems to be a generation or two ahead of us in its form of social democracy.
While obviously i would like to see an effective scientifically grounded social organizational structure imposed on our society, these lectures are too concise for the details of this business. Instead they focus on the moral imperative of reconciling classical liberalism and modern liberalism by reclaiming the idea that both are intended to release the powers of the truly-free individual.
Good weekend read!
While obviously i would like to see an effective scientifically grounded social organizational structure imposed on our society, these lectures are too concise for the details of this business. Instead they focus on the moral imperative of reconciling classical liberalism and modern liberalism by reclaiming the idea that both are intended to release the powers of the truly-free individual.
Good weekend read!
July 22, 2012
Very quick read that summarizes Dewey's view of the meaning and purpose of liberalism in a democratic society. In it, he offers a historical account of the development of liberalism, an account of the crisis of liberalism (i.e., liberalism as formulated in pre-industrial societies is incapable of addressing the social problems associated with industrial societies), and a prescription for a new, radical liberalism that is capable of addressing the problems of our time. People with little familiarity with Dewey could get a lot out of this book. However, it's best understood in light of his previous works on habit, intelligent, and experimental method (Human Nature and Conduct and The Quest for Certainty).
Dewey wrote this book in 1935, but it's still remarkably applicable to our political and social problems now.
Dewey wrote this book in 1935, but it's still remarkably applicable to our political and social problems now.
May 14, 2016
This short book's good.
The text consist of 3 lectures originally delivered on December 28, 1934, later republished in the journal School and Society in January 1935.
The entirety is only 24,000 words, so I plan to reread it someday, and possibly give it a fourth star.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews