Những bài cùng tác giả
Cách đây 87 năm [tính đến năm 2006], John Dewey và vợ đã tới Trung Quốc theo
lời mời của một nhóm cựu sinh viên người Hoa từng là học trò ông tại Đại học
Columbia. Dewey đã lưu tại Trung Quốc trong hai năm hai tháng, ông đã đi dọc
ngang đất nước này để thuyết trình tại các trường đại học,
nhiều bài nói chuyện của ông sau đó đã được
in thành sách. Người Trung Quốc trân trọng triết học giáo dục của
ông, thậm chí Hội nghị Giáo dục năm 1922 còn lấy triết học giáo dục của John
Dewey làm chủ đề thảo luận chính. Dewey đã thuyết trình những vấn đề liên
quan đến chính trị, triết học và giáo dục. Ông đã giải thích cho cử tọa
Trung Quốc hiểu chính xác thế nào là cung cách tư duy dân chủ, thế nào là
hành xử và sinh sống tuân theo một cung cách dân chủ. Ông đã giúp cho người
Trung Quốc hiểu được ý nghĩa quan trọng của tư duy phản biện nếu một đất
nước muốn đào tạo ra những con người thông minh, nếu một đất nước mong muốn
xây dựng một nền giáo dục bắt rễ trong tinh thần khoa học và dân chủ.
Trong thời gian Dewey lưu tại Trung Quốc, đất nước này đang trải qua một
giai đoạn bất ổn về chính trị, kinh tế và bang giao quốc tế. Thế nhưng giới
trí thức lại tỏ ra rất năng động và tràn đầy niềm hăng hái. Nhiều người
trong số họ bắt đầu ngưỡng mộ những thành tựu dân chủ và phát triển công
nghiệp tại phương Tây. Họ muốn học tập phương Tây để cứu Trung Quốc thoát
khỏi đói nghèo, rối loạn kinh tế và địa vị thấp kém trên trường quốc tế.
Nhiều người đổ tội đạo Khổng đang kìm hãm quá trình hiện đại hóa. Các bài
thuyết trình của Dewey đã truyền cảm hứng và cung cấp những ý tưởng cho
những trí thức đang mong muốn đưa Trung Quốc tiến lên.
Số khác, trong đó có những trí thức nổi tiếng như Liang Shu-ming, Liang
Qíchao, lại vẫn tiếp tục lưu luyến với những giá trị của đạo Khổng, không
tin vào những giá trị nhân văn của phương Tây, mặc dù họ tuyệt đối cho rằng
đất nước Trung Quốc cần phải có một cuộc cải cách. Nhiều người Trung Quốc
bắt đầu nghiên cứu chủ nghĩa Mác. Cuộc Cách mạng tháng 10 Nga và chính quyền
Bôn-sê-vích đang là một mô hình hấp dẫn nhiều trí thức Trung Quốc vào thời
gian này.
Ảnh hưởng của Dewey tại Trung Quốc bắt đầu giảm dần kể từ sau năm 1927.
Những quan niệm về dân chủ do Dewey đưa ra đã gây sự khó chịu cho những trí
thức theo tư tưởng Khổng Tử và những người theo Mác. Giá như Dewey chỉ bàn
về triết học giáo dục, nhưng hiềm một nỗi quan niệm giáo dục của ông lại
không thể tách rời khỏi những quan niệm của ông về dân chủ. Tôi viết tiểu
luận này bằng quan điểm của một người có gốc gác Trung Quốc để thử lý giải
tại sao tư tưởng dân chủ của Dewey lại không thể phát triển được tại Trung
Quốc, để thử lý giải những vấn đề đang cản trở sự phát triển một nền dân chủ
và trí tuệ nhân bản tại đất nước này.
Quan niệm của Dewey về dân chủ
Để hiểu tại sao quan niệm dân chủ của Dewey lại không thích hợp với Trung
Quốc ta cần hiểu được những đặc điểm dân chủ sau đây theo Dewey:
Dân chủ không chỉ đơn thuần là một hình thức cai trị của số đông thông qua
phổ thông đầu phiếu: nếu dân chủ được đồng nhất với việc bỏ phiếu, thế thì
dân chủ sẽ chỉ là một hệ thống của “đa số phiếu” chứ chưa chắc đã là một hệ
thống của “đa số thông minh”. Dewey viết trong Dân chủ và giáo dục (năm
1916): “Dân chủ trước hết là một phương thức của đời sống liên kết, một
phương thức của tự do truyền thông” (trang 87 của bản tiếng Anh). Nói cách
khác, dân chủ phải được tiến hành từ dưới lên trên chứ không phải được áp
đặt từ trên xuống – tức dân chủ phải được số đông chấp nhận và thực hành.
Dân chủ là một quá trình từng bước một: Dewey viết trong Dân chủ và giáo dục
“… làm cho những con người của một dân tộc suy nghĩ về cùng những vấn đề và
hành động theo cùng một hướng dựa trên sự đồng thuận. Nhưng sự đồng thuận
này chỉ có thể đạt được bằng sự thảo luận tự do và bằng sự tự do đánh giá
những quan điểm và yêu sách đối lập nhau; sự đồng thuận này không bao giờ
được phép giành được bằng vũ lực” (trang 178 của bản tiếng Anh). Người
phương Tây có khả năng kiên nhẫn thuyết phục người khác giỏi hơn người Trung
Quốc. Truyền thống này đã tồn tại từ nền giáo dục của Hy Lạp – La Mã cổ đại
(thuật hùng biện hoặc môn tu từ học). Người phương Tây có kỹ năng trình bày
trước một cử tọa, điều mà người Trung Quốc thường không có. Người Trung Quốc
thích thay đổi quan điểm của lãnh đạo chứ không thích thay đổi quan điểm của
quần chúng, và khi cần phải thay đổi quan điểm của quần chúng thì họ thường
áp đặt chứ không dựa vào sự thuyết phục.
Dân chủ không có nghĩa là dân chủ chỉ cho riêng một ai: Theo Dewey, một xã
hội dân chủ nghĩa là nó dân chủ với cả bạn lẫn thù. Một xã hội dân chủ bao
giờ cũng được dựa trên sự truyền thông, hợp tác và tương tác của không từ
bất cứ một ai sống trong xã hội ấy; sự tồn tại của xã hội dân chủ phụ thuộc
vào sự đồng thuận của những con người sống trong xã hội. Dewey phản đối đấu
tranh giai cấp ở chỗ nó tước đoạt các quyền của những người mà nó không ưa.
Cải cách ruộng đất đã tước đoạt quyền được có nhân phẩm của những địa chủ.
Dewey nói với người Trung Quốc “Đặc điểm của đời sống liên kết là sự hợp
tác, và hợp tác là điều có lợi cho cả hai phía. Nó giống như tình bạn vậy.
Tình bạn có lợi cho cả người này lẫn người kia, tình bạn giúp cho hai bên
trao đổi sự hiểu biết, và kết quả là cuộc sống trở nên phong phú hơn và
nhiều ý nghĩa hơn. Đời sống liên kết là lý tưởng cao quý nhất của phát triển
xã hội” (Tuyển tập các bài giảng của Dewey tại Trung Quốc, trang 89).
Dân chủ tức là phải khoan dung: Muốn sống liên kết với nhau thì trước hết
phải có lòng khoan dung. Dewey coi bản thân xã hội như là cái gì luôn sản
sinh những xung đột và con người trong khi cùng nhau giải quyết các xung đột
thì họ trở nên thay đổi và cùng nhau trưởng thành theo hướng tích cực. Vì
thế Dewey có thiện cảm với Aristotle hơn là với Platon bởi ông cho rằng
Platon là một người không tưởng cho nên Platon có cái nhìn hoang đường về xã
hội con người.
Ông Dewey so với ông Mác
Cả Dewey và Mác đều có ảnh hưởng rất lớn tới giới trí thức Trung Quốc vào
đầu thế kỷ XX. Hai ông có điểm giống nhau ở chỗ cùng nhấn mạnh mục đích công
bằng xã hội và dân chủ. Nhưng trong khi Mác đề cao phương tiện cực đoan –
đấu tranh giai cấp để lật đổ chế độ cũ, thì Dewey chú trọng tới sự giải
phóng cá nhân – tức ông nhấn mạnh vấn đề đạo đức và tinh thần. Trên phương
diện kinh tế, Dewey phản đối quan niệm kế hoạch hóa của Mác. Dewey nói “kế
hoạch hóa làm giảm sáng kiến cá nhân, làm giảm tính tự giác và dẫn đến sự
tái phục hồi những cơ cấu phong kiến” (Tuyển tập các bài giảng của Dewey tại
Trung Quốc, trang 122).
Những vấn đề của xã hội Trung Quốc ngày hôm nay
Vấn đề số một hiện nay của Trung Quốc là sự độc tôn của Đảng Cộng sản trong
đời sống xã hội. Kể từ năm 1949 đến nay người Trung Quốc chỉ được phép học
Mác nhưng không được giải thích Mác. Một nhận thức, một tư tưởng không thể
tồn tại tự nó, nó sẽ chết nếu không được phép phát triển. William Doll đã
trích dẫn triết gia người Anh Alfred North Whitehead: “Tư tưởng sẽ trở nên
hết sức sống nếu nó bị cắt rời, bị biệt lập như một nguyên tử; nếu nó không
còn mối liên hệ với những vấn đề thực tiễn của đời sống hay những mối quan
tâm của cá nhân” (Tạp chí Nghiên cứu giáo dục và Phát triển [Đài Loan],
1(1), 27-42). Điều gì khiến Đảng Cộng sản Trung Quốc lo sợ để đến nỗi họ
không cho phép bất cứ ai giải thích Mác hoặc tranh luận về Mác theo cách
riêng? Phải chăng Dewey là mối đe dọa đối với họ? Dewey nói: “Khi các ý kiến
được bày tỏ và xuất bản công khai, chúng có thể được thay đổi và sửa chữa;
khi chúng bị ngăn cấm, chúng sẽ bùng nổ dưới một hình thức nào đó khác,
thường là bằng bạo lực. Càng ngăn cấm thì nguy cơ này lại càng lớn” (Tuyển
tập các bài giảng của Dewey tại Trung Quốc, trang 171).
Vấn đề thứ hai ngăn cản sự nghiên cứu Dewey là sự khủng hoảng niềm tin.
Trong những năm 1950, Đảng Cộng sản đã tiến hành các phong trào đàn áp và
tiêu diệt bất cứ ai có tư tưởng khác với Mác và Chủ tịch Mao. Phong trào
Chỉnh đế, Đại nhảy vọt, Cách mạng Văn hóa đều đã để lại những chấn thương
tinh thần khủng khiếp cho giới trí thức. Những trí thức trung thực đều giữ
im lặng hoặc thậm chí nói những điều dối trá để giữ mạng sống của mình. Cuộc
cải cách trong những năm 1980 đã hủy bỏ đấu tranh giai cấp, song mới chỉ
dừng lại ở cải cách kinh tế.
Vấn đề thứ ba là một vấn đề từng được Dewey đề cập nhiều lần: người Trung
Quốc không có thói quen suy nghĩ và đề ra quyết định độc lập, và hầu hết đều
bàng quan với chính trị. Một mặt, người Trung Quốc cho rằng chính trị không
phải là điều thích hợp với người bình thường, đó là công việc của các nhà
chính trị. Hơn nữa, họ có kinh nghiệm rằng một ý kiến hoặc nỗ lực cá nhân
thì chẳng bao giờ thay đổi được hiện trạng. Dewey đã hiểu rất đúng người
Trung Quốc khi ông trích dẫn một câu thơ cổ của Trung Quốc: “Hãy tự đào
giếng để lấy nước mà uống / Hãy tự cày cấy để lấy gạo mà ăn / Vua thì có
liên quan gì đến ta?” (Dewey, Tuyền tập các bài giảng tại Trung Quốc, trang
224). Tính chất dân tộc này vẫn không thay đổi qua năm tháng, và nó ngày
càng được củng cố. Mạt chược là một trò giải trí được ưa thích nhất tại
Trung Quốc. Người Trung Quốc chơi mạt chược để trốn tránh thực tế, trốn
tránh cái thực tế mà họ không thể thay đổi và buộc phải chịu đựng. Hồ Thích
viết: “Có một triệu cái bàn chơi mạt chược (mỗi bàn có 4 người chơi), nếu
mỗi bàn có tám ván, mỗi ván mất 30 phút, như vậy 4 triệu giờ đồng hồ sẽ được
sử dụng, tức là hơn 160.000 ngày. Chơi mạt chược làm tiêu hao năng lượng và
tiền bạc. Nhưng quan trọng hơn là nó làm lãng phí thời gian và chúng ta
không thể tìm thấy một đất nước nào như đất nước chúng ta mà lại phát triển
và văn minh cho được!”.
Vấn đề quan trọng nhất của Trung Quốc hiện nay là họ phải hiểu được ý nghĩa
quan trọng của việc xây dựng tính nhân văn, trí thông minh nhân bản, luân
lý, văn hóa, và lịch sử. Việc khôi phục nghiên cứu quan niệm của Dewey về
thế nào là dân chủ và di sản của ông đối với Trung Quốc, là điều có ý nghĩa
cho cả bản thân hiện trạng dân chủ tại Trung Quốc và cho cả bản thân đất
nước Trung Quốc xét như một tổng thể. Việc này đòi hỏi một cách nhìn kỹ
lưỡng và toàn diện hơn. Tức là đòi hỏi phải có một khả năng khoan dung sự
khác biệt, khả năng kiên nhẫn chứ không phải là phát triển lấy được, và lòng
hiểu biết để có thể cùng nhau tồn tại trong một đời sống liên kết. Đó là
những điều đáng để Trung Quốc tham khảo. Sự tăng trưởng kinh tế mạnh mẽ của
Trung Quốc hôm nay có thể giúp cho nhiều cá nhân có cơ hội để thành đạt,
song lại không khuyến khích những trách nhiệm xã hội. Di sản của Dewey trong
quá khứ từng có ý nghĩa đối với Trung Quốc, và ngày hôm nay nó vẫn tiếp tục
gợi nhiều cảm hứng.
Nguồn: Tạp chí Transnational Curriculum Inquiry
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/tci/article/viewFile/22/44
John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese society
Mei Wu Hoyt Texas A&M University, USA
Eighty-seven years ago, John Dewey and his wife, Alice Dewey, visited China
in response to an invitation from some of his Chinese former students at Columbia
University. Dewey stayed in China for two years, traveling throughout the country to present
lectures at universities and colleges, many of which were published or reported in
various local newspapers. His educational philosophies were respected and valued, and were
even taken as the theme for China’s Educational Conference in 1922. His lectures included
political science, social science, philosophy and education. In those lectures, Dewey
clarified the democratic way of thinking, doing and living to the Chinese people. Through
his speeches, he enlightened his Chinese listeners about the importance of reflective
thinking and reasoning in constructing human intelligence, of lively inquiries, and of education
rooted in science and democracy. During Dewey’s visit, China was in a state of political instability,
economic sluggishness and vulnerable international relationships. In contrast, both culturally and
intellectually, Chinese thinkers were dynamic and full of passion. Many Chinese
intellectuals were disappointed with the political and economic situation of that period, and
they admired the democracy and industrial development of Western countries. They wanted to
learn from the West so as to save China from economic poverty, political chaos and
diplomatic inferiority. Many attributed the genesis of these problems to traditional Confucianism’s
confinement of China’s modernization. These leaders in Chinese thought wanted to break away
from the old and construct a new way of conceptualizing China. Dewey’s inspiring speeches
and ideas brought hope to Chinese intellectuals that they might move China forward. When in China, Dewey had a unique opportunity to advance his philosophy. At
the same time, he was confronted with substantial challenges. Many Chinese
intellectuals’ ties to Confucianism were still strong, and their desire to find a Western
counterpart to the humanistic and spiritual values of Confucianism was not successful. These
intellectuals, such as Liang Shu-ming, a professor of Beijing University, and Liang Qichao1
(known as Liang Ch’i-ch’ao in Taiwan), a well-known reformist, had no doubt about China’s
need for reform, but they also worried about the spiritual and humanistic values (or lack
thereof) in Western democracy. Moreover, Dewey’s democracy was not the only Western philosophy
being studied in China at the time. For example, many of the Chinese who studied
in Europe promoted European philosophy, especially Marxist theory, which was widely
discussed among university professors and students. The success of the Russian
Revolution in 1917 and the Bolshevik socialistic government was a prominent (and apparently
successful) model for budding Chinese Communists. Dewey’s achievements in the educational sphere were substantial, yet this
significant impact was overshadowed by the pragmatism omnipresent in Western democracy.
Also, after Page 2 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 13 1927, Dewey’s influence in China had been declining. The coupling of his
pragmatism with his theories of democracy disturbed both Chinese Confucian intellectuals and
Chinese Marxists. I argue that Dewey’s influence might have been stronger if he had
solely advocated educational philosophies. However, that was not possible because Dewey’s
understanding of education was inseparable from his notions of pragmatism and democracy.
Consequently, the decline of his influence and his philosophies was due to many factors. This
paper explores the strength of Dewey’s democracy, traces these factors, and considers why
Western democracy did not thrive in China. I do this from the standpoint of a person of
Chinese origin who is especially about the problems that defer or deter the development of
democracy and the construction of human intelligence in China. Dewey’s democracy To understand Dewey’s legacy to China, and the decline of his influence on
the Chinese, it is important to understand what Dewey meant by democracy and why those meanings
were considered either adequate or conflicted at that period of time. Dewey’s
democracy, in general, had the following features, which I will discuss at greater length:
• democracy is more than a form • step-by-step democracy • associated democracy • tolerant democracy • pragmatism (cf. Marxism) Democracy is more than a form Dewey (1916/1944) presented his democratic ways of teaching, learning and
living in one of his best-known books, Democracy and Education, a work in which he integrated
his democratic philosophy with his theories of education, to the extent that he
saw education as the basis for seeking a democratic realization of self and society. Dewey
also wrote books and gave lectures on political democracy, democratic rights, social democracy
and economic democracy, all of which embodied and vigorously promoted the understandings
of a democratic society that endured throughout his career. When talking about democracy, many people connect it with egalitarian
suffrage in the electoral process. Indeed, the democracy of political rights began with
polling and was how the ancient Athenians governed their polis (condemning Socrates to death by
democratic votes is a well-known example). But if democracy is equated with voting at
polls, then it is only a “most votes” system and has nothing to do with being wise. The
democracy that Dewey presented demanded democratic intelligence and wise individuality.
Dewey (1916/1944) wrote: “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is
primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience” (p.87). In other
words, democracy should be carried out from the bottom to the top, not from the top to the
bottom – a pervasive acceptance and practice of democracy by the general populace. Benjamin
Schwartz reflected this important concept when he paraphrased Dewey: Democracy must have a grass-roots social basis. It must be part of the
fabric of the lives of people and begin in every village and in every city block. Discussions
concerning cabinet organization, parliamentary organization, even about centralism
versus federalism, are unreal so long as the people as a whole are not thoroughly
imbued with democratic attitudes and do not participate in the processes of a democratic
life (quoted in Berry, 1960, p.208) Page 3 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 14 There are numerous (so-called) democratic elites. For example, many
democratic representatives of the June 4th movement in Beijing believe that only when
political problems are resolved, that is, only when the government is changed, can social and
cultural problems be fixed. This point of view takes politics to be omnipotent. But democracy
is beyond a political concept or a power. The form of government democracy takes is only
an external change. Dewey argued that external signs could not provide for internal
beliefs, but that internal human intelligence would by necessity be both critical and
influential. Only the people themselves have the wisdom to judge right from wrong; only they can
adjust their thinking and behavior to build a truly democratic society. Democracy is the
effect of intelligent decisions, which include voting in a democratic forum. Voting is
an effect rather than the cause of democracy and voting alone does not necessarily produce
democracy. In constructing human intelligence, practice is important. It should encourage
undeveloped ideas and critical thinking for people to express and examine. Democracy, then, is
much more than a form of government. In Dewey’s lectures in China, he repeatedly reiterated
this point. He called upon Chinese people to be willing to freely participate in political
discussions and activities, to build up a government that would represent them but not
control them. He said, “a fundamental tenet of democratic political theory is government by the
consent of the governed” (Dewey, 1973, p.94). Here Dewey showed that democracy is not only
a political concept but that it is also a concept important to daily life. It should not
be defined stipulatively, but rather remain an open, questionable and critical dialogue
or exploration among freethinking and freely acting people in their pursuit of human
intelligence. Many Chinese intellectual radicals in the 1920s lost trust in a corrupt
warlord government. Also, the governments during the 1910s and 1920s were very unstable and,
therefore, the desire for these intellectuals to set up a new order and a new government
outgrew their tendency to simply acquiesce to unstable governments. A step-by-step democracy Dewey believed that true democracy demands a democratic life that needs to
be built up and lived out bit-by-bit, even in China – an unstable nation in a state of
disorder and national turmoil. In working for a democratic life, force or eagerness alone cannot
accomplish the goal. Instead, in discussing intellectual freedom with his Chinese audience,
Dewey (1973) suggested: Ideally, of course, it is a good thing to have the people of a nation
thinking about the same problems and moving in the direction of agreement. But---and this is
especially true of a time like the present---this sort of consensus can be achieved only through
gradual development, as the result of free discussion and evaluation of conflicting
ideas and claims; it can never be achieved by force (p. 178). To act by continuous and patient persuasion to gain consensus, rather than
by force, was largely a Western rhetorical skill, which could be traced back to classical
Greco-Roman education. Western self-expressive presentation, especially in front of an
audience, was an experience that many Chinese lacked. Chinese people had previously focused
on changing the views of the leader rather than the majority of the people, and the
relationship between the leader and the followers was (most of the time) authoritative, but not
persuasive. Dewey presented the Chinese people with a new mode of political action, a way that
was different from Chinese habit. Dewey was not a radical philosopher, and he did not believe in radical ways
of achieving success. Many radicals wanted to replace bad governments with democratic
ones, which would give voting rights to common people and people the freedom to talk
freely and Page 4 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 15 publicly. It seems that this way seemed quickest and easiest, but might not
ingrain democratic attitudes and ways of living into people’s minds. Radicals emphasized less
the construction of democratic attitudes by the populace than the form of governmental democracy
itself. Radical ideas often sound reasonable and radical opinions often overcome
conservative views, eventually gaining the necessary support from the masses. This result is not
necessarily because radical action is imperative, but because social conditions cannot
sustain continual conflict. Therefore, when radical ideas are presented, they usually get both
response and support. Dewey (1973) contradicted radical ideas when he wrote: “The basic
reason why a radical idea can gain acceptance quickly lies not in the idea itself, but in
the circumstances under which it is advanced” (p. 177). He explained that what people need is
not the radical idea itself, but some means of expressing their displeasure, disbelief and
antagonism, and radical ideas often seem to expedite the realization of that “dream.” Radical ideas ignite the fuse attached to the bomb of tension and eagerness
infused within the masses. Ideas must be internalized and linked to a person’s experience
for them to be utilized and to achieve true acceptance. A radical idea or a radical action
does not allow process for people to reflect, to wonder. If an idea is put into action too
quickly, without its intellectual “digestion” by its practitioners, it cannot promise stability.
Dewey, therefore, believed that it was not the radical idea itself, but rather the environment
within which the people suffer that might accelerate their acceptance of radical ideas.
Instead of choosing radical ideas and resolving their problem the fast but temporary way, Dewey
suggested changing the world incrementally – little by little. He said: “Progress is
retail business, not wholesale. It is made piecemeal, not all at once” (p. 62). Democracy needs
to be lived rather than preached. For a true sense of democracy, Dewey reminded Chinese people
to use intelligence to distinguish radical forces from a gradual democratic
consensus. Associated democracy For Dewey, a democratic society was for all, including both friends and
enemies. A democratic society is based on communication, cooperation and interaction
among all involved individuals; its survival depends upon the consensus of its people.
He claims: “A democratic society depends for its stability and development not on force,
but on Consensus” (p. 93). He favored the common good over class struggle. For Dewey, theories
of class struggle deprive opponents of their rights; these opponents are also part of
the society, and are elements of the same society; they are still important and should not be
ignored. Some followers of class struggle theory, including the early Communists in
China’s history, deprived the bourgeoisie of their rights to own land, property, and even to
possess common human dignity. Between 1949 and 1976, many landlords, capitalists and
intellectuals were put into re-education camps, and were publicly criticized and insulted.
Spiritually, the bourgeoisie were treated as an exploiting class, an opposite to the proletariat. But do
two different classes have to be in opposition to one another? Does one’s success have to be the
other’s failure? Looking back on Chinese history, every exchange of dynasties, every
revolutionary action, was due to class struggle. The antagonism was intense, the struggle was
difficult, and the means were always radical. This model, for Dewey, obviously did not
represent the common good. To end this antagonistic cycle, he argued that incorporating
democratic ways of living could present a satisfactory resolution for all parties involved.
Recognizing the common good and the compatible relationship among social groups, Dewey suggested the
enrichment of associated living. He understood associated living to be the essential
criteria for judging a right act of human activity and societal improvement. He told the Chinese
people: Page 5 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 16 Associated living is characterized by cooperation, and that it is to the
mutual advantage of everyone concerned in it. It is like friendship. Friends help each other,
exchange knowledge and insights, with the result that their lives are richer and more
meaningful. Associated living is the highest ideal of social development (Dewey, 1973,
p. 89). In associated living, animosity could be attenuated and cooperation
strengthened. Reconstruction of relationships would take the place of power struggles when
dealing with controversies and conflicts. Reconstruction would keep the original
infrastructure of the society, making changes to it without totally destroying the existing social
structure. This reconstruction would be internal, generated from a mutual understanding
among the living system of an entire society rather than stemming from superficial structures
or rules. The reconstruction of a society should aim to increase progress both socially
and culturally and would depend upon every member’s effort. Social progress, in Dewey’s words,
“is neither an accident nor a miracle; it is the sum of efforts by individuals whose
actions are guided by intelligence” (p.63). Tolerant democracy Associated living primarily depends upon one’s degree of tolerance.
Recognizing human weakness, Dewey remained optimistic and treated examples of such weakness
with tolerance. He preferred Aristotle to Plato because Plato was too utopian to be
realistic about human society. A utopia, for Dewey, was simply a castle in the sky, unrealistic
and unreachable; utopia could only ever be an illusion never to come true for human society.
For Dewey, there were no ideal human beings or society. As Ryan (1995) writes: “Individuals
and societies alike are stirred into life by problems; an unproblematic world would be a
world not so much at rest as unconscious” (p, 28). Dewey saw society as problematic and
believed that an unproblematic world is also wholly unrealistic. Therefore, human life itself
is also necessarily problematic. He acknowledged that human nature is flawed and that people
have weaknesses. As a result, social conflicts are unavoidable. However, being both positive
and hopeful, he believed that the purpose of life as a human being is to overcome one
problem after another; these problems, then, would include the weaknesses of human beings
themselves. Dewey optimistically believed that during the process of solving these problems,
human beings could change and grow in a positive way. He understood that social conflicts do
not always exist simply because there are different interests among the classes, races or
different belief structures. We cannot avoid the occurrence of conflict, and instead need to
discover if there is a group’s interest based upon other groups’ disadvantages, and if other
groups are being suppressed or deprived of their rightful privileges and opportunities. The
function of democracy is not to reject difference or disallow controversy, but rather to
achieve the common good through discussion and debate. Dewey (1916/1944) believed that
there can be a shared common good among different groups of people. He argued: “It is not
true there is no common interest in such an organization between governed and governors”
(p. 84). Tolerance of difference is an ideal shared by many Western democracies. The
diversity within American society exemplifies this principle. Dewey cherished this value and
affirmed it by calling for free participation in social activities and associated living.
Deweyan pragmatism cf. Marxism In the early part of the 20th century, especially between the onset of World
War I and the late 1920s, the problems within China intrigued many young Chinese intellectuals,
encouraging them to try to find the best way to save China from an historical crisis.
Both Dewey’s pragmatism and Marx’s communism were honored and speculated. Dewey and Marx
Page 6 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 17 emphasized many similar social issues such as social justice, democracy and
the economy. Some ideas generated by these different schools of thought were not totally
opposite, yet both their focus and understanding of each problem were quite different. Marxism
eventually won political dominance, and this final outcome has since inspired people to
ponder how Marxism managed to succeed, what characteristics of the Chinese, of Chinese habits,
living philosophies and national emotions facilitated this takeover at that time.
Dewey is well known for his pragmatism, and Dewey’s democracy is supported
by pragmatic values. Because of Dewey’s democratic emphasis on the social
aspects of life and his critique of capitalism, he was often considered a socialist. While both
Dewey and Marx promoted similar aims for human beings, that is, the creation of a society
for the common good, their means were substantially different. For Dewey, such a result
could only be obtained by a gradual construction of communicative social relationships,
and this process must be based upon self-improvement; for Marx, a radical revolution was
necessary to get expunge the old, and even to oppress the opposite, currently dominant
parties. With regards to their relationship to working for the common good, for many Chinese, Dewey’s
philosophies and ideas were unclear, overly complicated, and inefficient, while Marx
pointed out a concrete destination, a clearly designed and expedient way to implement an
egalitarian society. Both Dewey’s pragmatism and Marx’s socialism shared social equality
as their aim. However, Dewey’s emphasis was on the process and the foundation, such as the
human being’s capacity to achieve social equality and actually live it through
cooperative approach, whereas Marx focused on a blueprint for the future, empowering the
oppressed, and ignored the capacity of individual intelligence. Dewey’s pragmatic democracy focuses
more on morals and ethics, more on individual initiative and intelligence of a
single person within the democratic system – on the internal characteristics of human beings; Marx
proposed a materialist or class-struggle socialism, an external system. If Marx’s socialism emphasized an external form of egalitarian suffrage,
i.e., economic rights, Dewey’s pragmatism focused on a more a spiritual one. Dewey’s
spiritual focus matched Confucian ethics and Taoist aesthetics, both of which occupy a
prominent place in Chinese thinking. Dewey (1973) criticized Marx for overlooking the
importance of morality. He explained that Marx’s socialism “eschews morality as an irrelevant
criterion for criticizing social and economic institutions, calls its point of view scientific, and
postulates a determinism in which the natural law of cause and effect will automatically
bring about revolutionary changes” (p.118). Facing the impending political and social
crisis in China in the early 20th century, many Chinese intellectuals might not have been able
to admit abstract human intelligence and ethical issues to be as critical as the possibility
of obtaining concrete political power. The human intelligence and ethics that Marxism
substantially neglected were what Chinese intellectuals left unexpressed and understated. Chinese Marxism
failed to elaborate upon ethics and aesthetics, the traditional virtues and
infrastructure of a society, and this failure to harmonize Marxism with ethics and aesthetics created a
dissonance between Marxism and the inner character of most Chinese people. Dewey also opposed Marxism’s governmental control of the economy, which is
called a “planned economy” in China. Dewey argued that one important and dangerous
aspect of this kind of economy was the “diminution of individual initiative, a reduction of
spontaneity, a lessening of incentive, and a resulting apparent regression to feudal
arrangements” (p.122). Dewey’s economic theory represented his democratic ideas on human potential,
and the importance he placed on developing that potential. The planned economy of
socialism nullifies these potentials and deprives individuals of their creativity,
vigor and the power of their imagination. Both Marx and Dewey remarked that the economy is the
foundation of a country, but on some of the finer points of this claim, they differed. For
Marx, economy was Page 7 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 18 the decisive factor for the entire social structure, but for Dewey,
considering only the economy was not enough; the human mind, or human intelligence, was more
critical. Marx implied that in capitalism the exploiters would always be richer; the
proletariat would be much poorer as a capitalist system developed. He believed that a
capitalist’s property should be appropriated to break the recycling of wealth. As Campbell (1988) argues:
Marxists’ complex of the exploitation of the many by the few brings about
the need for fostering an exclusive class morality and the class struggle to establish
the kind of economic equality which will eventually result in a truly democratic society
(p. 141). Marx aimed to establish a proletariat democratic society, and his point of
view was deeply rooted in his lack of faith in capitalists, or indirectly, he doubted that
any capitalist would intentionally work for the common good of other groups of individuals. This
distrust led to his theoretical dichotomy between human beings. He felt that this dichotomy
did not compromise the diversity of the proletariat or those who did not share in
one another’s Truths. Alternatively, Dewey’s pragmatic democracy was a plural one, which accepted
and compromised to accommodate all diversity and difference. Hall and Ames
(1999) describe Dewey’s communitarian Pragmatic pluralism: “In general, communitarians will
promote the idea of a community that manages to harmonize the greatest degrees of
difference. Difference itself becomes a value to be prized” (p. 181). Dewey conceived that the
wealth that capitalism produced could benefit the poor. Also, he believed that experienced
capitalists could better manipulate business than governments, allowing for a more prosperous economy
that would inherently carry advantages for the poor. He felt that capitalism was not
really the enemy of the poor. He did not like capitalism, but his unfavorable opinion of
capitalist society stemmed from the “exploitative possessive individualism fostered by capitalism”
(Westbrook, 1991, p. 434), which over-emphasized isolated individuality and neglected an
individual’s social functions and responsibilities. Dewey was less a social Darwinist and more a
welfare liberal. He believed in associated living and hoped that capitalists would be able to
work for the good of other groups. He believed that “any real advantage of one group is shared
by all groups; and when one group suffers disadvantage, all are hurt” (Dewey, 1973, p.71).
Instead of examining class struggles among social groups, Dewey
conceptualized society as an associated living community. The notion of associated life centered on
Dewey’s definition of democracy. He considered that every individual in such a
society was an essential component and had to be conscious of social changes in order to
make it his or her duty to act for a better social environment for all. Dewey (1916/1944)
considered an extended democracy to be a joint endeavor. He wrote: The extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an
interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the
action of others to give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the breaking down of
those barriers of class, race, and national territory which kept men from perceiving the full
import of their activity (p. 87). For Dewey (1973), the essential components of associated living were “free
and open communication, unself-seeking and reciprocal relationships, and the sort of
interaction that contributes to mutual advantage” (p. 92). Associated living stressed equal
opportunity for the free participation of all social groups, assuming that in such a society
everyone would, by necessity, be considerate of others’ rights and needs. We can see that the heart of Dewey’s democracy lies in his attitude towards
moderation, his belief in doing things gradually, his optimism about people’s potential
to change themselves as well as his acknowledgement of the weakness of human nature,
his respect for Page 8 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 19 differences and pursuit of common interests, his construction of social
intelligence as opposed to blind faith, and finally, his understanding that the content of
democratic life is much more important than the form (i.e., voting). Dewey’s moderate attitude is not singular to his philosophy. In
Confucianism, Chung Yung, or the Doctrine of the Mean, also valued moderation and harmony as the
soul of living. Confucius took the virtue of Chung Yung to be the highest. However, this
does not necessarily mean that many Chinese people or even many Confucian intellectuals
actualized or embodied such a virtue. Even Confucius himself always questioned: “How transcendent
is the moral power of the mean! That it is but rarely found among the common people is a
fact long admitted” (quoted in Zhang & Zhong, 2003, p. 256). In Chinese history, every
dynasty’s exchange occurred according to the revolutionary means of overthrowing the
former dynasty. The Chinese had not actively practiced the way of Chung Yung. Although Dewey and Chinese traditional culture fostered one another, Marxism eventually took control. Marxism demonstrated a definite answer to Chinese
psychological aspirations during that period of time. On the one hand, Chinese people
resented their corrupt, feudalistic warlord government, which also happened to be supported by
Western powers; that resentment was developed for both anti-feudalism and anti-imperialism.
On the other hand, the capitalistic democratic revolution of 19113 was not tangibly
successful and left many problems unresolved. China’s direction was uncertain, and substantial
doubt for capitalist democracy did exist. Essentially, Marxism could be considered to
be both anti- feudal and anti-capitalist/imperialist, and it also asserted that communism
was the unavoidable ultimate endpoint to human society’s development. Feudalism and
capitalism were just steps along an unavoidable progression towards communism. These
ideas align more closely with the needs of many Chinese than with Dewey’s moderate
pragmatism, and pragmatism itself was considered to be an extension of Western capitalist
democracy. Marxism convinced the Chinese that they could take a faster road to utopia
by skipping capitalism. Dewey’s contribution to China Dewey received a warm welcome from Chinese intellectuals when he visited
China in the 1920s. Before Dewey’s arrival, his former student, Hu Shih, had already
written several articles to introduce Dewey’s pragmatism to the Chinese intellectual
community. When Dewey arrived in China, he gave lectures at the National Peking University
and the National Nanking University; his articles were published in the Bulletin of the
Ministry of Education and various newspapers. Dewey taught courses at the National Peking
University, the National Peking Teachers’ College, and the National Nanking Teachers’
College. During his time in China, he visited at least eleven different cities. He and his wife
wrote of their experiences in letters to their daughter, Evelyn Dewey, in the U.S., and she
later published them under the title Letters from China and Japan (1920). This book gave
readers a picture of his experiences in China and of Chinese social life in the 1920s. Dewey also
recorded his impressions of China and the Chinese people, which were collected into
another book entitled Characters and Events (1929). His most direct, face-to-face encounters with
Chinese people occurred during his lectures. Dewey lectured on social and political
philosophy, philosophy of education, ethics, types of thinking, three philosophers of the modern
period, modern tendencies in education, and the democratic development of America. Of these
topics, he considered the philosophy of education and social and political philosophy
to be the most important. Dewey put tremendous effort into these lectures, and his
philosophy of education lectures attracted substantial attention, greatly influencing China during
that time and after. Page 9 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 20 The most significant influence Dewey had on China was due to his arduous
promotion of civilian education. Dewey believed absolutely in the importance of knowledge
for the entire nation, and especially knowledge as it featured within democracy and
science. The human intelligence he encouraged not only fit the sphere of science, but most
importantly for Dewey, it helped to develop reflective ways of thinking, living, reasoning and
doing, and would be best developed through basic education for all. Dewey’s influence extended
from higher education to middle and elementary schools. Many Chinese teachers were
inspired by Dewey’s lectures and began to teach by using Dewey’s pragmatic educational
philosophies. One of the great Chinese educators, Tao Hsing-chi, was one of Dewey’s
graduate students at Columbia University. After he finished his study in the United States, Tao
Hsing-chi went back to China and taught at the National Nanking Teachers College. Like
Dewey, Tao realized that civilian education was the foundation for national
development. Tao later left his job at the college and went into the countryside to promote civilian
education. He considered his work in the country to be one of the most important educational concepts
he practiced, and set up his own experimental teachers’ school, XiaoZhuang Teachers School, to
actualize his beliefs. Civilian education provided the opportunity to educate those who
lived at the lowest levels of society; step-by-step, civilian education popularized the
possession of knowledge within the rural populace. Tao’s school emphasized doing, and learning by
doing, exemplifying Dewey’s influence on Tao’s educational philosophy. Chinese
traditional thinking believes that knowing is first. Only when you know, can you do.
Dewey argued that doing comes first, and that by learning while doing, you will actually know.
Tao Hsing-chi acknowledged the difference in philosophies and agreed with Dewey. Tao,
previously named Chi-hsing changed his name to Tao Hsing-chi after he embraced Dewey’s
philosophy. When translated to English, “Hsing-chi” means “doing-knowing.” Thus Tao Hsing-chi
and his educational philosophies were greatly influenced by Dewey, and Dewey in turn
paid great attention to Tao’s work. When Tao died in 1946, Dewey, then aged 87, sent
condolences to Tao’s family and was Emeritus Chairman of Tao’s memorial gathering in New
York. However, although they clearly had a meaningful relationship, Dewey was not
acknowledged when other Chinese intellectuals eventually evaluated Tao’s work. Tao was a
great thinker who put his beliefs into practice and adapted Dewey’s theories to Chinese
conditions – a pragmatic approach that worked. Dewey did not think China was a nation that
should uncritically accept ideas from others. He always suggested that the Chinese
combine advanced foreign ideas with their own cultural potential. Hu Shih was
another Chinese intellectual who advocated civilian education. In Hu Shih’s lectures he
emphasized that civilian education is the prerequisite of civilian politics. He was also one
of the founders of the “Chinese Organization for Promoting Civilian Education.” Civilian
education was important and meaningful for China, with its substantial population of
peasants. To educate most civilians, instead of only the elite, was to construct human
intelligence on an extensive scale. Another important contribution Dewey made to the Chinese people in the
sphere of education was the guidance he gave in achieving intelligence. A few days
after Dewey arrived in Shanghai in 1919, the May Fourth Movement2 broke out and quickly spread
from the north, into southern China. Students in Beijing were the initiators, and
later more students joined in the south. In addition, businessmen and workers in both the north
and south joined in the movement. Dewey was emotionally affected by the students’ enthusiasm,
but at the same time he worried that this movement was only an expression of outrage
instead of an expression of a more mature, national wisdom. About the movement, Dewey
(1929) said, “The movement is for the most part still a feeling rather than an idea. It
is also accompanied Page 10 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 21 by the extravagances and confusion, the undigested medley of wisdom and
nonsense that inevitably mark so ambitious a movement in its early stages” (p.278). By facing the situation in China at that time, Dewey showed his great
compassion for the Chinese people and the nation of China. His compassion became his method of
enlightening the populace about both democracy and science. During the end of his lecture
entitled Moral Education: the Social Aspects, he told his Chinese audience about his
thoughts on the May Fourth Movement. He hoped to convince the Chinese people to realize the
difference between emotion and intelligence, and to guide them to transcend emotion in exchange
for intelligence. He explained: I do not deprecate emotion; emotion is essential, but I must be under the
control of intelligence if it is to contribute to the solution of fundamental problems.
The student movement now has this characteristic of controlled emotion; it is a
conscious movement which hopes, with reason, that it can help build a new China (Dewey, 1973,
p. 302). Most likely, the educational reform under Dewey’s philosophy was appeared to
be the most obvious and most effective. According to Clopton and Ou (who translated and
edited Dewey’s lectures in China), some practical reforms under Dewey’s influence
in the 1920s can be seen in the following alterations to Chinese culture: Chinese educational
aims were changed to “the cultivation of perfect personality and the development of
democratic spirit” (p, 22); the principles of the national school system reformation in 1922
were described as: (a) to adapt the education system to the needs of social evolution; (b) to
promote the spirit of democracy; (c) to develop individuality; (d) to take the economic
status of the people into special consideration; (e) to promote education for life; (f) to
facilitate the spread of universal education; and (g) to make the school system flexible
enough to allow for local variations” (quoted in Dewey, 1973, p. 23). A child-centered curriculum was developed, experimental schools following
the model of Dewey’s Chicago Laboratory School were set up, and textbooks written in the
common vernacular were used. From these practices, the significance of Dewey’s
ideas in Chinese education was exampled. Although Dewey’s philosophies were purged in the early days of the Chinese
communist party’s governance, Dewey’s influence on Chinese educators was lasting and
remarkable. Besides the impact he had at that time in history, Dewey’s importance can
also be seen today. Even during the 1970s, in Mao’s era, Dewey’s educational philosophies were
discussed and published in China, and after the 1980s, more and more people became
interested in Dewey. Since then, his theories and books, one after another, have increasingly
been published. Problematic reappraisal of Dewey Dewey’s theories were suppressed from the 1950s to the 1970s. Even Dewey’s
pragmatism had been affected by the purge initiated by the Chinese government in the
1950s. This movement aimed to purge the influence of Dewey’s pragmatic philosophies and
the details of his capitalistic democracy that did not fit with Marxist dogma, for Dewey
had explicitly expressed his disapproval of Marxism. The Chinese Communist government’s
desire to keep dominant the dictatorial status of Marxism was evident through its continual
preaching of Marxism and constant criticizing of capitalism (or any other -isms that did
not align with Marxist principles). Dewey’s pragmatism became a target not only because of
his anti- Marxist ideas, but also because many of Dewey’s followers, especially the
most famous one, Hu Shih, escaped to Taiwan and joined the National People’s Party
(Kuomintang), a sworn Page 11 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 22 enemy of the Communists. It is no surprise that pragmatism survived and
developed in Taiwan, but not in mainland China. In the 1980s, some mainland Chinese scholars began to reappraise Dewey’s
theories and his influence. Most of them carefully and quietly considered Dewey’s
educational ideas within the boundaries of Chinese educational requirements. What they
primarily discussed was Dewey’s pragmatic educational theories. Few discussed Dewey’s social and
political theories, or his theories on ethics. Zhang Rulun, a philosopher at Fudan
University, gave lectures on Dewey at Beijing University in the fall of 2002. There, he
argued that Dewey’s 16 lectures on social and political philosophy given during his visit to China
did not get sufficient attention. After the 1980s, many Chinese scholars tended to focus on Dewey’s
educational philosophies, leaving behind Dewey’s social and political philosophies. One
possible reason for this was probably the inconvenience associated with obtaining
references. According to Zhang Rulun, the original English transcripts of the essential 16 lectures
were missing. These 16 lectures were given on the request of Hu Shih, specifically meeting the
requirements of China’s unique situation. Although Dewey had other published works on social
and political philosophy, they seemed not as relevant to China’s problems. Another reason
for a lessening of interest in Dewey’s work was that many scholars became more conservative
with regards to sensitive topics, especially after the Cultural Revolution that
suppressed Chinese intellectuals and deprived them of their intellectual and academic freedom.
At the time, it was simply too risky to be political. Yet another reason was that at the time
there was a contrasting vogue in the academic field. People tended to focus on more
popular persons and philosophies. New theorists began to attract Chinese people’s attention,
such as Derrida, Habermas and Heidegger. As Zhang Rulun (2002) argues: “Usually people judge
a thinker by the academic popularity instead of one’s achievement and importance in
academic sphere”. When reappraising Dewey’s philosophy, only focusing on his educational
philosophy is not enough. Dewey’s educational theories and his values were closely tied to
the social, political and economic environment of his time. Education is a socially
sponsored activity, and Dewey did not deny the political nature of education. He pointed out
that “Any education given by a group tends to socialize its members, but the quality and value
of the socialization depends upon the habits and aims of the group” (Dewey 1916/1944, p. 83).
Bearing in mind the political and social implications of his educational philosophies would
help further research in comparative education. Current problems in Chinese society Like all societies, China has her own unique problems, and these problems
become the obstacles to critically examine social, political and educational problems
in the light of Dewey’s legacy. One of these problems is the party’s monolithic presence in
both social and political life. When Chinese Marxists took over power in 1949, the whole
nation was ordered to learn Marxism. Even in the interpretation of Marxism, diversity was not
encouraged. Dogmatic and assertive, the implementation of the knowledge of Marxism
became rigid doctrine. A piece of knowledge, an idea that cannot wholly be one’s own, is
dead if it is not allowed to develop. William Doll (2005), drawing on Whitehead, argues:
“Ideas are inert when they are ‘disconnected,’ atomistic, isolated; related neither to the
practicalities of life, nor to an individual’s own interests, nor to the field in which they exist”
(27). What made the Chinese Communist Party afraid to allow different interpretations of Marxism
or the making of Marxism more discussable in people’s own individual ways, based upon
their personal experiences? Perhaps that human intelligence, the advancement of which Dewey
was so dedicated, was a threat to the dominant party in China. The free expression
of ideas might Page 12 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 23 allow for a challenge to the status quo, but that does not necessarily mean
that Dewey, himself, was a threat. He argues: “When ideas are openly expressed and
published, they can be modified and corrected; when they are suppressed they erupt in some other
form, frequently in violence. The more rigid the efforts to suppress ideas, the
greater the danger”(p.176). The numerous radical rebellions in China’s history exemplify
the fact that if the ideas of oppressed peasants cannot be expressed, the government leaves
those peasants only one way to express themselves: through rebellion or revolution. The second problem inhibiting Dewey studies is the trust crisis. In the
1950s, many movements directed and initiated by the Communist Party gradually caused a
deeply rooted disbelief to exist amongst intellectuals and the populace. Most of these
movements intentionally exaggerated class conflicts among the people. They were aimed
at finding those individuals who had opinions different from Marxism, Leninism or the current
dominant ideology (i.e., Chairman Mao’s theories). People with different ideas or
beliefs from the above-mentioned dominant theories were usually taken into government custody
as suspected “enemies.” Movements such as adjusting the Capitalistic ethos, the
Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution Decade caused
inestimable trauma to the Chinese people. Whatever the individual purposes of the respective
movements were, during their practice, due to the doctrinism of their theories and ideas,
the officers accepted authoritative opinions indiscriminately and uncritically; they even used
their imagination and apparently omnipotent “-isms” to classify innocent intellectuals as
suspected “enemies.” To avoid being a victim of these movements, rather than face the truth, many
honest people became silent or even told lies to protect themselves. The Confucian notion
of ethics, morality and culture was all but destroyed by these movements. After the reformation
of the 1980’s, materialistic modernization replaced class struggle, but a reconstruction of
morality, ethics and culture was left undeveloped. The third problem with a continued study of Dewey’s theories is that Chinese
people are not in the habit of thinking about and deciding for themselves their
philosophical opinions, and are mostly indifferent to politics. On the one hand, they believe that
political life does not belong to the common people, that it’s the business of public officials. In
addition, in their experience an individual idea or effort cannot change the status quo. Being
indifferent to politics was one of the characteristics Dewey accurately represented when he
wrote about the Chinese. He quoted from an ancient Chinese poem describing a farmer: “Dig
your well and drink its water; plow your fields and eat the harvest; What has the
Emperor’s might to do with me?” (Dewey, 1929, p, 224). This national character has not changed with the
passage of time, but has instead grown stronger. This indifference is not helpful when
attempting to construct the type of associated living that Dewey suggested. Being
indifferent causes one to not think or decide. Majiang (Mahjong) is a gambling game played primarily
for entertainment in China. Majiang has become the most important form of
entertainment for the Chinese people since the latter part of the previous century, enjoyed by
everyone from the high officials to the common people, from the southern part of the country
to the north. Many Chinese people grow passionately attached to the game of Majiang, which does
not help gain knowledge about how to live a reflective life. Nor does it help to improve
one’s health. When they play Majiang, their minds stop thinking. They can avoid all inquiry,
all pondering, and all questions. The only thing they learn is how to win another’s money. Many
people play Majiang as much as 24 hours a day, and it can frequently become a daily
activity. Majiang does not create a mutually helpful social relationship amongst individuals.
Playing Majiang may be a way for many common Chinese people to escape from their own
personal realities, realities they cannot change but must bear. In the long run, the Chinese
people’s minds will be dulled because they will lose the ability to see other meanings of being
alive. Hu Shih was Page 13 Mei Wu Hoyt: John Dewey’s legacy to China and the problems in Chinese
society Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 3 (1) 2006
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 24 very against Majiang and in calculating the time Chinese people spent on
Majiang, he pointed out: There are one million Majiang tables (each table seats four people), if
every table plays eight circles, every circle is thirty minutes, then four million hours would
be used, it will be more than one hundred sixty thousand days. Playing Majiang wears out the
energy and money. But the most important thing is that it is wasting time and we cannot
find any advanced and civilized nation like our country! (Quoted in Huibin, 2003,
originally in Chinese) The critical issue for Chinese society today is how the Chinese see the
importance of constructing humanity, human intelligence, morality, culture, ethics and
history. The traditional Confucian belief is that a person should embody a moral and
ethical self. This self has multiple roles as son/daughter to the family, father/mother to the
children, friends to the neighbors, and citizen to the state; the self is responsible, even and
especially to oneself. Tseng Tzu said: “Each day I examine myself in three ways: in doing things
for others, have I been disloyal? In my interactions with friends, have I been untrustworthy?
Have not practiced what I have preached?” (quoted in Muller, n.d.). Dead minds were what Dewey
worried about, for a dead mind runs away from the development of human intelligence
that Dewey proposed through his speeches made in China. The Confucian notion of
examining the self frequently and Dewey’s worry about dead minds both reflect the importance of
constructing a human intelligence that is at the root of a nation’s development. Pragmatic
democracy, like Confucian morality, was also generated from self-improvement, for democracy
is obtained by all the people’s effort, and from efforts made on a daily basis. It is a
living concept - not only a political means to an end. We cannot wait for democracy to fall upon us.
Instead, we must work for it. Conclusion Today, reexamining Dewey’s democracy and his legacy to China is meaningful
both for democracy per se and for China as a whole. Democracy is beyond a noun. It
demands a closer look and a comprehensive examination. The capacity to tolerate differences,
the patience to move forward, and the wisdom to achieve associated living, all engage in
making intellectual inquiry dynamic and human intelligence constructive. These aspects of
Dewey’s democracy are valuable references for China. In China, due to the above listed
historical, political reasons, the foundation for associated living in China, the traditional
ethics, morality and culture have not been fully experienced by most Chinese people. They now
need to be reevaluated and enhanced. The rapid economic growth of China today gives
individuals enough freedom to realize self-fulfillment, but does not encourage
initiative to develop social responsibilities. The notion of self in relation to others remains yet a far
off vision for Chinese people; therefore, for the common good, it is both imperative and
advantageous for both the government and the people to develop civilian intelligence, associated
living, and free participation in social and political life. Dewey’s legacy to China was significant in the past, and is inspirational
today.
|