Abstract:This essay explores with the help of the discipline of philosophy of education the educational implications of the practice of canceling individuals or ideas. In particular, it investigates what gets lost or undermined when we cancel various opinions, words, and practices. To advance my argument, I first introduce some basic definitions while analyzing the problem with the notion of cancel culture. Then, I briefly review various historical examples of canceling going back to Socrates. The next part of this paper presents (...) some of the philosophical arguments against canceling and restricting speech made by John Stuart Mill. After presenting Mill’s contentions in favor of liberty of expression, I revisit John Dewey’s conception of democratic association in order to show that the practice of canceling people and ideas is antithetical to Dewey’s dynamic view of democracy. Based on the insights of Mill and Dewey, in the final part I attempt to make an educational case against the practice of canceling. (shrink)

Abstract:One of the themes that runs through Dewey’s Experience and Education is an argument to the effect that education aims at self-control. The details of this argument reveal close affinity between Dewey’s philosophy of education and the ideals of the Enlightenment. They are also strikingly similar to John Locke’s thoughts about freedom and education published in the seventeenth century. Comparison of their texts shows that Dewey and Locke worked with similar distinctions between positive and negative freedom. They both saw freedom (...) and guidance as compatible, and conceived of self-control as dependent on autonomy-friendly habits instilled through education. (shrink)

Abstract:Philosophical pragmatists rarely receive credit for their contribution to virtue ethics. But perhaps they should. How did America’s philosopher of democracy, John Dewey, and one of its most famous elder statesmen, Benjamin Franklin, advise troubled souls in search of moral improvement? According to James Campbell, Dewey and Franklin recommended the cultivation of inquiry-specific virtues, specifically imagination and fallibilism, thereby transforming the moral agent into a more effective ethical problem solver. For Gregory Pappas, open-mindedness and courage resemble Deweyan virtues, since both (...) are integral to the pragmatist’s ideal of a balanced character. However, Pappas contends that Dewey would reject any procedure whereby the virtues are isolated and cultivated individually—a qualification that if applied to Franklin’s virtue project undermines his entire method of moral development. Cultivating virtue, on Pappas’ reading of Dewey’s ethics, must contribute to the integrated whole of a person’s character. The implication of the imperfect Dewey-Franklin comparison is that Dewey is not a strict virtue ethicist. Nevertheless, Dewey’s and Franklin’s respective models of moral improvement offer valuable insight and assistance to the moral agent wanting to cultivate a good character—or so I argue. (shrink)

Abstract:The term “soul” is found throughout John Dewey’s work, particularly when discussing self-realization and meaningfulness. Soul can be easily associated with religious connotations, and yet it is well accepted that he did not imply such. So, then, what did he mean? In his early writings, he shifted away from theologically inspired language and toward a conception composed in naturalized terms. This, no doubt, can be confusing to uninitiated readers. While extensive analyses have been written on his philosophy of spirit and (...) metaphysics, they can leave one wondering: what is a conception of soul that is consistent with Dewey’s philosophy of experience and education, and how might it be made accessible to students in teacher preparation programs? The key for understanding this concept exists in his early work, but the characteristics need to be drawn out so they can be read more clearly into his later works. This article provides an analysis of (1) four of his early works and (2) scholarly explications on the subject in order to lay a framework for a Deweyan conception of soul as conceived within the individual, psycho-physiological makeup. (shrink)

Abstract:Ninety years ago, John Dewey’s discussion of “the religious”—as distinct from traditional “religion”—opened new ways of thinking about the connection between spirituality and everyday forms of human action. But in what ways does our contemporary religious landscape invite us to reimagine and reconstruct Deweyan approaches to religion? This essay addresses this question by focusing on how the community of El Paso, Texas came together to respond to one of the worst racially motivated mass shootings in recent history. This community’s use (...) of spirituality, art, and institutional religion all corroborate key Deweyan insights and invite us to stretch them further. (shrink)

Abstract:Artificial intelligence is profoundly transforming the world in various spheres and already finding its way into educational institutions. This essay aims to examine whether the Deweyan ideal of education can be achieved through such digital means. By analyzing how both the aims and means of education, as defined by Dewey, can be understood in the context of learning with artificial intelligence, the inherent differences of both educational approaches are brought out. It becomes apparent that important concepts that characterize successful education (...) for Dewey, such as intrinsic inquiry, experience-based schooling, and thinking as the method for learning, do not go hand in hand with intelligent teaching systems. (shrink)

Abstract:This essay applies lessons from John Dewey’s theory of democracy and democratic education to the modern development of information communications technologies and the assertion that the development of such technologies will lead to a more open, more democratic society. Given the continuity of the technology and its applications with structures of oppression within modern society, any attempt to resolve or democratize technology through skills-based training is bound to fail, as this does not resolve the cultural habits that enable oppression through (...) technology. To this end, what is necessary is democratic education that recognizes the unique contexts in which students become individuals and furnishes flexible habits of transaction. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editor’s NoteJessica HeybachThis final installation of Education and Culture’s special theme issue on Dewey, Data, and Technology coincides with what feels like a technological paradigm shift. As I sat down to write this editor’s note, a former student forwarded me Stephen Marche’s December 6, 2022 piece in The Atlantic titled “The College Essay is Dead” wherein he offers a critique of the humanities as dependent on traditional forms of (...) assignments and assessment (i.e. writing), and their historically persistent inability to sufficiently respond to technology and be in conversation with the technologists. Ultimately Marche argues that the humanists and technologists need each other now more than ever with the development of naturallanguage processing. In November 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT (GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer), a large language model chatbot capable of answering any question posed by a user. From “What was John Dewey’s theory of experience?” to chocolate cake recipes, ChatGPT offers users answers to their questions by predicting text (similar to autocorrect). The chatbot can answer fairly sophisticated questions, translate text, and write code, all of which previously used to require a human curator to achieve. Interestingly, ChatGPT was trained through a model of learning reflective of what B.F. Skinner (1938) proposed in The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis.1 Specifically, to train ChatGPT, creators utilized reinforcement learning and a system of rewards: “a human ‘labeler’ assigns rewards to various outputs the model generates by ranking them from the best to the worst. Thus, ChatGPT is trained by incorporating human intuition—specifically in terms of preferences in verbal combinations—and learning from it.”2Like all educational technologies, ChatGPT has been met with polarizing reactions—you either love it or hate it. Yet without much debate, educators and educational consultants immediately absorbed the technology as an educational good and started proselytizing. With little regard as to how the technology works, who created it, or why it was created, many educators have become early adopters. What is most curious about educators’ response is how many are not alarmed by the inaccuracy of the text produced by ChatGPT (imagine if calculators gave us wrong answers), or the issues of privacy inherent in becoming a user of AI (imagine if the overhead projector sold our behavioral data to other corporate entities), or the notion of academic integrity and thought itself in the face of AI (imagine if the blackboard became a coauthor). Rather, our addiction to novelty and technological fantasies is on display in this technological paradigm shift. Most universities now have webpages filled with links to resources and have filled their professional development calendars with AI-related webinars related to revising [End Page 1] assignments and assessments and creating syllabus policies for AI-produced materials.Although there is much to debate and decades of scholarship will interrogate ChatGPT in all disciplines, for the purposes of this editor’s note I want to pause and focus on the reactive early adopters of ChatGPT. As a regular observer of the educational Twitter-verse, I’m struck by how quickly this technology has been championed by school leaders and classroom educators. Since educators are users only, rather than the designers of said technology, ChatGPT in the classroom can be seen as the ultimate form of outsourcing available to date. I want to emphasize that ChatGPT is different than the calculator, overhead projector, or blackboard, as it is part of a culture already in motion that is interested in the destruction of the teaching profession writ large. Of course, Dewey would caution us against either/or thinking and the fatalism embedded in my own early reaction to ChatGPT, but I implore educators to consider ChatGPT in light of recent political attacks in P-20 educational settings and the increasing legislative moves to destroy progressive and reconstructive educational aims of education.One educational consultant declared just one month after its release: “#ChatGPT is here to stay and efforts against it are futile.” This consultant goes on to list its usefulness in the following tasks: “generating lesson plans, creating quizzes, providing feedback on student writing, summarizing and paraphrasing texts, personalized learning, grading student work, generating... (shrink)

Abstract:For Dewey, growth in the educative process means education that enriches and expands one’s experience as it prepares students for not only a vocation but also entry into and transaction with the world. In few places can we see growth, generally understood, to be occurring as fast as in big data technology. This essay begins with an overview of what big data is, specifically what big data looks like in education as understood through learning management system platforms but also data (...) as understood generally on a college campus through dataveillance, or data surveillance understood as the monitoring or possibility of monitoring of one’s data or online activity. In so doing, this essay acknowledges a selection of privacy concerns and educational challenges resulting from big data. I then proceed to the employment of intelligent technology in education with particular emphasis on algorithms and “algorithmic nudging.” I conclude with a Deweyan analysis of technology as continuous with culture and a discussion about the educational needs for technological environments to aid in the proper cultivation of individuals. (shrink)

Abstract:John Dewey argued that for education to be democratic, it is important for students to be not merely spectators but also participants in learning. Teachers sometimes find personal computing devices to be distracting or to contribute to passivity rather than activity in the classroom. In this essay we examine the question of whether a student’s Google search on a subject matter discussed in class is participatory or passive. We argue that with proper guidance students’ use of online searches and related (...) tools can empower students democratically as sources of ideas, conceptualizations, information, and insight while emphasizing participation in deliberation and judgment in the classroom. We begin with a look at the criticisms and then defenses of using online tools in the classroom. Finally, we examine Dewey’s distinction between the spectator versus the participant models of learning to apply his insights to the use of online tools in the classroom. (shrink)