Abstract
One of the interesting aspects of Dewey’s early educational thought is his apparent hostility toward children’s imaginative pursuits, yet the question of why this antipathy exists remains unanswered. As will become clear, Dewey’s hostility towards imaginative activities stemmed from a broad variety of concerns. In some of his earliest work, Dewey adopted a set of anti-Romantic criticisms and used these concerns to attack what one might call “runaway” imaginative and emotional tendencies. Then, in his early educational writings, these earlier concerns were augmented by several other factors, including problematic trends in progressive education, new developments in psychology, and Dewey’s own educational aims. This analysis explores the roots of these criticisms, and explains how they culminate in the stance on the imagination that Dewey eventually outlined in the early educational writings. Notably, these findings have some important implications for certain prominent contemporary critics of progressivism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thinking ahead to the educational implications of this doctrine, one might wonder how children will be capable of acts of creative imagination if they are indeed unable to make distinctions between the real and the unreal, as Dewey claimed. One possible response to this is that this simply may not matter in the case of the creative imagination. The creative imagination is productive; the emphasis is on transforming the real in some way rather than on an invented world. The child’s difficulties in distinguishing between the real and the imaginary might lead him to some odd assessments of his/her creative imaginative products, but the work of the creative imagination appears to be grounded in a way in which fantasy is not.
An interesting side note to all of this is that Dewey had a difficult relationship with Wilbur Jackman, a leading proponent of nature study who was Dean of the School of Education at the University of Chicago. Dewey was Jackman’s superior, but the two men did not get along and had a number of serious conflicts throughout Dewey’s time at Chicago (Dyhuizen 1973).
Susan Blow, a major figure in the Froebelian movement, commented at some length on this in Symbolic Education (1902). She recounted the “often observed” example of girls who prefer a plain cylindrical towel to a realistic doll. She explained this alleged tendency as follows: “The too perfect toy chills the imagination, and hence the child turn from it to objects which by remotely suggesting an ideal heighten the activity of fantasy” (Blow 1902, p. 85).
It must be noted that Dewey’s theory of emotion in the early writings is not the same as James’. In two articles in the Psychological Review, Dewey details his opposition to the conventional theory of emotion and defends the foundations of James’ theory. However, although he accepts the core propositions of James’ theory, there are a number of points upon which he differs from James. In the second article, “The Significance of Emotions,” Dewey criticizes James’ view as being limited in certain respects, and he attempts to offer a reconciliation of Darwinian considerations, James’ ideas, and more “common-sense” views of the emotions.
The substance of Hofstadter (1962) critique (which is not really relevant to the question at hand) is that Dewey, through the vagueness of his prescriptions for education, unwittingly laid the groundwork for anti-intellectual strains in progressive education.
Haskins (1999) offers an interesting analysis of how Dewey could plausibly be considered a romantic. However, this analysis hinges upon developments in Dewey’s later works; as Haskins concedes, Dewey adopts a hostile posture towards romanticism in the early writings.
Although the Froebelians and the nature study advocates have disappeared, one could make an argument that sentimental tendencies are still a problem in some strands of contemporary progressive education.
References
Blow, S. (1902). Symbolic education. New York: D. Appleton and Co.
Blow, S. (1908). Educational issues in the kindergarten. New York: D. Appleton and Co.
Coughlan, N. (1975). Young John Dewey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Vintage.
Dewey, J. (1871–1952). Correspondence. John Dewey Papers, Centre for Dewey Studies, Carbondale, IL.
Dewey, J. (1887/1967). Psychology. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works (Vol. 2, pp. 3–366). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1969). The lesson of French literature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works (Vol. 3, pp. 36–42). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1971). The theory of emotion. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works (Vol. 4, pp. 152–188). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1895/1972a). Educational psychology: Syllabus of a course of twelve lecture-studies. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works (Vol. 5, pp. 303–327). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1897/1972b). My pedagogic creed. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The early works (Vol. 5, pp. 84–96). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1900/1976a). Mental development. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 1, pp. 192–221). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1901/1976b). The place of manual training in the elementary course of study. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works (Vol. 1, pp. 230–240). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1900/1990). In P. Jackson (Ed.), The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dyhuizen, G. (1973). The life and mind of John Dewey. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Egan, K. (2002). Getting it wrong from the beginning: Our progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Eliot, H., & Blow, S. (1895). The mottoes and commentaries of Friedrich Froebel’s mother play. New York: D. Appleton and Co.
Evers, W. (1998). From progressive education to discovery learning. In W. Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 1–22). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Froebel, F. (1861/1904). Friedrich Froebel’s pedagogics of the kindergarten. New York: D. Appleton and Co. (J. Jarvis Trans.).
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. New York: MacMillan and Co.
Garrison, J. (2006). The permanent deposit of Hegelian thought in Dewey’s theory of inquiry. Educational Theory, 56(1), 1–37.
Goetzmann, W. (1973). The American Hegelians: An intellectual episode in the history of Western America. New York: Knopf.
Good, J. A. (2006). A search for unity in diversity: The “permanent Hegelian deposit” in the philosophy of John Dewey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Haskins, C. (1999). In C. Haskins & D. I. Seiple (Eds.), Dewey reconfigured: Essays on Deweyan pragmatism. Albany: SUNY Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Hegel’s phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (A. V. Miller Trans.).
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Hirsch, E. D. (2004). Comment by E. D. Hirsch. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 7, 112–116.
Hofstadter, R. (1962). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Knopf.
Hughes, J. L. (1897). Froebel’s educational laws for all teachers. Chicago: D. Appleton Century Co.
James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
Kohlstedt, S. G. (2005). Nature, not books: Scientists and the origins of the nature-study movement in the 1890s. Isis, 96, 324–352.
Labaree, D. (2004). The ed school’s romance with progressivism. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 7, 89–112.
Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. (1936). The Dewey school. Chicago: D. Appleton Century Co.
Pratt, M. (1891). Little flower folks: Stories from Flowerland for the home and school. Chicago: Education Publishing Company.
Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Westbrook, R. (1993). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wiggin, K. D., & Smith, N. A. (1896). Froebel’s occupations. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.
Wilson, L. (1899a). Nature study in elementary schools. London: MacMillan and Co.
Wilson, L. (1899b). Nature study in elementary schools: Teachers’ manual. London: MacMillan and Co.
Wokler, R. (1998). Contextualizing Hegel’s phenomenology of the French Revolution and the Terror. Political Theory, 26(1), 33–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Waddington, D.I. Troublesome Sentiments: The Origins of Dewey’s Antipathy to Children’s Imaginative Activities. Stud Philos Educ 29, 351–364 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9180-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9180-0