ED 429 - Study Guide for Week Eleven

Dewey Chapter Five: “The Nature of Freedom”:

1. As you read Dewey’s discussion of freedom, think back to Summerhill and imagine where Neill would agree and where not. They approach the question with very different premises. Dewey starts out by asserting true freedom is internal: that "the only freedom that is of enduring importance is freedom of intelligence... and of judgment exercised on behalf of purposes that are intrinsically worthwhile. The commonest mistake made about freedom is.. to identify it with freedom of movement, or with the external or physical side of the activity." (p. 61) Freedom of movement (insofar as it does not impinge on the freedom of others) is precisely Summerhill's focus: end, not means. The only value judgment Neill is willing to make is to define actions that abridge the freedoms of others as "license." That is, indeed, a "thin" notion of freedom.

2. What values does “outward movement” (by which he means all kinds of unstructured physical activity, from talking to walking) serve? Why is it important? Well, as suggested above, it is a necessary means to the desired end of internal freedom of judgment and courage. A student can only discover what is "intrinsically worthwhile" if he can wander around and make comparisons. A teacher can only discover what impassions students by observing them wandering around, manifesting choices. (Also, it's good for the body. :o) ) But to Dewey, this type of physical freedom is not sufficient: it does not necessarily inculcate the habits that free the mind and heart.

3. What does Dewey mean by freedom as an end in itself? Is freedom, understood in this way, a value our culture truly embraces? Well, forgive me, but what *I* believe he means is: unfettered, but also unfocused and ultimately self-indulgent outward-focused freedom such as Summerhill's. Another take would be freedom to "shop until you drop," which is similarly unfettered and self-indulgent, though in a different dimension. Whichever interpretation you take, what Dewey is cautioning against, I believe rightly, is to equate "freedom" with "whim and caprice" (p. 65). The existence of a multitude of choices spread out before us does not, in and of itself, make us free.

Dewey takes the development of habits of self-control and delayed gratification very seriously, and *these*, I think, are values that are not currently very valued in our society.

4. “The ideal aim of education is creation of power of self-control” (p. 64). What does he mean by this? Well, again, I expect that what we think he means depends largely on what other values we bring to our reading of him. While Dewey takes *process* very seriously, and believes that processes (physical freedom, student choice, democratic decisionmaking, etc) are necessary means, he looks at *outcomes* as well. Not all experiences are equally educative; he tries hard to define the value system by which experiences can and should be evaluated; and, very much to his credit, he is willing to acknowledge when outcomes are disappointing. In this he is fundamentally different from (what we've read of) Neill.

What I think he is saying about the value of, and need to educate for, the power of self-control is in essence more similar than different from what the modulating desert rabbis tried to articulate, or Confucius, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Muhammed. (The vocabulary is clearly different.)

5. Why is the impulsive person acting under the “illusion of freedom” (p. 65)? (“Do you mean when I shop ’til I drop I’m not being free?”) "Shop-to-the-drop" is certainly one example of possible illusions of freedom; but they really are countless, aren't they. The advent of the Pill has brought countless new pressures and innovative forms of oppression upon women, particularly young girls. The same can be said of potential of infertility treatments (which have drawn couples, but again specifically women, into years of heartbreak, extraordinary physical pain and unknowable risks, and financial distress). Or the opportunities made possible by interest-only mortgages. Or the rather more comical paralysis I've often felt, standing before 74 different cereal options in the supermarket aisle. And so on. Yet such increased "choices" are almost invariably viewed as freedom.

I would hasten to add, though, that it is not the expanded choices *per se* that are the problem, but the impulsiveness, or insufficient self-discipline, or absence of a clearly defined personal value system that provides a framework for response to the siren calls of choice. In short: the habits of self-control and judgment that Dewey says are so critical.

Kohli, “Education and Freedom in the American Experience”:

6. Note the challenge to the Enlightenment and the link between “critical reason” or “critical dialectical thought” and true freedom (as opposed to the ‘freedom’ of the individual to partake in a ‘free-market’ economy–i.e., the shop/drop syndrome mentioned above).

Mmm. I liked what was evidently said by Solomon, quoted by Greene, and requoted by Kohli that freedom is meant to be "freedom from both causal determination and from rational coercion" (p. 99). I'm heartened to hear that Greene "insists upon the agency of individuals" and the possibility for freedom through choices as one recognizes and confronts "the reality posed by external conditions" (p. 99). This speaks again to the habits of self-control and judgment that Dewey insists upon. I'm wary, though, of arguments that amount to various flavors of false consciousness.

7. How does Kohli describe Greene’s education for freedom (p. 100 and passim)?? I'll be darned if I can find the word "passim" on the page. Passion, maybe?

Anyway, what I understand Greene-via-Kohli to mean by "education for freedom" is one which facilitates students' own process towards "waking up," and transforming themselves to "repair lacks and take action to create themselves" (Greene p. 21 as quoted by Kohli p. 100) Perhaps ironically, or perhaps not, this language closely tracks that in the Jesuit framework we began the class with, which framed freedom in terms of self-recognition of our fundamentally sinful nature, and willingness to confront this through service to others. It is also, I think, not too far from my own formulation of freedom as rooted in competence, including the competence to make independent judgments and to reject societal norms or values if they are poorly aligned to personal ones.

8. “...[O]ne’s freedom is achieved, not received” (p. 102). What does Kohli mean by this? How is it achieved? What is the role of art in its achievement? Well, it's been a very long time since I tried to tackle Sartre, and I am uneasy with receiving Sartre via Greene via Kohli. That said, I *do* believe, as I wrote in Paper 1, that true freedom can only be earned, not granted. Institutions -- be they national governments, schools, or families -- can only protect the *parameters* of freedom: the right to participate in the selection of leaders, the right to speak freely, the right to move about physically, etc. It's up to individuals to *pick these rights up* and do something positive with them.

Greene-via-Kohli says that the first step towards doing so is to Wake Up: to "engage" with our particular "walls" (102) and thereafter to connect "in community, in dialogue" (103), which she sees as necessary to develop true self-awareness. Finally, she sees great potential in literature to plumb these depths.

9. It is worth discussing, a propos the role of dialogue and democracy in the classroom, structural challenges to this activity, specifically around gender (pp. 105-106). Sigh. OK. If we must.