Volume 22 Number 3
May 1983

Rebecca Robbins

INITIALLY this paper was to focus on John Dewey’s philosophy of education and its similarities to what the writer has termed "traditional" American Indian educational philosophy. The paper was to argue that Dewey’s emphasis upon the school as a mini-society would document a relationship between some American Indian beliefs, attitudes and values and that of Dewey’s philosophy. However, in attempting to analyze the philosophy of Dewey, the writer found that much of what Dewey promoted was at variance with the basic American Indian worldview. Further, during the time of his writing and even today, the economic realities of American capitalism demand an educational system which is designed to maintain social control of the mass population and, at the same time instill needed virtues in the rising generations of youth.

This paper addresses the issues relevant to Dewey’s philosophy at the time of his writing and discusses some goals and ideologies of other educational movements designed to define the purpose for American education. Additionally, and most importantly, the last section is devoted to the possibility of one area for agreement between the philosophies of both the American Indian and that of John Dewey.

The argument for this portion of the paper will focus on and address the basic value structure of American society prior to the turn of the twentieth century and the change in that value structure, as it relates to the institution of schooling.

The doctrine of Predestination served as the most characteristic dogma of Calvinism. It asserted a total separation between that which was worldly and that which was not (i.e., men in relation to God). God has predestined:

Included in the Protestant ethic were religious ideals such as work as a form of prayer and as the only path to wealth, material acquisition and possession as a state of grace, and happiness through growth by the means of work only. The Protestant ethic reflected the needed civic virtues of capital accumulation and thrift, as well as an ongoing drive toward work even though financially, it was not needed.

Charles Darwin’s "Origin of Species" was published in 1859 and represented a radically different concept of man and his’ relation to nature. Darwinism stressed man’s control over nature through evolutionary change and progress. Additionally, with the Darwinian emphasis on growth, the view of the child changed from that of the Calvinist ideology of original sin, to the child as an individual whose purpose it was to exist within a changing world (see Note 6). Darwinism, however, also provided the basis for late nineteenth-century Sociologists, Psychologists and Philosophers to develop a theory of human intellectual superiority.

With the rapid industrialization and growth of a technological American society and a tremendous influx of European immigrants to the United States around the turn of the Twentieth Century, the need for a new rationale to maintain the capitalist American class structure was created.

Eugenics, or the science dealing with the improvement of heredity qualities in humans, became extremely popular in America around the turn of the century. Francis Galton and Herbert Spencer were the primary proponents of the early eugenics movement but it was Spencer who gained recognition in the United States. In the early 1900s Spencer published documents which justified the unacceptable aspects of a developing capitalist America. Spencer’s belief in biological predestination, or that of Calvinism, served as a basis for the development of a new theory of legitimization for American social institutions. "No longer were economic success and failure preordained by God; they were predestined by differences in the complexity of individuals’ nervous systems" (see Note 7).

The eugenics movement chronologically coincided with the progressive movement in American education during the early 1900s. Progressives felt that the system of education in the United States was not meeting the needs of a growing capitalist society. They rationalized that the problem must lie with the breeding practices of the American public, rather than within the structure of the capitalist society itself. The eugenics movement called upon governmental intervention to change or control society’s breeding practices. Progressives endorsed the position of the eugenicists and promoted the passage of bills which were centered upon racial segregation (see Note 8). The wide acceptance of Eugenics in the United States was due, not only to the earlier recognition and apparent validity of various forms of Social Darwinism but to the then contemporary racial and ethnic prejudices.

Bowles and Gintis, in their book, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, have stated that "The three turning points in U.S. educational history which we have identified all correspond to particularly intense periods of struggle around the expansion of capitalist production relations (see Note 9). They have identified those three periods as: 1) the common school reform; 2) the Progressive movement; and 3) from the 1960s to the present.

Bowles and Gintis credit Horace Mann with promoting the "technocratic meritocratic" school of thought in relation to the argument for the institution of school serving as the primary agency for curbing society’s ills. The technocratic-meritocratic version emphasizes labor/industrial skill development within the mass population. Individual economic success in the labor market as argued by Mann, was based upon one’s own ability and will to work (see Note 10). Bowles and Gintis contend that although Mann advocated an educational system open to all Americans, maintenance of class structure served in the past, as it does now, as the outcome of this educational theory.

At the forefront of racial and ethnic discrimination via the maintenance of class structure in capitalist America today, is the continuing use of IQ tests in determining "intelligence." Author Jeffrey M. Blum has argued that Eugenics and the overwhelming belief of today’s educators in the validity of IQ tests must be labelled as "hereditary pseudoscience." He has defined pseudoscience as ". . . (the) process of false persuasion by scientific pretense" (see Note 11).

John Dewey and his followers represented another school of thought in reference to the purpose of school. However, the difference, as identified by Bowles and Gintis, is that Dewey and the people of the "Democratic school" of thought emphasized the compatibility of a variety of functions within the educational system rather than the power of school to perform those functions (technocratic-meritocratic)--(see Note 12). The Progressive movement, Bowles and Gintis stated:

Undoubtedly, Dewey’s overall philosophy of education cannot possibly be covered within the space allotment of this paper. Therefore, the writer will critique Dewey’s philosophy in relation to reality of his thought and application of his thought to American society.

Max Weber has identified three types of organizations which were in existence at the time of his writings: 1) Charismatic; 2) Traditional; and 3) Bureaucratic. Of the three, he expressed the importance and applicability of the bureaucratic organization which was both rational and unbiased, to developing capitalist countries. Weber defined rational capitalism as "an economic system based, not on custom or tradition, but on the deliberate and systematic adjustment of economic means to the attainment of the objective of pecuniary profit" (see Note 14). He identified characteristics of a bureaucracy in which he felt would best be suited to a growing system of capitalism:

The applicability of the above characteristics to the organization of schooling has been overwhelmingly documented in many studies. The point is, that during the time when Dewey was promoting his philosophy of education, Weber was writing and analyzing American capitalism, Frederick Taylor developed his theory of Scientific Management, and American society was increasing rapidly in population, and the eugenics movement was at its height of popularity. The need for a social system which would enhance the developing economic system of capitalism was very real.

For the above reasons, the writer has not been able to link Dewey’s philosophy or the practical classroom application of his techniques to the American Indian worldview, in the past or contemporary situations. However, Dewey’s concern for developing, within the student, a regard for the social consequences of actions could be applied practically to a contemporary American Indian situation. That is, Dewey’s concept of science as an answer to society’s problems.

In today’s highly technological society, land continues to play a major role in determining the economic structure of a country. In the past, a majority of the valuable land base of America was either privately or corporately-owned and utilized for the purposes of monetary gain by a few. However, valuable land area is quickly diminishing as the energy needs for this nation excel. Land that was considered valuable for energy-related mineral development is no longer useable as modern technology (in many cases) has not allowed for restoring the land to its original state after use.

The writer’s concept of what Dewey meant by science is that he emphasized the rationality of using science to explain present and future conditions of a society. The American Indian’s view of man in relation to nature is highly spiritual. It is this point that Dewey would argue with as he was extremely rational and did not "buy into" spiritual explanations for happenings. He could have however, agreed with one contemporary Indian point of view in that science should be used to better society in general.

Within the American Indian world today there is a philosophical split between the "traditional" and "progressive" ideologies of Indian people relative to the direction for Indian affairs now and in the future. "Progressive" Indian tribes/nations, have initiated industrial development on the reservation’ (see Note 19) and as a result, conveyed anglo values, beliefs and attitudes to their own people. On the other hand, "traditional" Indian people desire to return to the old ways of life. That is to live in harmony with nature without many of the "conveniences" of American technology. This division between contemporary Indian peoples in relation to values, attitudes and beliefs may be said to be the result of the United States’ policy of assimilation of the Indian into mainstream society.

The traditional Indian’s worldview briefly must be discussed in general terms, in order to provide the reader with a basic understanding of what the writer will eventually propose as one possible point of agreement between Dewey’s philosophy and that of the American Indian.

The writer analyzed the "Longest Walk Manifesto" (see Note 20) which was written as a result of a nation-wide march by Indian people during the summer of 1978. The writers of the Longest Walk Manifesto identified themselves as traditional people.

For the traditional people, the Laws of the Universe acknowledge that all living things have both a spiritual being which belongs to the Creator or the Great Spirit and a physical being which belongs to the Creation or Mother Earth. Only human beings have an intellectual being. In the Indian worldview, the Creator represents the male figure and the Creation represents the female figure. Symbolism throughout the Manifesto conveyed a constant emasculation of Indian men through the government’s abolition of spiritual and religious teachings and practices of Indian nations. Indian women were symbolically raped throughout the "Manifesto" by constant references to the exploitation and seduction of land and resources:

and, through the government’s denial of Indian social institutions:

Even though the "Manifesto" constantly refers to the symbolic impotency of the Indian male and the seduction of the Indian female, the introductory portion conveys a denial of emasculation and an assertion of masculinity:

In other words, although many attempts have been made to destroy the American Indian, none of those attempts have destroyed the traditional Indian—we still reproduce as a people.

The Manifesto clearly acknowledges the existence of at least two distinct worldviews at work: The traditional American Indian’s where the Creator and Creation are equated with the natural laws of the Universe; and the non-Indian’s where the government and corporate interests are equated with capitalism. In this writer’s analysis of the Manifesto, the acceptance of capitalism by any and all people, represented the further exploitation and continued destruction of all life forms-now and in the future. The Manifesto served as a world-wide plea to progressives (Indian and non-Indian) to halt acceptance of capitalism which from the traditional perspective, mandates total destruction of not only a society but of the universe.

Now, a question must be posed: What would both Dewey and American Indians accept as a solution to society’s ills? First, one of Dewey’s primary concerns was with the social consequences of actions. For the Indian, this concern is also prevalent. However, the Indian is not only concerned with social consequences, he/she must consider both economic and political implications of human existence within the contemporary world as it is. One may refer to any one of a vast number of studies relevant to the social, economic and political status of American Indian peoples to ascertain inadequacies in the quality of life for Indians. As a consequence of the social and economic needs of American Indians, a variety of federally-funded programs have been actualized which respond to those needs. The justification for federal support for Indian programs has been based on the unique legal and political status of the Indian in relation to the United States government.

It has been stated earlier in this paper that the traditional Indian representatives are calling for abrogation of any and all relations between the Indian and non-Indian societies which threaten life forms. The thrust appears to be a moral plea to return to the natural state of the universe--to exist without the use of modern technology. Science, from this perspective may be interpreted as an evil. In reality however, most American Indians have been "processed" through this country’s educational system and are thus products of that system. And Science, from white, middle-class America’s perspective, is seen as the answer to many problems.

A point for concern on the part of both Dewey and traditional Indian thought is that Science (modern technology) does not address itself to the destructive consequences of its actions. Land, air and water are utilized in order to "improve" the capitalist society but only in the present situation. It is this point upon which both Dewey and the traditional American Indian would agree.

The writer proposes that further agreement may be reached between Dewey, the traditional Indian and progressive Indian people, if the philosophy of American Indian education were to accept, incorporate and utilize the non-Indian concept of Science as a means of improving all life forms in the future. In other words, if traditional Indian values, attitudes and beliefs were combined with the reality of modern Indian existence (i.e., living in a capitalist society) and conveyed through a process of education, the outcome would have to reflect a concern for both present and future existence of all living things.

1. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York: 1958, Introduction.

2. Ibid. p. 166.

3. Rippa, S. Alexander (Ed.). Educational Ideas in America: A Documentary History. David McKay Company. New York: 1969, p. 4.

4. Weber, p. 100.

5. The pronoun "he" will be used throughout the paper for purposes of easier readability. The writer, in no way, accepts the usage of "he" as an indicator of sexual superiority.

6. Rippa, S. Alexander. Education in a Free Society: An American History. David McKay Company. New York: 1976, p. 176-177.

7. Blum, Jeffrey M. Pseudoscience and Mental Ability. Monthly Review Press. New York: 1978, p. 34-35. (in passim).

8. Pickens, Donald. Eugenics and the Progressives. Vanderbilt University Press. Nashville: 1968, (referenced in Blum’s book).

9. Bowles, Samuel & Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. Basic Books, Inc. New York: 1976, p. 23.

10. Ibid, p. 23.

11. Blum, p. 12.

12. Bowles & Gintis, p. 21.

13. Ibid. p. 234-235.

14. Weber. Forward I(e).

15. Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs: 1970, p. 7-8.

16. Bowles & Gintis. p. 188.

17. Ibid. p. 46.

18. LeBrasseur, Margot. "A Legal Historical Analysis of Native American Participation in Mineral Utilization with Special Emphasis on the Issue of Jurisdiction". Unpublished Master’s Paper. The Pennsylvania State University: February 1979, p. 1-2.

19. Interview. Robert Hoag, President of Seneca Nation of Indians. (Rebecca Robbins, Interviewer). Salamanca, New York. January, 19, 1979.

20. Robbins, Rebecca. Excerpt from dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Pennsylvania State University: 1982.

21. Longest Walk Manifesto". Unpublished paper compiled as a result of the Longest Walk by American Indian people. Washington, D.C. Summer, 1978. p. 3.

22. Ibid. p. 5.

23. Ibid. Introduction.