[MD] Barfuesserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Why people insist on promoting it is beyond me. On second thought, the motive is
obvious. Power.

[Arlo]
Of course, "conservatives" are not interested in "power", and especially not
"economic power", thus motives for promoting "atomistic individuality" are
wholly noble and pure.

But your criticism here (and let me say upfront that I am NOT speaking for David
in any way, nor do I intend my thoughts to represent his, we are talking about
his writing, but this is just my take on it), depends on the artificial
dichotomy between "individual" and "collective", as if one must be privileged
and the other reviled. These are not antithetical poles, but are dialectically
related and inseparable.

The "individual" achieves power "through collective action" (and not just
political power, but economic, social and military (among others)). The power
these educational initiatives attempt to unleash was emancipatory, often
directly opposing social injustices such as racist laws, slum-like conditions,
horrid work environments. In addition, these schools, including the Danish Folk
Schools, sought to preserve local culture, and work against a monolothic,
super-imposed educational edifice. 

As David correctly points out, "personal growth and individuation are
coterminous with ongoing social and institutional melioration". "Deep
democracy", is described by Wikipedia, "Unlike "classical" democracy, which
focuses on majority rule, Deep Democracy suggests that all voices, states of
awareness, and frameworks of reality are important." Wikipedia goes on to say,
"they [definitions of deep democracy] have a common denominator that Mindell
describes so well: An experience of Deep Democracy as a process of flow in
which all actors on the stage are needed to create the play that we are
watching."

It is towards this that these educational prinicples flow. David writes,
"inclusive participation in social life as a prerequisite for deep democracy"
(again, expressing a dialectical, participatory dualism rather than a polar
dichotomy). I can understand how this runs counter to orthodox individualist
belief that "riff raff", "the lazy poor", and lowly "factory workers" are not
as important nor worthwhile as the "rich", "the noble entrepreneur" or the high
"CEO". And, I think this underscores fundamental differences in starting points
for us. 

Getting away momentarily from a strict educational perspective and into the
foundational beliefs that guided and informed the creation of these schools, I
find a very interesting summary of Dewey's "The Public and It's Problems"
online (http://www.fred.net/tzaka/deweypub.html). This contains some futher
examinations of Dewey's belief that only by social-participation can
individuals achieve freedom. And again, it was towards this end, not some
"Stalinistic state monolith of anti-individualism" that these schools moved.

"Both capitalists and socialists are wrong in absolutizing solely economic
values. Economic factors are genuine determinants of experience, but they are
not the sole determinants, and by themselves they can move society only toward
economic ends. It is up to the people, to a "public," to determine genuine
social ends -- such as freedom, equality, communication, democracy, community,
etc., as well as to work together using social means to bring about these
social ends. Note that for Dewey, freedom and democracy are not given and
complete conditions, but are achieved and worked for results. The progress
toward social ends is a social progress, not an economic progress. It requires
social means, social instruments, socially tested theories and hypotheses,
education, and the like. Economic factors can be used in this cooperative
effort, but they must be directed in the light of added higher aims and allied
to genuinely social tools and processes."

Then, in what I will simply use as my closing words, the author goes on to say,
and conclude with the dialectical engagement between "individual" and
"collective activity".

"Dewey does not deny that "big business" can dominate and rule, but this is
because the public is confused about its role and uncertain as to what to do.
In addition, people have too many other things to do besides politics. They
have personal business to attend to, and they have a wide range of available
amusements and entertainments. Political and social issues can hardly compete
with the multitude of personal affairs and distractions that proliferate. Even
the consumption of goods and services is a pastime which absorbs more attention
than public affairs. Only on rare occasions do politicians need to answer to
the public for what they are doing. The public is too disorganized and
uninformed and distracted to pay attention to more than "headlines" or
superficial treatment of issues affecting the public. Consequences and aims are
not examined; means and conditions -- mostly mechanical and economic -- are not
tested and are given by default free rein in determining social outcomes.
Without an informed public consciously directing material and social conditions
toward consciously established social ends and values, individuals may fiddle
with private amusements and private gain, while "Rome burns." Human beings,
organizing into a public by means of communication and cooperation, have the
capacity to direct social conditions toward socially desired outcomes. Human
beings, swamped by technological and economic changes, feel helpless in the
face of events. This helplessness, along with the traditional preoccupation
with private gain, produces indifference and apathy toward social affairs.
People wish for community and community values, but they feel unable to effect
the changes necessary to realize these values. Moreover, individuals are quick
to see the benefits of community life, but they are slow to realize that those
benefits can only be reaped to the extent that social contributions are sown.
According to Dewey, the individual is not "for" the state and the state is not
"for" the individual. Both individuals and community (which is distinguished
from state) flourish or wither together. Freedom and individuality are not
inborn givens. They are the results or the fruits of a consciously tended
communal life."