Last Thursday we discussed some of the strengths and weaknesses of William James’ pragmatism. One weakness, I argued, is that it doesn’t have a well-developed social or political theory behind it–or to the extent that it does, it boils down to a rather crude form of individualism.
As we’ll see this coming Thursday, the same can’t be said of Dewey who always emphasizes the communal and social. (People say that Dewey thought about politics as a grand New England town hall meeting, hence the Rockwell painting to the right.
)
In “The Moral Equivalent of War,” James argued for the importance of taking on some sort of strenuous project in your early 20s: something like war, but without the bloodshed. Perhaps working on a fishing boat, or being a lumberjack: you get the idea.
Dewey, in a letter, gives exactly the right response, one that, in my opinion, gets to the heart of the two men’s differences. Dewey writes:
["The Moral Equivalent of War"] seemed to me to show that even his sympathies were limited by his experience; the idea that most people need any substitute for fighting for life, or that they have to have life made artificially hard for them in order to keep up their battling nerve, could come only from a man who was brought up an aristocrat and who had lived a sheltered existence.
Dewey’s point is valid, especially in light of last week’s discussion: James does have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing our interdependence and one likely reason for that, honestly, is is privileged background.