Culture Issue in Freedom and Culture by J.Dewey - Book Report/Review Example

Kierkegaard and Dewey In his book "Freedom and Culture" chapter John Dewey starts expressing the role of culture in the casual chain and of human behavior. He argues that democratic cultures for example depend on psychological and moral beliefs, even if not consciously motivated by them, as they would fall apart if these beliefs were taken to be wrong. It is therefore wise to ask if political freedom can be maintained without freedom of culture. The answer is inevitably no, and thus if political freedom is to be attained one should ask; what kind of culture can maintain this freedom? Dewey then gives an example of religion; how religion can have a lasting and deep impact on the course of a nations history. Religion or a certain set of ideas can control peoples feelings and beliefs, and that is not any less of a control than that of political oppression. Culture is also determines what elements of human nature dominate it, which have resulted in the belief that one aspect of human nature is the determining factor of human society. This is confusing the effect with the cause, as it is a societys culture that determines which aspect of human nature dominates according to Deweys argument. So the basic idea of Deweys first chapter is that if political freedom is to be maintained it is through culture and not through the individuals, as they are themselves motivated and to a degree "controlled" by culture. The exaggeration of one aspect of human nature as the sole motive behind human behavior is itself culture driven; this is well supported by historical facts. For every age gives rise to a motive of behavior that accords with its cultural needs. And the example Dewey gives is England during the industrial revolution; as the economic situation was intense it gave rise to the belief in a sole human motivator that is in harmony with this economical situation. 2- In chapter 2, Dewey discusses the differences that lie within the same society, how they might affect society and how they are not an objection to his theory of cultural domination over human behavior within society. In this chapter he concludes that: "No estimate of the effects of culture upon the elements that now make up freedom begins to be adequate that does not take into account the moral and religious splits that are found in our very make-up as persons. The problem of creation of genuine democracy cannot be successfully dealt with in theory or in practice save as we create intellectual and moral integration out of present disordered conditions." This perhaps sums up the main point of the chapter. He also sees that "The serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions similar to those which have given a victory to external authority, discipline, uniformity and dependence upon The Leader in foreign countries. The battlefield is also accordingly here--within ourselves and our institutions." So it is clear that he believes society should acquire freedom through its own culture, and that the threat to this freedom is not foreign policies but rather domestic culture. 3- According to Dewey "The idea that human nature is inherently and exclusively individual is itself a product of a cultural individualistic movement." Thus announcing that culture is the determining factor of human actions and beliefs, even the belief of the contrary is itself a product of culture. While Kierkegaard sees the human individual as something higher than society or the universal and believes on freedom of the individual, and so a question arises, to what degree are human beings free to be individuals? And to what degree does culture dominate human behavior? The answer, I believe, is that human behavior is greatly affected by culture, it is perhaps the most important determining factor, and the individualistic beliefs like Kierkegaards are a result of cultural environment. This can be shown by the causal chain of any nations history. We find that the cultural conditions determine their beliefs and actions, the examples set by Dewey demonstrate the point; the whole of the American struggle for freedom was dependent on moral and psychological beliefs in a way that it would fall apart if they were not true, these moral and psychological beliefs themselves are dependent on the circumstances that led to them, that is; the high taxes imposed by the British government as well as other cultural factors. This shows that what might seem like an individualistic longing for freedom is nothing but an effect of different cultural causes. Another way this can be demonstrated is by arguing that if human nature or one aspect of it was the determining factor of human behavior we would find more uniformity among societies and even among philosophers and psychologists opinions about the motivating factor of human behavior; this is not the case at all, we find that different societies hold different values as if there was a different human nature acting on each culture. Of course Dewey does not deny biological needs and nature of the human being; he however thinks that they should be integrated within the cultural realm. Which means that while admitting the existence of biological nature, it is only manifested within the cultural framework of society; this can be seen in the fact that in spite of our sexual desires we still refrain from acts like rape – and in some societies sex outside of marriage – in order to keep in line with our societys culture, and greatly affected by it. Kierkegaards optimism about freedom of each individual will be characteristic of later existentialist thought and, as Kierkegaard does, existentialists take it for granted that all humans are free, Kierkegaard did not give coherent reasons for this belief. 4- Kierkegaard, when writing about teleological suspension of the ethical, does not mean doing something unethical for a higher ethical purpose, rather he means doing something unethical for a higher purpose that is not itself ethical. To quote Kierkegaard when talking about Abraham: "By this act he overstepped the ethical entirely and possessed a higher telos outside of it." By this Kierkegaard means that the higher purpose for which the unethical sacrifice was made is not ethical. The paradox of faith as he puts it is the particular individual being higher and superior to the universal as opposed to ethical values but at the same time attaining something higher than this ethical. Abraham acted for his own sake and for his own faith, but his action is considered heroic in a paradoxical manner and transcends the ethical. Abraham is contrasted with the tragic hero and Kierkegaard notes that while the tragic hero might also perform an otherwise unethical sacrifice, he still favors the universal over the less universal, he is still within the ethical realm and we still feel sympathy for him. Abraham on the other hand and as mentioned earlier is not acting for the sake of the universal but for his own sake. The tragic hero makes us sympathize with him, feel sorry and shed tears, but Abraham makes us terrified and helps us better understand faith. For Kierkegaard trying to justify Abrahams action is not possible, for it is beyond justification, it cannot be done any more than a paradox can be comprehended, and to paraphrase him it cannot be mediated. Kierkegaard in this view favors the individual to the universal, but more importantly sees the individual as the sole actor and gives him complete freedom over his own actions. A view that is, in my opinion, too optimistic and more of a spiritual, religious view than philosophical. Works Cited: John Dewey, Freedom and Culture, G. P. Putnams sons, 1939 Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Translated by Walter Lowrie, Princeton University Press, 1941. Read More