Fifteen

JOHN DEWEY AND JOSIAH ROYCE IN DIALOGUE ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY

Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley

John Dewey and Josiah Royce are usually viewed as men of very different philosophical temperaments. However, a further look at their work suggests a different story. They, in fact, shared a number of concerns and philosophical positions. Thus, both were concerned about the social conditions of their time and particularly the problem of properly balancing individualism and communal good. They were concerned about the need to redefine “individualism” and to develop conditions for creating a new sense of community. Dewey advocated for the “Great Community” while Royce discussed the “genuine and universal community of interpretation.” In this paper we place the thought of Royce and Dewey in dialogue, focusing on the issues of the individual vis-à-vis the community and the development of a democratic way of life. This dialogue reveals that on these topics Dewey and Royce shared the following beliefs in common: (1) that the social situation of their time was one of insecurity and of “lost” individuals; (2) that this pathological social condition was the result of over-emphasis on self- interest and on pecuniary values; (3) that “individualism” needed redefinition in a manner that facilitated the flourishing of individuals as well as communities; (4) that true individuality is developed in community and communal interaction; (5) that among the conditions for “community-creation” are interaction, shared values, and shared action. Further, both Dewey and Royce argued that “communication” was the key to development of community. However, in my reading of Dewey, he did not develop this notion of communication in any depth while Royce’s doctrine of interpretation addresses this aspect of community in some detail. Finally, Dewey and Royce valued the community of science and believed that it, in some manner, provided hope for developing community and a democratic way of life. Dewey saw the scientific mode of inquiry as a model for revitalizing society and democracy while Royce believed the scientific community served as one paradigm for a community of interpretation. Because of limitations of essay length, I will not address this 254 JACQUELYN ANN K. KEGLEY area of concern shared by Royce and Dewey. While addressing areas of commonality between Dewey and Royce it is important to note that there are also subtle and perhaps significant differences. Thus, for example, Dewey’s emphasis is more on social, political, and economic consequences and on economic, political and cultural freedoms. Dewey was concerned to change those conditions that degrade, dominate, or entrap an individual so that these persons become increasingly unable to reach the full freedom befitting a human living in a community. Although Royce was not unconcerned about entrapping social conditions, his focus was more on freeing individuals and communities from self-centeredness and from egoistic blindness to the views and needs of others. Royce believed that a human “lost individual” must be transformed out of a self-centered life “detached” from any genuine community into a person loyal to a form of communal life with others, though always critically aware of the need to continually grow and develop both as an individual and as a community. A person grows and develops through a series of commitments to ever-wider communities. In these the individual takes part by self-aware cooperation, open, sensitive, communication, and coordinated actions designed to build broader community and interactions and to facilitate individual and communal growth. In focusing more on individual and group self-centeredness as the central problem in the failure of the old Individualism, Royce appears more aligned with the views of critics of Dewey like Reinhold Niebuhr who thought that Dewey was too optimistic about the ability of human beings to raise reason above narrow self-interest. In this regard, Dewey appears to have great confidence in the role of education in producing self-aware citizens who will become an active “public.” Royce also honored education and would speak of it in terms of loyalty and building community. He would agree with Dewey that a fundamental task of education in a democracy is learning how to sculpt a genuine individuality while also learning to participate in a democratic community, but his major approach to addressing the problems of his time was to develop a notion of building community from the “bottom-up”, developing levels and varieties of “loyal provinces,” or “loyal communities.” He begins with the family and moves on to discuss other types of human associations such as education, the church, and various social and political units. He argues that all must operate on a principle of “loyalty to loyalty.” This principle demands respect for other communities as well as transcendence of one’s own narrow concerns. This will be discussed in more detail later in the paper. Dewey is recognized for his social and political writings, his reconstruction of classical liberalism and his advocacy for democracy as a way of life. In contrast, it is believed that Royce failed to develop a social- political philosophy. My contention is that Royce, in fact, has a viable social- political philosophy, worthy of attention in today’s global environment.