So much of this summit is concerned with the electoral history of progressivism and conservatism. Many of our speakers asked how the ideas and arguments of Major Political thinkers have made their way into the cultural conversation. Have shaped political attitudes, and given rise to political action. Our midmorning session is particularly exciting in this respect. The three historians before you are going to discuss how certain Major Intellectual figures of the long 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries have affected and in some cases may continue to affect american political thought. I will introduce our speakers alphabetically. Claire is a doctoral candidate in United States history at stanford university. Her research very well suited to for this conversation interrogates the Cultural Exchange in the late 18th century through the cold war. Today, she will discuss jon stewart middle, Harriet Tyler mill, and the coalescence of modern liberalism and the in america from the 18th to the 1970s with particular attention paid to the middle of the 20th century. Peggy vandenberg is an associate professor of philosophy. Her teaching and research primarily concern the figures of the 18thcentury scottish enlightened. This morning, she will examine the reception of david humes work in america, particularly by James Madison. Judy witt is investor of cash a professor. A professor. The editor of the four volume set jane adams writings on peace, she will discuss john do dewie james adams. With that, i turn it over to our first presenter. Good morning. Thank you. Let me begin by thanking the center along with the staff for organizing this wonderful events and inviting me to speak this morning. I should also mention upfront that my talk is decidedly more historical and political and perhaps was founded more in the past and the present or future. Its also about intellectuals, but i hope it will provide thought as we consider together the contours of our contemporary belittle debate. The landscape, and how we might find Common Ground. I will be speaking at 19th century english philosopher John Stuart Mill and the invention of the political tradition to show how this tradition is perhaps more complex than historians of sometime allowed. In their struggle for the world, the communists have one great advantage over the rest, the generalizing of their beliefs. The west has forgotten how to read their books. We have only the dimmest idea of where we came from. So wrote life magazine in 1949, and its lament fell on eager ears. The year before, the official of the Truman Administration sought help at Princeton University, for example, in the project of canonizing a liberal democratic tradition. Graduate students in the Politics Department were asked to respond to the officials prompt that, as he put it, the National Association of manufacturers had spent thousands of dollars in an effort to prepare a primer in body in the essence of our political tradition, without being able to produce anything. More specifically, they were asked to supply a list of books for western civilization, the equivalent of what marx had provided for the communists. What was this essence of american political tradition in the 1940s and 1950s . One way to look at this question and to answer this question is to look at who or what came to constitute the tradition by turning as my work does to the influence of the 17th century english philosopher, john locke. Another approach is to look at a more ambiguous case that of john , stuart mill, whose status is a liberal fix for inclusion in a recognized american political tradition in the middle third of the 20th century was less clear. Celebrated liberal as he was, and acclaimed author of on liberty and represented of government was not recognized in the middle third of the 20th century in the same way as his fellow english liberal john locke. Surely this american ambivalence about mill bears some notice. Mills had written favorably about socialism, and at least some intellectuals after the red scare during the deepening cold war came to regard him as a fellow traveler. Indeed, a nuanced complicated liberalism of the sort provided was not what Many Americans intellectuals wanted. As i will suggest today, attitude had not always rained. Between the 1910s of the 1930s, the threads of individualism or liberalism understood as a deep concern for individualism, individuality, and the protection of the associated economic civil and Political Rights and freedoms thereof on and socialism in some sense as an understanding of the privileging of society and community with specific message methods of labor and production and distribution. To better accomplish social equality and economic equality. Individualism and socialism within the body of mills work represented for many into goal integral and complex components of democracy itself. As such, the combination of the two threads in mills thought was the very symbol of the possibility of finding harmony between individual liberty and community wellbeing. Following the publication of john deweys work in a 35, many 1935, Many American intellectuals, in part as a reaction to mills, saw a shift away from 19thcentury liberal vocabulary towards a more positive stance toward socialism as indicative as the fundamental and irresolvable conflicts within liberal democracy. No longer were mills ardent defenses of individual liberty an later in life socialistic tendencies two sides of the same coin. Rather, they came to illustrate to many in clear terms a chasm, a deep split in liberalism that could explain some of the ongoing and fundamental problems at the heart of american politics. In the late 19th and early 20th century, his increasing tendency toward socialism of the course of his life was a secret. No secret. Mill himself had written about his evolving ideas in his own autobiography published in 1973. 1873. In 1924, the marxist english political theorist publish a new edition of it after Extensive Research at the Columbia Library in new york city. Meanwhile, students in american colleges and universities learned of his questionable status as a liberal in some detail. Undergraduates in princeton in in the 1870s learned that, as he put it, mill would substitute some form of communism for the present state of things. Nearly 50 years later in the 1920s, these same students were still immersing themselves in a careful understanding of mills conversion from individualism to socialism. In these decades around the turn of the 20th century, however conversations about , socialism often underscored his centrality to liberalism. Many americans only confronted the tensions within mills but embraced them as a means of mills thought, but embraced them as a means of thinking about individuality and american liberalism itself. A primary concern to this group was unpacking for their readers the nuances of mills philosophy of individualism or individuality, and now he how he thought through the tenuous relationship between individual liberty and concern for the greater societal good. Writing for the philosophical review in the early 1920s, american philosopher and cornell professor frank tilley for instance, sought to examine the foundations upon which mills individualism rests, and to note the faces of his philosophy which seem to be out of harmony with this, and which so often pointed to new roads. Such a study may help us strike the proper balance between the individual and society. His conclusion in short was that mills individualism was not incompatible or necessarily to be excellent away but rather were an opening of new roads of a possibility for american individualism himself. Three years later, still in the 1920s, charles street, an episcopal student chaplain at the university of chicago, also pointed to mill as a solution of to the problem of reconciling individualism with policies intended to improve the general welfare of americans. Street argued that the best way to answer questions about the most fitting relationship between the individual and society or the state was for his fellow americans to turn their attention to a careful study of none other than John Stuart Mill. In their writings, they were echoing the likes of the relationship between individualism and fellowship, the understanding of constructive individualism, and the call in 1914 from his position as president of the newly founded American Political Science Association to think seriously about a social component to individualism. Willoughby had declared that, although when americans often not accept socialist doctrine when it came to property, production, and labor, he must accept the socialist general theory that it is the proper province of state to do whatever it can to secure the true interest of its people. Unrestrained by any limitations, growing out of the essential nature of political authority. In other words, an individuals real interest could at times be best advocated for by the state itself. In the 1920s, as we saw, Many American intellectuals would employ John Stuart Mill to explain these nuances of individualism and to point the way towards thinking about liberalism as a means for improving society as a whole. In some ways, this changed in the 1930s. Then, concerns about mills socialism began to crystallize to be seen as not reasonable hot coalescing in the wind of a complex thinker, but two diverging lines of thought that one must choose between. Two reviews of john deweys book evidence of the shift. Largely critical of his portrayal of liberalism chamberlain proclaims him a , radical democratic socialist. At one point, chamberlain one point chamberlain thought dewey got right was his depiction of the split within liberalism best characterized in the life within John Stuart Mill. He learn from reading dewey. Writing for the New York Times a month later Henry Hazlitt , finished his review of liberalism and social action the more rousing claim that the no packing the career of mills himself, liberalism developed an inner split. He had concluded an outrage. He winds up by telling us in the fact that liberalism means a socialism. This reading of mills philosophies that the backstop for the work on mill in the 1940s and 1950s, which was securing the minds of Many Americans the precise nature of mills socialism and its origins. In 1951, after more than a decade of work, the historian senseral in the classic the historian Jennifer Burns has , welldocumented published with university of Chicago Press the correspondence between mill and his eventual wife Harriet Taylor. The letters demonstrated taylors overwhelming influence on mills thinking about socialism from early 1849. As mill worked on a new third edition of his latest work. Principles of political economy. These notes and letters were probably the most interesting and significant of all the newly although he did not publish these letters until 1961, as early as 1940, hyack had put pen to paper to offer his interpretation of Harriet Taylors influence on mills work and life. Significant was the ability to show without a doubt that mills socialism was not a late in life phase, but a longstanding political persuasion that developed in earnest as early as 1849. Equally important was the attention he gave to the influence of Harriet Taylor on mills move toward socialism. While hayek himself was more suggestive than conclusive, conclusive about the strength of mills socialism reviewers of lettersok and the published were not. Those who digested and assimilated his work through major american periodicals ranging from the new statesman o the New York Herald tribune were utterly sensationalist in their prose. The idea that mills trajectory toward socialism was, as one reviewer put it, a product of his following of the peculiar asd jet suffragette a frustrated suffragette was wildly popular. Regardless of where one came down on the question of the particular reason mill socialism, the more significant observation is this the very moment the brightness of mills star, an iconic figure for mac and liberalism was dimming, and the stories that seem to imply that is arced toward socialism not only happened much earlier in his career, but were also caused by a love affair with a woman, another english liberal, john locke, who had no women in his life, nor any socialistic tendencies, was securing his place in the mind of many is the source of american liberalism and its socalled american liberal tradition. By the late 1930s, historians have claimed john locke as americas philosopher. In the 1940s, locke seemed the perfect counterweight to mein kampf. In the 1950s, lockes ascent became meteoric as his ideas appear to explain why americans on the whole could never be taken in by marxists. Locke perceived a longstanding influence on the founding fathers, secured his place in an origin story of american politics. But it was the ease with which his writings on private property in the second treatise, combined with his events of religiousbased toleration to contrast an idea advanced by kalmar in the commonest manifesto that guaranteed the longevity of his relevance. Harvard university in the spring term of nation 56, to cite just one example, the suggestive paper topic for a core humanities course included the rationale for revolution, labor and property. The liberal tradition in america, published in 1955, use the pervasiveness of the lockeian spirit to account on how marx and engels couldve to predictng socialisms Eventual Success in america. In the liberal tradition, marxs name appears beyond john locke and jefferson. Mill appears in the liberal tradition in passing, twice in a 19thcentury english context. The thought that mill and marx were never paired, but when they were as happened frequently in 1948, on the centennial of the publication of of the communist , mill fared poorly. Milne friedmans position at the eighth annual meeting of Economic History Association in september 1948, at this meeting, commemorating the centennial of the two publications of marx on mill, he offer the following assessment of the lasting influence of the two philosophers. If collectivism ultimately triumphs over individualism, he cautioned his audience, it will be in no small measure results of the influence of ideas first popularized and made the stackable by mill. Mills doctrine of gradualism, a piecemeal reform subject to no general state action can lead to the almost unnoticeable unnoticed aggrandizement of the state and encroachment on political liberties. Mill was for freedom and many of his generation, more dangerous, because perhaps what mill was up to was less obvious. 12 years later in the early momentousviewing the single volume of Jon Stewart Stuart mill, it noted with respect to mill that while mills basic arguments for freedom are still valid, they are inadequate. Was mill really is a relevance irrelevantevant as that might lead us to believe . Perhaps making a distinction between certain works of his on the present of government and liberty, and how the legacy of the man himself fared is useful in answering such a question. Even as john locke, becoming shorthand for the ideas came to fill the void left by mill, mills work did not conclude disappear from discussions of american political identities. One work of his that has gone unmentioned this far, it reemerged in the late 1960s and 1970s as a rallying cry of many second wave feminists across the country. Between the 1930s and 1950s, his centrality on american liberalism as her vision lessons, because the finer line he walked between the many saw a socialism and liberalism, a particular publication of his remained integral for those seeking to understand historical british or european political thought, mills more complex social pressure socialism prevented the philosopher from becoming americanized in the same way as john locke. For some it was easier to make a distinction between marx and locke than it was to unpack mill. But by putting red flags around mill, something was lost. Perhaps the willingness of the american political tradition to embrace the messier liberalism are presented by mill then it one time it seemed the very essence of political possibility in this country. [applause] thank you. I thank the organizers. Im going to talk about the scottish enlightenment, and its association with United States constitution. I understand why people might wonder why i am talking about the scottish enlightenment, but im hoping that by the time i explained that the United States constitution has very strong roots in the ideology and the philosophy of public philosophy of the scottish enlightenment, that you will suddenly want to study it more in depth. I will give you some of it. Lets start with truly Common Ground, and instrument that we absolutely all respect, that is the United States constitution. I go to a constitutional law professor at the university of chicago for our first statement. In his book, he talks a lot about why the constitution is such an incredible document. The thing he mentions that he thought was really the brilliance of it was the conversational demand of the constitution. It demands conversation between adversaries. Which would seem that it would make it unstable, but in this contradiction, its a moving document that can be stable. A severe document would not be able to be. Its the documents of the constitution that forces our conversation, and obama gave James Madison credit for that. He was the author of the constitution. I will say and what i am explaining today is that the reason he did this in his ideological his ideology thats reflected in the constitution, certainly comes from the writings of david hume. I will try to make that case. But first, lets talk about James Madison. You might think immediately that he must have been a scot, and he wasnt. Born in virginia, was not a scot. One of his early tutors was a scot, but he spent a lot of his years, his ideas, when his ideas were forming, he spent them at the best place beside scotland you can get the closest to scotland, he never went to scotland, he never met david hume, but he did his undergraduate and his graduate work at princeton, university. Princeton university. Which was at the time, the college of new jersey, the college of new jersey at that time was one of the four institutions of Higher Learning in the 13 colonies. The Princeton Alumni are more representative of the Constitutional Convention then youll harbored. It was a university that was very invested in the American Revolution almond this is where James Madison was. Lets look at why we are calling Princeton University scottish. Im going to center on john witherspoon. John witherspoon was the longest president to serve princeton in its early years. You can see that the years he served were right to the American Revolution. He encouraged everyone on the staff, everyone in the school to sign on to this American Revolution movement. He was a huge supporter of it. His ideology was deeply seated in the scottish enlightenment. He was born and raised and educated in scotland. He was an evangelical presbyterian minister. But he believed that being a virtuous person or becoming virtuous or the development of virtue was absolutely open to everyone, no matter what their religious affiliation or no religious affiliation. He believed that the scottish enlightenment writers, particularly he had an affinity toward francis hutcheson, thomas reed, believe that morality can be understood in a common sense manner, and so could Public Policy also. Of course, his student was James Madison. More so than him being the president of the university and James Madison being a student, after James Madison graduated from princeton, he continued to study with john witherspoon. You can say a lot of students disagree with their instructors, i know that personally. But in this case, the only disagreement James Madison leaned towards the david hume writings more than hutchinson or reed. But the entire curriculum of princeton princeton today is a great scottish spot. Presbyterian seminary as they are, the journal for scottish philosophy is there. Princeton is certainly has its roots in the scots. So, i just wanted to tell you i am not alone, so i grabbed gary wills from northwestern, so others think this too. Gary wills attributed that to James Madison, and then he attributed it to James Madisons reading of david hume. Whats interesting is what gary wells was pointing out is that this instruments was the heart of the scots, particularly david hume, who writes on if it doesnt work, is got to work, somethings got to work, its got to make sense in order to do something or have a policy, it has to be a policy that works. Has to be an institution works. We need to be able to get along, and thats what david hume, according to gary wills, influence medicines writing of the constitution. I have to say one more thing. It doesnt involve the constitution, i just want to say that ben franklin and david hume James Madison never met david hume, but ben franklin did. Claire and i have been trying to remember where they met. I thought it was in a parlor in london i thought it was france, you think its in edinburgh. Im not sure, now i have to go back and dig this out. We need to get together to talk. Intellectuals used to get together and talk. I know it was under this type of relationship the ben franklin met david hume. I dont know a lot about their relationship, i was fortunate enough in the Edinburgh Library a number of years ago, i read the humes papers. They would have the letters that came from ben franklin, not the letters he sent. I read a letter that was penned by ben franklin, and he was thanking him for his support of the revolution in the 13 colonies. But most of the letter from ben franklin explained to hume how he could use a lightning rod to stop the fires they were having in edinburgh. I didnt look up the history of the time, but from reading the response, it seems like hume had said if you give us these lightning rods, it was just him explaining to him how he could use those. This leads me to david hume. And now youre really interested in hearing what he had to say in and who he was, because he informs your life today in the constitution. David hume was an empiricist, he believed understanding came with our experience, how we experience each other, how we experience other things. We learn to experience, we are born with the capability of knowledge, but with no knowledge. That would be an empiricist, john locke was an empiricist also. He believed that we learn from experience, and he also has the same 18thcentury problem that everybody has during that time. For the 18thcentury philosophers, this is the scots along with david hume, it was a little different when i take their moral theory. If you look at their moral theory, and i am really simplifying, they would look for how does one have a good life . The individual good life, how do you do that . The switch in the early modern times, the were talking 1600s to 1800s when the scots were writing, the biggest questions for philosophers and the response they were making was how are we going to get along . The differences, how are we going to be able to Work Together . And what your institutions need to look like so that we can get along . Why were we thinking about how to get along, the challenges of the 18thcentury are so, so alike the challenges we have today. Getting along became very difficult. Particularly after this. We have whats happening is the protestant reformation. This is preceding the scots. Youve got lutheranism and catholicism in germany, you have john knox and presbyterianism only have john calvin, you have always of people. With disagreement at a very basic, personal level of belief systems. And that was the challenge ring being faced by the 18thcentury. And so this is another thing thats in our constitution, and other people wrote of it, but he writes quite emphatically that there has to be a separation of church and state. If you can imagine whats going on, if the state is influenced by certain denominations of the church, and you are of the other, hume could see the atrocities on the horrible things that were happening. He said the government, its going to work and make sure that we can all get along, it cannot be affiliated with a religion, it has to be separate. Of course, James Madison made that fairly clear also in the constitution. That was one thing that we may owe to hume. The other thing is the size of government. David hume was very concerned about mob decisions. Big groups of people swaying one way or the other on superficial items, not getting to the depth of the issue. We need to talk in depth. We cant talk in depth when you have 1000 people. When 1000 people are in a room, nothing good is going to come from that. They are not going to come up with any great understandings of each other, its going to just flow. So political groups, the actual decisionmakers for human had to be in a size that can converse, can actually listen to each other, and this was really important. This is an issue which hume is recognizing here, is recognizing human nature. This is the other thing in early modern era. It became very important that if you had anything that concerned any institution, any policies that concerned human beings, you had to know what you are dealing with. What are we, by human nature . He mentions that we tend to fly one way to the other on superficial things up there too many of us, what he said is this is not just hume. We need to know what human nature is all about. Another problem. This is another early modern problem. Everything we do, we do because we care about ourselves. Every motivation is rooted in selfinterest. You had that going on, you have a problem. You need an overseer government that can punish you if you interfere with somebody else. So, if you got that human nature, and thats where Thomas Hobbes starts. He said this is what you need to solve it. That was the beginning. Then we have the three scottish enlightened scholars, Francis Hutchison and david him, who says we do have selfinterest, but we also have this thing called in a benevolence. Its really little, but its there. How do they know that . Bid you like to david hume, and imperious sister. David hume experiences this benevolence, with a benevolence is such a good thing. We value it and others. We value within ourselves. He believes that the part of human nature. Francis hutchison will tell you that god gave that to us so we would get along. David hume said its part of our nature. We are born that way. He doesnt know how it got there. Adam smith also believed was part of our nature. Then we had this little gizmo of caring about others. It can be shrunk, and it can be expanded. So heres where we start. This is where we start with any Public Policy, with anything that the scots would write about. Under it all was of course we have selfinterest. But we also have this thing, this interest in the welfare of others, even strangers. We care about strangers, we hear a story and thats here comes to eye. Heres really reach another commonality for the scots. And that is that soon after birth, we realize that we need each other. We need each other in a real way. I dont want to make this i want this to to the scots, this is really important that we need each other. They are not talking about economics. I will grow the tomatoes, you trade with me for the celery. Of course we have that. But its bigger than that. I dont even know myself without talking to another. I dont know myself, i cant function and develop my own humanity unless im in a society that works for me and for everybody else. We care about the society, we care about is what is damaging to the society. Therein lies i started with the commonality of the constitution, now im back to a commonality that we may disagree that was good for society, but there is where the commonality is for the scots. If we always deal with this, we know that the commonality is there. That we do care about society, we need society. Humans almost hysterically hume was almost satirically critical of someone to isolate themselves and things on their own need and isolates and doesnt talk about their ideas. He would say that idea is not an idea unless its communicated. Thats when you get better ideas. Sometimes we understand what we think only when we say it and discuss things with others. This is where the commonality begins, and it is in the observations and relationships of others. We learn about each other and ourselves. I could go on and on about this. I cant even know myself unless i see myself reflected in you. This is adam smith and david hume calls that others as a mirror to ourselves. We see ourselves, we understand ourselves because we are reflected back to us. These interactions and conversations are so very important. I hope you are seeing now how this becomes an important part of the conversation of government, and how important it is. The scots valued conversation in the development of humanities, in the development of morality, and in the development of governmental systems and how they are structured. Any governmental system needs to have that card. The scots recognize the need to continually readjust morality and governments in response to the observations of the time it. And in relationships with others, your conversations. An examination shows that morality and government necessitates openness of the times with relation to the effects of values on people in society in general. For hume, the structure of Society Works only when it is functioning as a useful and important part of facilitating Effective Living with each other in communities. Hume believed an idea worthwhile when it can be communicated to and understood by others. Madison agreed and wrote a constitution that reflected that belief and commitment in the structural demands of conversation between opposing views. Thank you. [applause] it is lovely to see there is overlap. I wanted to say thank you for to helen stein, and how important it is to have these conversations. That we have them in our normal lives in different ways. An example i was sitting on a plane a couple of weeks ago, coming back from phoenix. The man sitting next to me turned out to be a cpa who works for a major east coast municipal supply. He saw me open a book and start reading it, a book on feminist philosophy by one of my students. That started one of those interesting but amicable plane conversations. At one point he claimed that the government should adopt its policies based on a theory of rugged individualism. I asked him when and where that it ever worked in modern society and politics, and he said 100 years ago in the United States. So, i want to go back and look at 100 years ago in the United States. World war i was starting, and the hugely influential progressive era movement had just recently changed our political and social landscape. Here i would like to explore why there was a need for the Progressive Movement, and the philosophies and activism that grew out of that need. Particularly in the work of jane adams and john dewey. Who were foundational figures in the Progressive Movement of the 1890s to 1920s. Jane adams at the age of 29 years old found this house which was one of the earliest and most accessible american settlement houses. It was in the heart of the povertystricken immigrant district in chicago. This would be her home for the rest of her life. When she moved to chicago in the 1890s, people were dying in the street due to starvation. She come at one point, tried to find the pavement there are pictures of children lying with dead horses on top of the garbage boxes. She tried to find the pavement under the street, she found the pavement eight inches below the garbage that was just packed down on the street. Being jane adams, she decided she would become the garbage inspector, and so she applied for and became the garbage inspector. Here see is, this young woman from an upperclass background who spent her morning driving around following garbage inspectors. The garbage people picked up garbage just to say, you must take care of this. Of course, that became politically awkward and so they made a law that you had to take a Civil Service exam to be the garbage inspector, and only men could take the Civil Service exam. So there she was. In this era, there was such a corrupt municipal governments based on political favors. And what we see is that there were not enough schools for the children. There were diseases, such as cholera and typhoid, they were rampant and often spread by the sweatshop system. Adams herself out of the visiting Nurse Association to try and combat some of this. Small children when to the factories at the age of five years old. There was no eight hour workday, or child labor laws. Rich people were getting richer, poor people were getting poorer. There were few government regulations about workplace safety, there were monopolies. We know some of the stories the triangle factory with people locked into the factories, couldnt get out even in the case of fire. And the children of jane adams neighborhood really did suffer greatly, didnt go to school because they were in the factories. This was a time of social darwinism as well. There was this misunderstanding darwin would never have appreciated this theory that it justified to some people that the survivor of the wealthiest the survival of the wealthiest was the survival of the fittest and the weakest should suffer and die out as a natural phenomenon. There were very few social service agencies, people actually thought ethically this was a good thing for the human race. Though the Industrial Age of the late 1880s and early 1900s saw social unrest, economic inequalities and harsh conditions for those in poverty, it was surprisingly also a sense of optimism trade of a leaf, possibly inspired by darwinian thought, that this was the time of progress. The privates philosophy developed in a time when the American Experience was moving sm,m a mess of individualize symbolized often by the american frontier and went to an awareness of the sensitive cooperation and social equality. Needed to live in a city environment. Adams and do we adams and y were both pragmatists, although adams until recently had been more known for her activism in dewey for his philosophy. They were the voices of progressive reform. Pragmatists love the belief that we as humans can radically improve our world, that we have a responsibility to do so. Dewey is famous for saying that philosophy should be about solving the problems of humankind. He really took that to heart, and so did adams, of course. I have lots to say about both of them. Im going to talk mostly about but their work on democracy. And a few notes about educational reform. But first, a short introduction. You probably know who dewey and many of adams are. John dewey is referred to as the father of the Progressive Movement. Particularly true for educational theory. He lived to be 92 years old, he was actually still alive i was born. For many decades was the preeminent american philosopher in the 20th century. He was also a commentator on culture and politics, and at times, and activist. When he was first starting his career, he was a schoolteacher, he returned and that is chd from john hopkins. And then moved to the university of michigan. As a professor of philosophy and later to the university of chicago, which is where he met adams. The pragmatist philosophers, mostly when these are the foundational theorists of the school of pragmatism. Adams was a group of talented women at whole house quickly became a force for industrial reform, for protection and education of children and advocacy for womens rights. Support for the labor unions. Was also a center of arts and culture. Nearly every wellknown person of that era seemed to have either stayed at whole house or spoke at whole house. And many times, stayed for weeks or months. In the early 20th century, adams was revered and beloved nationally and internationally. In 1912 in 1913, it showed her that americans considered her one of history. In one of the most socially useful americans, second only to thomas edison. Public opinion changed radically due to her pacifism before entering world war i. She was vilified by the media and by politicians. You have the red scare in 1922, in her work, she was seen as one of the most dangerous women of america. There was a report prepared in the red scare, after the bolshevik revolution, trying to locate the dangerous, radical, and socialist elements of our culture. If you see at the bottom, where a lot of the lines go, those lines are going to the Womens International league of peace and freedom. Which jane adams was the president of for many years. Its still an organization that works with the u. N. On womens issues. Adams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 for her piecework. Adams than deweys commitment to social issues can be inserted by the long list of Progressive Social reforms that they worked with, womens suffrage, the American Civil Liberties union, the naacp, which they were also founders of. Dewey worked on the American Committee for the defense of leon trotsky, adams was deeply involved in international and National Suffrage and peace movements. They won time made a list that adams was involved in, it took two pages to make a list of all the things she was board of director of. How did she do all that . Adams and do we really believed in democracy. It was a poor idea they return to over and over. For them, it wasnt just a political system. It was intellectually, socially, aesthetically, as well as politically a standard they held. It was an interactive and independent way of being in the world with others. They thought the democracy of classical liberalism was insufficient. They believe that equal rights were important, but they were necessary, but observations. That we had moved or either had moved beyond thinking primarily about the individual to thinking the common good. The place where we overlap here. Democracy for adams and do we dewey required we must experience the rights of others to see the size of each others burden. As a mode of associated living, it necessitates inegalitarian way of being together the values community decisionmaking. They were interested in the process of democracy, not just the politics of democracy. How do we live together and Work Together . Is obvious that democracy was not working for the poor immigrants in chicago the 1890s. As the experience with the extent of suffering could have caused her to abandon democracy is viable political option. There were many socialist anarchists who did just that. But adams begins her work with the assumption that the cure for democracy is more democracy. She didnt merely extended democracy, she radically recreated it. She took what had been an individualistic political liberal structure and recreated it as a mode of community association. Changes, she said, had to be made in social conditions to create the conditions for democracy. She said democracy has made little attempt to assert itself beyond the position of the 18th century leaders who believe that political equality alone was the cure for all men. Later, she points out that these early leaders founded their new government on involuntary reference to a little a lower social state and depended on coercion to hold the community together. Shes taking this a step further, she doesnt talk in this tone very often. She is more focused on how can we live together in a way that is useful. This is what adams called the newer concept of democracy grows at a shared experiences. The own individual standards of right and wrong, the newer social ethic requires one to make decisions based on the community good, only after experiencing others lives. These common experiences require dialogue, again, conversation, and participation in addressing social concerns. She advocated for decisions based on dialogs and mutuality. She was a member of several labor negotiation committees in chicago, including the coleman rail strike. She said in that case in many cases, the employer is cut off from social ethics trade lending is good to people, rather than with them. Adams also critiqued how capitalism distorts democracy. She said the great principle of liberty has been translated into the unlovely doctrine of commercial capitalism. Perhaps seeing the warning signs of global capitalism the rides often on the coattails of democratic reform. She also connected laissezfaire capitalism with imperialism and militarism, saying that unrestricted commercialism is an excellent preparation for government aggression. You can see why she was seen as a radical. For dewey and adams, they thought the democracy and education were completely tied together. Dewey said democracy is to be born again in a generation and education as its midwife. Is its midwife. For dewey and for adams, those two ideas were so intertwined. Education remains a hotly contested issue between progressive and conservative thinkers. Because education is one of the areas where social change does happen. We are still arguing about dewey and adamss relationship to education. When of my neighbors told me that dewey was the cause of everything thats wrong with education today. At least he knew who dewey was. Education was in a state of crisis when adams and do we wey startedd de pursuing educational reform. The previous rigorous debates over the role of state in the education of children, many people felt that statefunded education should be limited to reading, writing, spelling, and common arithmetic. All other education should be left to parents. The fight for Free High School education had been won by 1895 over the quality of education was generally very bad. Administrators were mostly incompetent and School Administration positions were often given as political favors, just like being the garbage collector. Joseph mayer writes concerning the condition of schools created an outcry throughout the country. His investigation found that in city after city, public interference, corruption, and incompetence conspired to ruin schools, and with alarming frequency, the story was the same. Political hacks hiring untrained teachers who blindly led their innocent charges in singsong andl, rote repetition, meaningless verbiage. Adams served on an Ad Hoc School committee after the rice article came out, tried to think about educational reform. As well as dewey, that education could make social change possible. As jacob rees, author of how the other half lives, asks do not see how the whole family is in and around the Public Schools . When he was in chicago, his children became schoolaged and you started thinking much more intently about what needs to happen in schools. He began to think about education instead of rope repeating rote repeating was instead about experiential learning. He started the University Elementary School University of chicago, more commonly known as the lab school. Based on students exploring learning through handson practice. Interestingly, i read recently obamas children lived in chicago and attended the lab school. That was interesting. I didnt realize it was still going on. That was educational work. Here is the lab school, with the kids working with modeling, here they are again, you can feel the writings on the wall, the kids are doing very active things. Adams is mostly known for community education. She started the labor museum which preserved the methods of labor of past generations, and it taught people to value the labor of their parents and grandparents. It also taught them how to blend it their industrial lives with the history and culture of the past. Adams was so much a liberal arts advocate, her education to change her life. Reading the great thinkers of the past, the visionary people, the philosophers she modeled her life on, she was such an advocate of liberal arts. She also despaired of a liberal or type of legislation of education. She tried to figure out a way to blend of the two. And she did that in many ways. She had reading groups, they had lecture groups, do we came in dewey came in and lectured at hull house. Very involved in the intellectual community. But also they had labor Union Meetings there, they had a lot of activities that caused social reform started it started out there. While educational reform flourished, the fear surrounding world war i and the subsequent red scare brought a whole to many of the efforts of progressive reformers. Certainly, there was no longer the sense that the world was progressing to a better place. Beyond militarism and towards equality. Adams used to think that weve moved beyond war. I think today, progressives and conservatives would both agree that the reforms that adams and dewey worked on were reforms that were necessary. Contrary to the cbn claim last to my seatmate on the plane last month, i suspect there are few educated people who lived in those conditions of that era and would want to return our country to that state. In these ways, the progressive era changed our culture and , dewey and adams set the conditions for some of the ongoing debates we still have about progressive and conservative education and democracy. Thank you. [applause] ms. Whipps time for question, 10 minutes or so perhaps where , you see the overlap. Or other questions that you have. Thank you, i had thank you for your presentations. I have a question for professor vandenberg. You can all jump in if you want. He talked about the scottish enlightenment trying to find Common Ground in the wake of reformation. They tried to construct a philosophy of human nature because they still believed constitution and society must be based on some common understanding of human nature. Over the last 200 years and a common understanding of human nature, scottish or otherwise, has been largely deconstructed by modern philosophy and the idea that is affirming or asserting a common human nature is as oppressive as asserting a common understanding of human nature. Could you comment on the future, wants that is no longer once that is no longer available to us intellectually . Ms. Vandenberg i think it is available to us. I think there is a human nature. I mean, we have to go right to the basics. What hurts me physically, for instance if i get hit or something, we have more common human nature than we have differences. The differences have expanded. They have expanded, absolutely cant and the way we learn is about the bet about commonality is through conversation. You think there are all kinds of different people in different cultures. You can take any place on the planet, anywhere to go, and if you go to a funeral there, you can understand the language, you will never hear somebody stand up and say this was such a good person. Waseat his wife, he horrible to his kids, he borrowed stuff and never gave it back. He was just we were all afraid of him. This is such a good person. We will miss him so. You will never hear glad this guy is gone what a jerk. He was kind to everyone he met. He was a benevolent man. If you take us commonality and start right there, we have something, and there are many more. So, there are some commonalities. Those are the emphasis what we have in fsis too much is the differences. When we can get back to what we all agree on, i think we can learn a lot about each other. Anybody else everything to say . Listening to the papers, i was thinking about possible connections between players claires paper and peggys, and it occurred to me mills engagement with the scottish enlightenment was manifest in two texts his examination of the philosophy of William Hamilton in 1865, and his great Saint Andrews address in 1867. What interested me about them in relation to claires presentation is these two texts are cited through the 1870s and 1880s by american secularists, people that are less concerned with political economy and representative government, but are very concerned about the legacy of christianity as a force in modern culture, and especially with the st. Andrews address. Males sets forth mills sets mill sets forth a cultural pathway based on evidence, empirical science, and allies himself with the sort of stuff huxley and kendall were doing at this time. I wonder if that had anything to do with his ups and downs in his reputation that you describe. I should also say franklin met hume in 1871 when he was a houseguest of hume in edinburgh. Ms. Rydell arcenas he was there. Thank you, david. I will start. What is interesting about mill it brings princeton back in. Absolutely, i think what is interesting about mill is that because he is such a complex thinker, and basically thinks about, philosophize is, writes thoughts about everything, to look at what different strands mills thoughts are incorporated into different americans understanding of themselves, and your point about his engagement with scottish thinkers in the 19th century is, in fact, something that is taught also to a great extent at places like princeton by scotts like james mccall. I think understanding the strength of the connection in the 19th century, not him in between milk, and his american correspondents and you have to remember, mill was active in american lives in the 19th century. Isreas someone like locke long dead. I think in some way the changes dramatically once americans themselves are no longer engaging with mill. But i think i am going to have to think more about the extent to which this also explains some of the ebbs and flows or ups and downs. I think that is a thoughtful way to ponder. The harvard historian has written this book called reading obama, and he analyzes when obama was the editor of the law review and his writings, probably dreams of my father, more than his campaign, and he makes the argument that the president , that his political velocity philosophy is that of a philosophical pragmatist in the tradition of dewey and james, and i was wondering what you thought about that. Ms. Whipps there are many pragmatists who write about how obama is a pragmatist. I am not as deeply knowledgeable about obamas political philosophies. It sounds like you are. Certainly, this conception of politics in the role of politics making and the role of politics in making social change, making the world a more equal and fair place, that it is not just about running the certain elements of the country, but that politics should be about change and engaging with the people, understanding the people, and the dialogue with the people. We would find that with obama and the pragmatist. Whether obama himself ever said he was a pragmatist were identified, talked about dewey i really dont know if he did. I do have a colleague who has written a book on that, and i have not read it. So, maybe i will go read it this summer. Thank you. Ms. Vandenberg i think the pragmatist were more radical than they are given credit ms. Whipps i think they are more radical than they are given credit. In relationship to hume, the individual is a lake and situated by the community. There is no individual by the without the community. It is an interesting connection between the three. Yeah. Ms. Vandenberg interesting. Thank you. Ms. Whipps it looks like we are close to out of time unless there is one more question . [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] on American History tv on cspan3, today starting at 1 p. M. Eastern, we are live from Gettysburg College in gettysburg, pennsylvania for the conference asar authors and professors examine topics such as free people refugee camps, reconstruction, and the postcivil war career of ulysses s. Grant. Origin of thee lost cause. Showcaseamerica will the series of science thumbs. We will look at the film science reporter suited for space. Here we have the alan shepard suit. Here is the mercury suit. After the mercury said, here is the gemini. This looks familiar. This is identical to that, extravehicular excursions. Oh, it does look quite a bit different from the gemini suit. It does. This is one of the early models. Tracing the development of space suits from the mercury to the apollo programs. Curator jeremy kenny takes us on a tour of the Aerospace Museum to show as artifacts in the quest to go higher, faster, and farther in the first half century of aviation. Miles anduld do 3600 33 and a half hours from new york to paris. It was flown by charles lindbergh, and unknown pilot. His goal was to win for the first nonstop flight from new york to paris. That was the impetus for this light. What it really represented in the history of aviation was the transformation of the airplane from what the right brothers created to what we call the modern airplane. Chest but the complete weekend schedule, go to www. Cspan. Org. Known as the center of the industry, the cspan cities tour examines nashville, tennessee. We have an examination of the detailing now this nashville venue became the site waspolitical rallies and the home of the grand ole opry. The civil war was very important to nashville, tennessee. A few blocks from here, students sitdid the lunch counter is, including congressman john lewis. They challenged the system of what was going on in nashville, tennessee. And the conscience of the country. Visit jackson for all home and learn about jacksons home and learn how it grew into a president ial residence on par with mount vernon and monticello. And then the Country Music hall of fame and museum. About thers talk relationship between 1960s folk icon bob dylan and Country Music star johnny cash, the political clash between the two musical genres, and how the music helped bridge political differences. Your friendship had a lot to do theyre french about a lot to do with changing perceptions ofnashville, bringing a lot rock n roll into nashville. There were a lot of people who would have liked to represented the grand ole opry was not here. Hayseed, thought of a sort of ruby, so you can imagine at the height of 60s, closure, counterculture, when you have the longhaired hippie culture, if you will, coming out at time and the more conservative element. Whats the cspan cities tour Nina Allender was the political cartoonist for the National Womens party from 1914 until 1927, contributing over 150 cartoons supporting the campaign for womens suffrage. Next, we visit the belmont paul National Womens equality monument to see her work. Jennifer my name is jennifer krafchik. I am Deputy Director and director of Strategic Initiatives at the belmont Paul National monument on capitol hill in washington, d. C. This house was the fifth a
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.