Continuing our discussion of the theoretical questions a democratic reformer in the Deweyan tradition would need to answer:
While reformers will find it a challenge to construct a sound logical case for their program, they may well deem it the least of their problems once they face the task of persuading a skeptical public. A strong argument will help, of course, but the plight of the ‘undiscovered public’ is that its members are ruled by ignorance and passions more than by rationality, so thus will often fail to recognize the wisdom of even the best-argued position. The reformer might be able to sidestep this problem with a rational appeal to a ruling elite, one which would hopefully be more receptive to such tactics and be willing to enforce the reform upon the reluctant public. Unfortunately for the Deweyan reformer, ruling elites enforcing policies from above is exactly what he is trying to prevent. Direct persuasion of the public is the goal, so that the public might create for itself the most beneficial social structure possible. Reformers have no alternative but to confront the would-be public’s resistance to change, especially when such change challenges popularly held beliefs about the justice, morality, and validity of the current society.
The reformers’ best tool in this effort may well be the very social image that is the target of reform. Society forms its beliefs about itself in haphazard, piecemeal fashion, and is often unable or unwilling to develop its new ideas through to a conclusion.
Contradictions are inevitable. That two beliefs contradict does not automatically render it impossible for both to hold truth, since the pragmatic view of truth is far from a binary one. There are times when different situations will require the use of different concepts in order for the individual to successfully navigate them. One of the more popular examples applies to atomic theory. In our everyday lives, we might think of a rock as solid, filled in, impassable and immobile. If one considers the rock on the subatomic level, however, the majority of that rock is empty space, in which infinitesimal particles move around each other at high speed. How can the rock be solid and mostly empty at the same time? Because human beings are capable of holding different ways of looking at the world in their head, and applying the proper one based on the situation. It may seem like a contradiction for me to say that I believe the rock is solid but that I also believe it is mostly empty. But I know that those beliefs call for different responses at different times. They don’t come into contact, so I’m not really trying to hold them simultaneously.
However, there are some contradictions that simply can not co exist, where holding one belief makes holding the other untenable. Peirce’s guidelines in ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear’ can prove useful here – if one belief calls for a specific action, while the other calls for a diametrically opposed action, something must be done; one belief must be abandoned or modified. You can’t say your government is based on the notion that all men are created equal with inalienable rights and then structure that government in such a fashion as to deny those rights to a segment of the population. Both beliefs apply to the same situation, the same context, and so affirming one denies the other. If the public says to the reformer, ‘We can not accept your ideas; they violate our fundamental beliefs and values,’ the reformer must find a way to respond that the failure to accept her ideas would be an even graver violation of those beliefs and values. Only by creating this tension will the reformer break the would-be public out of its inertia, and hopefully encourage them to re-evaluate the situation and reintegrate their belief structure into a more coherent whole, once that would open their eyes to the need for reform.
This is not likely to be an easy task, and it will likely require drastic action on the part of the reformer. Dewey recognized the value of this approach; in both his technical work and his articles and lecture targeted to the public, he would trace the development of an idea in an attempt to show where it had gone off course, and begun to work against the very values it was first developed to support. This oft-repeated process is why Dewey stressed the historical nature of thought and action – theories all belonged to a specific time and place and were conceived in response to specific problems, and must be treated as such despite the best efforts of public and philosopher alike to enshrine them as immutable laws.
His treatment of Western liberalism in Liberalism and Social Action is an excellent example of this approach in Dewey’s work, but also points to how the Deweyan reformer must go beyond Dewey. It is an unfortunate truth that a magazine essay or even a series of public lectures does not create a visceral enough realization of the conflict within society. Words on paper are too easily rationalized away. The successful reformer must have a way to confront the public in a way that can not be ignored, but that does not violate the reformers’ principles at the same time. More than any other, it is this requirement that makes the reformer’s burden a heavy one to endure. It is also where many reformers fall short, unable to create enough tension to force social self-examination without creating so much as to galvanize reactionary forces to respond.