I chose this paper because of it’s complexity and the vast research that was put into completing it.  It speaks on the rhetorician John Dewey and what his idealogy argues for.  His theology, philosophy, and teachings on education, politics and religon show the rhetoric of the time as well as the major rhetorical theories stood upon.  This paper relates to numbers two and four of the six learning outcomes for an English major.  For number two this paper focuses on cultural context and how it influenced the rhetoric during this time period that John Dewey used and spoke about.  The era lines up with and matches how he viewed the world and it’s functions.  For number four, this paper is a perfect example of using many sources to produce an argument about a rhetorician and show what he taught and showcased.  All sources chosen and used provided evidence to backup statements and assertions made on who he was, what he did and what all of his ideology meant as well as the history that went along with it.

Josiah Titus
ERH 202
Maj. Iten
May 1st, 2019
Word Count: 2005
HR: Works Cited
John Dewey: An Ideal Public made by Communication

In his book The Public and its Problems, chapters four and five offer insight into John Dewey’s rhetorical theory. His focus as evidenced in his writing is concerned with the public, analyzing what it is they need to receive and use rhetoric within a Democratic system. An ideal public is an intelligent one, driven by their human motivation that is appealed to from their leaders to form a relationship and then used for society’s needs, all of which is based on good communication.

There is some historical context that can possibly go along with Dewey’s rhetorical theory. Possibly is used because it is not certain that his rhetoric was completely influenced or used for this time. Christopher Eisele speaks a bit on the time period of which Dewey lived and, on specifically immigration, happening then, and his points can be summarized. A lot of Dewey’s rhetoric as mentioned, centered on aspects dealing with social control, and these will be discussed later. Due to this, his rhetoric may have been influenced from what he saw was happening in America in relationship to the immigrants coming in before and after WWII. It’s difficult to state this as fact though because as Eisele points out, “Dewey’s major statements concerning immigrants, which numbered fewer than a dozen” (68). Basically, there so little Dewey really says on immigrants, that its hard to accurately capture his exact view on them, and how his rhetoric relates. On Dewey’s view of immigrants and his answer, Eisele says, “Dewey, as well as other liberal reformers, was committed to flexible, experimentally managed, orderly social change” (67). Dewey saw the lack of social adeptness from these newcomers to their new land and leaders, and it stemmed from a rhetoric issue. Eisele gives a quote from an unnamed observer of the time saying, “It has consciously become all of a sudden of the very greatest importance to us as a nation that the immigrants whom we have welcomed into our society … should be an integral part of that society and not foreign to it” (71). The immigrants needed to be molded into America and many wanted it as this quote says. Overall Dewey seems to suggest a more communicative approach, like in his rhetoric-although the problem is that in his primary texts, his mention on Immigrants specifically is little. Assimilating these new people into society would prove difficult. Eisele quotes Dewey’s own opinion saying that incorrect assimilation “…contributes to the decline of the person” (68). Patrick Diggins who researches some of the cultural context of Dewey also weighs in on Dewey’s thinking of how this problem could be solved in the long run. It seems to be education. Diggins says, “He had always held up rational intelligence… means by which disputes could be settled” (214). Not much can be ascertained of Dewey on immigrants in society, but what he does emphasize is that education, which by default would bring intelligence, could help to solve the problem. Eisele’s best point is a quote by Dewey on the emphasis of education, “But the problem is not to reduce them to an anonymous and drilled ho- mogeneity, but to see to it that all get from one another the best that each strain has to offer from its own tradition and culture” (72).

Intelligence is one of the leading points in all of Dewey’s rhetoric, that a socially adaptable public with a high degree of intellect is required for problems to be solved in a democratic setting. Contribution by all parties is key though. Dewey quotes, “…participation in activities and sharing in results are additive concern. They demand communication as a prerequisite” (330). Remember though that intelligence only attained through communication, it all links. More on intelligence and it’s problem in the time period most likely, Dewey says “It may be urged that the present confusion and apathy are due to the fact that the real energy of society is now directed in all non-political matters by trained specialists…while politics are carried on with a machinery and ideas formed in the past” (312). Politics is the backbone and leading force of any society Dewey asserts, and if the government is full of unintelligent people that promote artificial work and ideals with nothing holding them up, it crashes and burns. He follows this up with a climax statement, “…a public organized for political purposes, rather than experts guided by specialized inquiry, is the final umpire and arbiter of issues” (313). This only harps on his view of what intelligence can do for a Democratic government and its people. Scott Stroud in relation to Dewey’s theory on intelligence says, “All individuals are assumed to be the implied critic because all individuals can be assumed capable of undertaking some sort of intelligent examination of what is in front of them” (45). The individual, which eventually builds up to the public when all become concerned, must be able to comprehend and decipher. They must know what they are hearing, what they are being called to do, or what they mustn’t do. Ignorance is downfall, but education alleviates this, and when the public can make sense of themselves and what they are receiving through high intellect, only then can success be had. If the public is to grow and be the communicative public Dewey believes is needed for success, intelligence must be gained. Don Burks speaks on Dewey’s thinking saying, “Dewey was much aware of the close relationship of speech and thought, of communication as the essential means by which intelligence develops” (118).

Dewey’s second most important component in his rhetoric dealing with the Public is human motivation, and this mostly deals with the individual’s psyche at the core. This part of his rhetoric can get very complex. Communication is once again integral for this to work and communication in rhetoric, to Dewey at least, goes as deep as the human psyche, making for a complex attribute to be had if effective. Dewey even says, “Communication can alone create a great community” (324). The public must have this effectiveness if they are to be in control of their government as opposed to be controlled by their government. So what of human motivation? Humans must be appealed to, their likes and dislikes exploited if they are to be gained, convinced, or worked with. They are creatures of routine and habit and will be motivated by such, not disruption of it. Dewey says, “Habit is the mainspring of human action, and habits are formed for the most part under the influence of the customs of a group” (334). Mainspring is the key word as it means catalyst and lifeforce almost simultaneously. The public can be moved if what they have in common or what is familiar to them is used on them. Groups only come together under shared customs and ideals. Stroud speaks on how motivation develops in a person from habit saying, “Humans experience life in some environment and with a certain immediacy. Words, events, and so on all have a certain meaning-they evoke certain habitual ways of acting and thinking” (37). Every person is developed differently. They have different experiences in life, different difficulties, and react or initiate in their own certain way based off of their own inner self that is crafted in life. As has been seen though, all of Dewey’s rhetoric flows with the each other. Intelligence cannot be separate from human motivation. Motivation is made through an individual’s intelligence, as Christopher Johnstone says, “Dewey’s “method of intelligence” involves…practical deliberation; and second, a conception of the habits and attitudes to be cultivated in the individual in order to extend the capacity for intelligent judgement” (188). The result Johnstone says is, “Judgements are tested and confirmed, then, only by acting and comparing actual outcomes with those anticipated” (188). What Johnstone is saying here is that intelligence prompts awareness, and keen decision making. If these are possessed by the individual, then they can influence the public. Once appeals are discovered and each individual themselves realizes what drives them to what it is they do, or believe in, or stand up for, then they can intelligently ascribe to society. That certain motivation must be found first though and used.

The depth of what influences a public and how this in turn relates to it’s system of governing and the relationship between the two, is extensive in Dewey’s theories. This is one of his broader pieces of his rhetoric, encompassing intelligence and motivation. The relationship between the government and it’s people rides on both. Dewey says clearly that, “The government exists to serve its community, and that this purpose cannot be achieved unless the community itself shares in selecting it’s governors and determining their policies” (327). Dewey strongly believes that there must exist a strong relationship between the government and the public. The public is a bad one if uninvolved, but both can be critically strong if they share the power and work together through rhetorical communication. Dewey does speak to the problems that occur with this though, and he is most likely referring to the problems in his time but we can only assume. “How can a public be organized; we may ask when literally it does not stay in place…” (322). This is a general statement but what it says is that if the government cannot control its people, then they will not be able to control themselves. Explained better, it is the task of the government to organize, to make order out of chaos and communication is their best weapon. Communication works with intelligence, motivation and this one too. Burks says communication is, “…the establishment or cooperation in an activity in which there are partners, and in which the activity of each is modified and regulated by partnership” (122). Dewey’s theory on motivation plays in to his rhetorical theory on the relationship between the public and government as seen when he says, “Only deep issues or those which can be made to appear such can find a common denominator among all the shifting and unstable relationships” (322). Dewey knows that a public that doesn’t take charge but is taken charge of is one doomed. The motivation and intelligence of the person is tied in with how the public will function, and in turn how the government will function. Dewey writes, “…a good citizen finds his conduct as a member of a political group, enriching and enriched by his participation in family life, industry, scientific and artistic associations…the pulls and responses of different groups reinforce one another, and their values accord” (328). There is the ideal citizen, contributor to society and politics in Dewey’s mind, and what they ascertain out of the life they have is how they end up affecting the groups around them and that their apart of. The individual is always constantly being influenced by their environment, which is why the individual and public cannot work alone if anything is to be achieved.

Dewey is specific in examining what makes an ideal public. He believes that the rhetoric used within the structure shows how intelligent its system is. Communication is the final arbiter of the good and bad of the rhetoric used, but it can be helped by an intelligent public that is appealed to through their motivations, which forms a good relationship between the government and them. The time in which Dewey lived we can strongly guess that his rhetoric might have been fitting for success amidst such struggle His rhetoric seems to be the type that if utilized highly, could give the masses the opportunity to lead the government, so that corruption could not end up destroying the innocent. A naïve, uncommunicative public is privy to this. Hitler’s reign and Stalin’s reign proved this fact. Rhetoric is powerful, but both sides must be adept, because if it’s used to benefit the powerful, then many will end up reaping the consequences. Burks quotes Dewey’s arguably best phrase on this saying “Language makes the difference between brute and man” (119).

Works Cited
Burks, Don M. “John Dewey and Rhetorical Theory.” Western Speech, vol. 32, no. 2, 1968, pp.
118–126.
Dewey, John. The Later Works, 1925-1953. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.
Diggins, John. “John Dewey in Peace and War.” The American Scholar Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring
1981), pp. 213-230.
Eisele, J. “John Dewey and the Immigrants.” History of Education Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1
(Spring, 1975), pp. 67-85.
Johnstone, Christopher. “Dewey, Ethics, and Rhetoric: Toward a Contemporary Conception of
Practical Wisdom.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1983), pp. 185-207.
Stroud, Scott. “John Dewey and the Question of Artful Criticism.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.
44, No. 1 (2011), pp. 27-51.