Democracy

In almost every country the government, business sector, and the society as a whole play an important role in the over all robustness of the state. These elements are interconnected among each other. The policies made and implemented by the government affect the business sector and in the same manner it also have an influence in the everyday life of the people. Being the case, it is essential that the forces that influence these elements should be given due consideration and importance especially in countries like the United States of America that is seen as one of the main actors in the international community.

There are many forces that affect the government, business sector, and the society. Some of them are: laws, policies, customs and norms, and international situation. The laws and policies of the country as well as the treaties that its government’s approved have huge impact in the government and the business sector because it guides their mode of operation. The government used these laws and policies to govern the people including other important areas in the country like the business sector. In the same manner, business procedures have to be done in accordance with these laws and policies (Mitchell, 2004). The welfare of the society is also dependent upon the proper implementation of laws and policies.

The custom and norms of a country also affect the government, business sector, and the society. Customs and norms tend to vary from one state to another as they have different cultural backgrounds. As such, there are things and practices that are acceptable to other people while some find it taboo (Niederle and Roth, 2003). The decisions of the abovementioned elements should give due consideration to customs and norms as this have an effect in the outcome of their actions.

Lastly, in a world that is becoming highly interconnected and dependent upon each other, the situation of the international arena is also very important. The peace and order of other regions as well as the condition of the international market also have influence in the government, business sector, and the society. The security problems in the Middle East tend to affect the decision of the government of other countries and the prices of petroleum products in the global market. In line with this, these cases also affect the society, which are composed of people that consume petroleum products and are lead by the government. Read about the business and society relationship

The discussions above clearly show that there are forces that must be understood and analyzed because it has a huge effect in the situation of the country. These forces have the capability to affect the decisions of the government, the actions of the business sector, and the well being of the society.

References

Mitchell, A.M. (2004). Implementing WTO Rules: The Importance of Law Reform. Retrieved

January 17, 2009, from http://www.adb.org /Documents/Speeches /2004/sp2004050.asp.

Niederle, M., & Roth, A. E. (2003). Market Culture: How Norms Governing Exploding

            Offers Affect Market Performance. Retrieved January 17, 2009, from

            http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/MarketCulture.pdf.

This paper seeks to analyze a Turkish company named Anadolu Efes/Efes Beverage Group (EBG) “or Efes”. This paper consists of two parts. Part 1 deals with Turkey, its history, government, economy, language, religion, and business practices as a way of understanding the environment under which the company operates.

Part 2 deals with the Efes to include an analysis and discussion on its history of the company, its Mission/Vision Statement, Corporate Structure, Capital Structure, Organizational Structure, Board of Directors, Management Team, Main Subsidiaries, Strategic Priorities, Strengths and Opportunities, Social Responsibility, and a review of its 2008 Financial Statements. 1. 1 History of Turkey, Turkish Republic or Modern Turkey was born in 1923 after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by national hero Mustafa KEMAL.

It was under the authoritarian leadership KEMAL, called the “Father of the Turks”, that caused Turkey to adopt and effect wide-ranging social, legal and political reform as needed by its people. Thus, a part of its history is a period of one-party rule but after its fall, the country experimented with multi-party politics , which brought to the election victory of the opposition Democratic Party in 1950. The Turkish respected the process as the latter also caused a peaceful transfer to power (eNotes. com, 2009). From 1950, Turkish political parties increased in number thus signaling the working of democracy in the country.

However, there were also certain experiences of instable period and intermittent military coups , particularly in 1960, 1971, and 1980. The resulting eventual effect is however a return of political power to civilians. The adventurism of some its people had again caused the military in 1997 to help in the ouster of the then Islamic oriented government (eNotes. com, 2009). Another significant political event in the life of the Turkey Republic was its militarily involvement on Cyprus in 1974 for the purpose of preventing a Greek takeover of the island.

Also recorded as part of its colorful past, is when a separatist insurgency started in 1984 by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) , which later became known as the People’s Congress of Kurdistan or Kongra-Gel (KGK) (eNotes. com, 2009). The rebellion has claimed a great number of lives reaching about more than 30,000 because the event or condition needed the Turkish military’s solution or attention and claimed more than 30,000 lives. The eventual capture of the group’s leader in 1999 did not stop the rebellion as the insurgents largely withdrew from the Turkey mainly but concentrated and stayed at Northern Iraq (eNotes.

com, 2009). Turkey’s joining the United Nation (UN) happened in 1945. Later in 1953 it also joined as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Further showing its political and economic strength happened in 1964 after Turkey became an associate member of the European Community. From the time to joining these bodies, the country has undertaken many reforms to strengthen its democracy and economy. Such fact actually helped the country in successful membership to the European Union (eNotes. com, 2009)

Political freedom is an ideal for both Arendt and Friedman. As political theorists they offer not only definitions to understand what political freedom is for them, but what necessary preconditions must exist in order for their ideal to be vitalized. Arendt explains political freedom as the right to be a participator in government. She implies that this means more than voting for a representative or having the opportunity to run for office. Arendt advocates that political freedom requires equal participation on behalf of all citizens and the involvement in politics is the most important part of an individual’s life.

Friedman states that political freedom is the absence of coercion with the necessary precondition of economic freedom. Arendt and Friedman have different understandings of what political freedom is, but within their differences are similarities. Understanding what Arendt does not view as political freedom is essential in understanding what is political freedom because it helps in establishing the necessary means involved in obtaining political freedom. ” should be no reason for us to mistake civil rights for political freedom, or to equate these preliminaries of civilized government with the very substance of a free republic. (Arendt P220)

Arendt has established civil rights as something other than political freedom. Civil rights apply to liberation and not political freedom because civil rights do not necessarily assume the presence of freedom. Civil rights can be granted to a population under the rule of a tyrant in the form of a law, but when the population is not part of the formation of such a law then political freedom does not exist. According to Arendt, the presence of poverty does not permit the presence of political freedom.

If individuals are forced to focus their efforts to fulfill biological needs such as food and shelter then they cannot possibly be political. Capitalism also prevents the existence of Arendt’s political freedom because capitalism is based on consumption. When the members of society are focused on obtaining goods and material possessions they become just as preoccupied as those in poverty. So capitalism creates greed and creates unnecessary needs and desires that inhibit political freedom. Political freedom requires an absence of as many social conditions as it does a presence of other conditions.

Political freedom, as discussed in “The Revolutionary Tradition and Its Lost Treasure,” obliges the presence of a population who thinks in terms of “we” rather than “I. ” When everyone in a society acts for a better community and thinks in terms of the community, they will be able to exist politically free. When the focus of the individual shifts from the private interests created under capitalism to a public interest necessary for political freedom, more will be done to benefit society as a whole as opposed to individuals in a private realm.

Learning to escape the private realm and understand that of the public means to understand the possibility of a greater good found in working together rather than many separate smaller goods held by only certain individuals. When there are individuals with separate smaller goods there has to be individuals with their own separate failure and lack of essential good. Milton Friedman does not offer the same definition for political freedom, thus his means for obtaining political freedom are also separate from Arendt’s.

Friedman presumes that economic freedom must exist in order for political freedom to exist, and the means to true economic freedom is through the capitalist free market. Friedman writes, “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. ” (P10) The free market should take care of it self, be free from forced government intervention, and thus establish an environment in which coercion does not rule. Friedman believes that it is the power instilled in Washington D. C. that is responsible for the current coercion through their economic power.

The economic power of the government is derived through the process of taxation, a process of coercing the citizens of the state to fund an organization against their will to do the jobs that capitalism, when left to its own devices, will achieve. Friedman suggests that government should focus on military effort, and not issues unrelated. He says: This danger we cannot avoid. But we needlessly intensify it by continuing the widespread governmental intervention in areas unrelated to the military defense of the nation and by undertaking new governmental programs – from medical care for the aged to lunar exploration. Friedman P202)

So Friedman believes that government intervention leads to the collapse of political freedom. He goes on to discuss his fear of intervention. I believe that we shall be able to preserve and extend freedom despite the size of the military programs and despite the economic powers already concentrated inWashington. But we shall be able to do so only if we awake to the threat that we face, only if we persuade our fellow men that free institutions offer a surer, if perhaps at times slower, route to the ends they seek than the coercive power of the state. Friedman P202)

Political Freedom for Friedman is then merely the absence of government coercion and the presence of an economically free population that, through the free market, can actually take care and supervise themselves. Friedman is relying on the same factors to create political freedom that Arendt sees as inhibiting freedom. That is, he sees a capitalist free market as the necessary means to actually bring people voluntarily together, not coercively. Friedman says:Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion.

A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy – what we have been calling competitive capitalism. (Friedman P13)So Friedman is actually advocating that capitalism is not as competitive as it appears, and that it actually requires citizens to work together and thus benefit each other through their actions. This is similar to what Arendt signifies as thinking in terms of “we” rather than “I,” yet it is the exact ingredient that Arendt classifies as creating the “I. ” It is peculiar that such contrasting opinions and explanation actually lead to the same ideal.

Friedman and Arendt offer opposing means of obtaining political freedom, but there are similarities in what their means accomplish before the existence of political freedom. Both want a society in which individuals do something for each other, they work together for a greater good. The difference is that Arendt wants the cooperation to be based on politics while Friedman wants the cooperation based on free enterprise. Friedman wants less government involvement because he understands such involvement to be the basis of coercion. Friedman would rather have individuals voluntarily come together than be forced to come together.

He sees political freedom as being free from the control of the state, free to evolve independent of government influence, and free to decide how to evolve. Friedman wants the government to have limited power because free enterprise will thrive in the absence of government intervention. Economic freedom will be created in the free enterprise and political freedom is the result. Another similarity between Arendt’s and Friedman’s differing views is the requirement of economic freedom. Although it is quite a major aspect for Friedman, Arendt does not focus directly on the topic.

Arendt is just as much a supporter of economic freedom because she acknowledges that a state dealing with poverty and the fulfillment of basic needs cannot deal with political freedom. Economic freedom is the absence of such struggles and the presence of a means to be politically free. The similarity through presence of economic freedom is divided by the role of government. For Friedman political freedom is the absence of coercion, namely governmental coercion, not the presence of a highly involved government that Arendt advocates.

Arendt’s political freedom is not the absence of government, merely the absence of representative government. She sees the concern of private life being too dominate under a representative system because, ” the voter acts out of concern with his private life and well-being, and the residue of power he still holds in his hands resembles rather the reckless coercion with which a blackmailer forces his victim into obedience than the power that arises out of joint action and joint deliberation. (Arendt P 273)

She is saying that representation leads to the problem of coercion, and it is coercion that Friedman sees necessary is not existing in the existence of political freedom. Without a direct democracy at the basis of a highly involved government political freedom is impossible because there is too much corrupt behavior and focus on private interests when the majority elects a minority to make the decisions for the state. Arendt envisions a society in which all of its members equally partake in the decision making of the government and they all work for the good of each other, not for a private good.

Arendt establishes the aspects of life that have been private in the past as needing to be public in an effort to prevent corruption and maintain political freedom. Friedman does not advocate the same direct democracy that Arendt envisions. Instead, he expects the free market to essentially rule itself and take on the duties of Arendt’s government in the form of free enterprise. He sees the government as the cause of the coercion and presumes that the power should be taken out of the government.

So this is an opposite response to Arendt’s view that the government should become larger, so large that all citizens are involved and have an equal say, thus preventing the possibility of coercion. Both Arendt and Friedman see coercion as preventing political freedom and both offer different means of ridding society of coercion. Political freedom is not an easily definable term. It is much like love, god, and friendship in that it has different meanings for different people at different times. Political freedom is about both the means of obtaining the ideal as well as the ideal itself.

Friedman and Arendt present what they presume to be the means and the ends of political freedom, but neither is completely right or entirely wrong. It does not seem possible to create a set definition as to what political freedom is, much less what the appropriate means of obtaining political freedom are. It seems more important to try to distinguish certain common traits of what political freedom is rather than attempt to create a set definition. The common traits shared by Arendt and Friedman are that economic freedom and absence of coercion are necessary for political freedom.

Political freedom, for both theorists, requires the action of a public community and not private individuals. They do not agree about the role of government, nor do they agree on the form government should take. Although it is important to distinguish what are and are not characteristics of political freedom, it is more important to understand that political freedom cannot be defined. Political freedom can be speculated about, but will not be truly comprehended until it is actualized. Only when political freedom exists will it be understood.

Consumerism is geared in an abundance to address our way of life. We as individuals believe that our minds control choosing what we need but, consumerism caters to the beliefs that specific things are needed to make living easier. This is not a need, but rather a want. Sigmund Freud developed an understanding that there was a way to trigger this reaction in our way of thinking that we need something rather than want it. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, introduced this to the United States later; through times of war and times of peace. He proposed the commonly known persuasion method of propaganda.

The film The Century of the Self shows that an Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud has found a method for studying the hidden parts of the mind; this method would be known to mankind as Psychoanalysis. By using this method, Mr. Freud discovered that “powerful sexual and aggressive forces can be unearthed in the human brain.” He would relate this to be the “remnants of human beings animal past.” With this part of the hidden mind, Freud had unearthed the studying of the unconscious state of mind which is a part of the brain that had never-before been examined. This film shows extraordinary minds using manipulation as a source to expand consumerism across the globe.

While Freud developed this practice of examining the mind, Vienna rulers were not at all pleased with this ability. If I were a ruler at this time, I too would have felt the same. This is essentially changing the way of governing for Vienna. At this time, Vienna felt threatened towards their society, as would many other high-class beings, such as rulers. This had been a time in societal righteousness when feelings were not allowed to correlate with actions; in other words, if I felt like I were under payed, then I would not be able to show discomfort. Rulers of Vienna became even more fearful from news of Freuds theory showing that hidden inside all human beings were dangerous instinctual drives. Understanding that there is a change being presented through the study of Sigmund Freud, there is the sense that with these findings, it would not be hard for a way of life to be changed drastically.

Edward Bernays is the nephew of Sigmund Freud. In the film The Century of the Self, Edward Bernays is introduced as an average human being with a unique view on society. He seems to take human beings as a group rather than as individuals. With this viewpoint, Bernays can then use this as to an advantage in persuasion. Mass persuasion on a group of individuals is known as propaganda. After the war, Bernays began to ponder on the thought of using persuasion on a mass group of beings, this time being in a more peaceful environment. With this idea, it would seem to be that he would have to alter the mindset of a large group of people. To change the way of thinking of so many people, it would require a unique mind of its own to use a technique that can alter the process of decision making. This shows how powerful Bernays ideas really were.

In this new revolution of thinking, Mr. Edward Bernays knew that Propaganda had a more negative connotation, which is why he used what he had already known on the subject and made it into a more positive sounding field: public relations. He had been aware, at that time, of his Uncle Freud’s work on Psychoanalysis. This would give him the missing key to what he needed, which could prove to change the world we knew. For Bernays to make a success in this field, he completely understood the importance of influential figures; this led him to Dr. Brill. Dr. Brill was a known Psychoanalyst who would prove to enlighten Bernays. He aided Bernays on a special subject: women smoking in public. From then on, Edward Bernays exploded in the economic world, representing many other corporations while helping to advertise millions of products essential to what human beings would want.

Edward Bernays brought upon society a new way of thinking. He made mass groups of human beings think that what they wanted was something that they needed; if they had this need, then it would also make them feel better about having said substance. This is something that I do not think the consumers of the New World understood at the time. They were basically being controlled into buying these goods that were unnecessary. As imagined, Bernays had then been sought after by major companies to represent them. They would use him to exploit their reservoir of items in which they hoped to be distributed to the masses. These different goods would then prove to be satisfactory to the much less competent consumers.

In the film The Century of the Self, Edward Bernays introduced society to one of the most major breakthroughs in history involving the stock market. With the stock market, I feel that he made a source of consumerism all in one. What I mean by that is with this innovation, there is a much different source of income and production. With the stock market, there would be satisfaction, and with this satisfaction he knew that democracies could do whatever they pleased. They would be able to have a better sense of control. With these discoveries by Sigmund Freud, there came the belief that guiding principles of what a mass democracy was were wrong- “the belief that human beings could be trusted to make decisions on a rational basis,” as well as, “the need for democracy to be reconsidered.”

With this film, Bernays not only shows how people are “active participants of society”, but he also shows that human beings are more “passive consumers of society.” This proved that if human beings’ desires were able to be satisfied, then there was no limit as to the objectives achieved by these drives from deep within. The film demonstrates there is an understanding of how resources are used. For the making of the billions of goods in the United States, there are equal amounts of resources used in this production. How can this use of resources have a major effect? This film shows the mass production of goods, in which people are buying, not realizing the cost of this consumption. There are impulses that bring our attention to a large amount of goods, no matter as to what they may be or how they really play a role in our way of life.

This film has aroused many details of consumerism, differentiating between what I know and what society knows about the effects of consumerism. The comparison of our minds to enslavement just proved to be baffling. How can the studying of different minds be as negative as enslavement? Perhaps when the strengths of desire take over and lead to action upon that desire, enslavement does become a relating topic. With this comparison, it demonstrates how true desire effects our mindset. This effected mindset does not allow for proper decision making, which means understanding how a specific good is truly beneficial, as well as nonbeneficial.

My understanding of democracy was completely different than how explained in this film. See, I have always been taught that democracy is the greatest, and it has been the key to our societal structure. After watching this film, I have begun to question this statement. Democracy is supposed to have citizens making the major decisions with representatives to carry out actions for them, but The Century of the Self shows that in a way, the representatives of the people are in total control, by manipulating the minds of consumers across the United States. They use a form of Propaganda in everything they do, whether it be to make you buy something that you really don’t need or voting for someone you don’t really know. With this film, the stereotypical form of democracy has been turned upside down, shaking all of the secrets loose.

The market has proven to be legally cruel to human beings, by using manipulative techniques. Many Corporations only show care towards making a decent profit, rather than what will benefit society. For example, just because a more fuel-efficient car comes out, does not mean it will save the world. Therefore, corporations can be related to democracy, in the sense of false representation. They show themselves as beneficial to society, but they are only representing what is good for them, as well as, what they want; rather than what plays a better role for human beings.

I have come to the decision that democracy is a corrupt form of manipulation. Therefore, anyone else feels this is acceptable in society: the reason why major corporations feel the need to use our own human desires against us. Not only against us do they use these desires, but they use them to better themselves rather than modern day society.

The United States Constitution is the document that is responsible for the making of the United States government that we know of today. The primary goal of the Constitution was to establish a government in which the United States citizens could be governed. The seven principals of the Constitution were established as rules and limitations of power that the new government had to follow to ensure that power was not abused, equally shared, and in the best benefit of the people.

They included popular sovereignty, republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights. Each of these principals play a crucial role to ensure that the government can promote general welfare, establish justice, that the newfound government was made to last.

Popular sovereignty is the principal of democracy in which political authority is given to the hands of the people. This is important because it gives people the ability to make decisions on their own and allows people as a group to exercise their power over the government. An example of popular sovereignty is how Americans have the choice for participation in elections and to vote on laws. I believe that this is important because if the power was not given to the people than the people’s rights would not be protected, their needs and wants would not be heard, and there would be no democracy.

Republicanism is the principal that states that citizens are to be given a choice to vote for representatives in which would carry out the people’s needs. This principal corresponds directly with the popular sovereignty principal because for someone to be able to vote for whoever they choose, that person would of have to be given the right to make decisions people the power belongs to the people. I believe that this is important because if the people were not given the right to choose who goes into office, the government would eventually take over and then America would not be as we know as a democracy.

Federalism, in short terms, is the sharing of the power between the state and national government. This was established for the reason being of the state were to handle to problems of local and lesser issues such as state commerce and welfare while the national government can handle bigger issues such as the negotiation between other countries and national bankruptcy. I like to think that the establishment of the federalism principal is important because minor issues won’t be taken to the national level whereas they can focus on something more important.

The separation of powers principal divided the power of the government into three different branches. This was a must for the framers because they didn’t want one group to hold too much power. Those three branches included the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch was given different responsibilities to carry out in the government as well as power over the other branches. This principal is important because it doesn’t allow one branch to overpower another branch, prevents a branch from preforming another branches task, and it also allows all the branches to check on the others when necessary.

The checks and balances principal corresponds directly with the separation of powers principal. The framers wanted the three branches to be able to limit each other’s powers so that each branch can only have control over their given power as well as to make sure that that each branch is treated fairly. This is important because this principal protects the liberties of the people insuring them that one branch cannot become too powerful.

Limited government is the principal that restricts the power of which the government can hold. This principal also falls into terms saying that no one is above the law, meaning that even government leaders are not given the authority to abuse their powers because they too can be prosecuted for their actions. This in my opinion is one of the most important principals because it doesn’t allow anyone to get away with overpowering the government which makes sure that the peoples rights and liberties can be protected as well as government representatives cannot bypass any laws for their own benefit.

The last principal of the Constitution is individual rights. This principal gives protection to all citizens of their basic rights and liberties in which are stated as the first ten amendments of the constitution known as the Bill of Rights, shielding people from an overly powerful government. An example from the Bill of Rights includes the right of freedom of speech and religion. This allows an individual to practice any religion that they choose as well as to speak out against or for anything that they may please. This principal is important because it gives citizens the power of certain freedoms without the interference of the government.

The ratification of the Constitution was a long and brute process but in the end brought a newfound form of government that has proven to be successful and is in effect to this day.

Book Review Assignment TITLE OF THE BOOK: “The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction” by Robert McMahon This review focuses on one of the themes of the course, Main Currents of Modern History OBJECTIVE: The aims of this book review are: 1. To understand about a conflict that pned four and a half decades(1945-1990) and encompassed virtually the entire globe. 2. To gather the knowledge of how the world order was changed after the world wars and the transition into the cold war. . To study the rise and fall of the superpowers and the relaxation of tension among them. 4. To study about the final phases of the cold war and its impact on the world. PLAN OF STUDY The formal plan of study is stated in the timeline given below. The main focus of the review will be to understanding and assessing one of the seminal events in modern world history. The review will provide a broad interpretive overview offering a general account of the Cold war.

I will be making notes for my final draft with a regular study of the book covering all the relevant chapters in accordance with the theme of the course. I shall submit the final review by the date mentioned in the handout. The review process will be done by first reading the chapters and then joining the notes prepared for each chapter into a meaningful text thus covering the objectives of the review. DATE| TITLE| AUTHOR| PUBLICATION| th September to 17nd September| World War II and the destruction of the old order| Robert McMahon | Oxford University press| 18th September to 25th September| The origins of the Cold War in Europe| Robert McMahon | Oxford University press| 27th September to 9thOctober| A global Cold War| Robert McMahon | Oxford University press| 10th October to 16th October| The rise and fall of superpower detente| Robert McMahon | Oxford University press| 17th October to 23rd October| The final phase| Robert McMahon| Oxford University press| The last week will be dedicated to joining all the notes prepared into a complete review of the book.

A Brief Overview of Progressive Education During most of the twentieth century, the term “progressive education” has been used to describe ideas and practices that aim to make schools more effective agencies of a democratic society. Although there are numerous differences of style and emphasis among progressive educators, they share the conviction that democracy means active participation by all citizens in social, political and economic decisions that will affect their lives.

The education of engaged citizens, according to this perspective, involves two essential elements: (1). Respect for diversity, meaning that each individual should be recognized for his or her own abilities, interests, ideas, needs, and cultural identity, and (2). the development of critical, socially engaged intelligence, which enables individuals to understand and participate effectively in the affairs of their community in a collaborative effort to achieve a common good.

These elements of progressive education have been termed “child-centered” and “social reconstructionist” approaches, and while in extreme forms they have sometimes been separated, in the thought of John Dewey and other major theorists they are seen as being necessarily related to each other. These progressive principles have never been the predominant philosophy in American education. From their inception in the 1830s, state systems of common or public schooling have primarily attempted to achieve cultural uniformity, not diversity, and to educate dutiful, not critical citizens.

Furthermore, schooling has been under constant pressure to support the ever-expanding industrial economy by establishing a competitive meritocracy and preparing workers for their vocational roles. The term “progressive” arose from a period (roughly 1890-1920) during which many Americans took a more careful look at the political and social effects of vast concentrations of corporate power and private wealth.

Dewey, in particular, saw that with the decline of local community life and small scale enterprise, young people were losing valuable opportunities to learn the arts of democratic participation, and he concluded that education would need to make up for this loss. In his Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, where he worked between 1896 and 1904, Dewey tested ideas he shared with leading school reformers such as Francis W.

Parker and Ella Flagg Young. Between 1899 and 1916 he circulated his ideas in works such as The School and Society, The Child and the Curriculum, Schools of Tomorrow, and Democracy and Education, and through numerous lectures and articles. During these years other experimental schools were established around the country, and in 1919 the Progressive Education Association was founded, aiming at “reforming the entire school system of America. “

Led by Dewey, progressive educators opposed a growing national movement that sought to separate academic education for the few and narrow vocational training for the masses. During the 1920s, when education turned increasingly to “scientific” techniques such as intelligence testing and cost-benefit management, progressive educators insisted on the importance of the emotional, artistic, and creative aspects of human development–“the most living and essential parts of our natures,” as Margaret Naumburg put it in The Child and the World.

After the Depression began, a group of politically oriented progressive educators, led by George Counts, dared schools to “build a new social order” and published a provocative journal called The Social Frontier to advance their “reconstructionist” critique of laissez faire capitalism. At Teachers College, Columbia University, William H.

Kilpatrick and other students of Dewey taught the principles of progressive education to thousands of teachers and school leaders, and in the middle part of the century, books such as Dewey’s Experience and Education (1938) Boyd Bode’s Progressive Education at the Crossroads (1938), Caroline Pratt’s I Learn from Children (1948), and Carlton Washburne’s What is Progressive Education? 1952) among others, continued to provide a progressive critique of conventional assumptions about teaching, learning and schooling. A major research endeavor, the “eight-year study,” demonstrated that students from progressive high schools were capable, adaptable learners and excelled even in the finest universities. Nevertheless, in the 1950s, during a time of cold war anxiety and cultural conservatism, progressive education was widely repudiated, and it disintegrated as an identifiable movement.

However, in the years since, various groups of educators have rediscovered the ideas of Dewey and his associates, and revised them to address the changing needs of schools, children, and society in the late twentieth century. Open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.

John Goodlad’s notion of “nongraded” schools (introduced in the late 1950s), Theodore Sizer’s network of “essential” schools, Elliott Wigginton’s Foxfire project, and Deborah Meier’s student-centered Central Park East schools are some well known examples of progressive reforms in public education; in the 1960s, critics like Paul Goodman and George Dennison took Dewey’s ideas in a more radical direction, helping give rise to the free school movement.

In recent years, activist educators in inner cities have advocated greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values through the publication Rethinking Schools and the National Coalition of Education Activists. Today, scholars, educators and activists are rediscovering Dewey’s work and exploring its relevance to a “postmodern” age, an age of global capitalism and breathtaking cultural change, and an age in which the ecological health of the planet itself is seriously threatened.

We are finding that although Dewey wrote a century ago, his insights into democratic culture and meaningful education suggest hopeful alternatives to the regime of standardization and mechanization that more than ever dominate our schools.