MichaelOakeshott,JohnDewey,andThePhilosophyofEducation

AdrianRutt

Michael OakeshottandJohnDeweytakesimilarpointsofdeparturetoformtheirphilosophiesof
education: the idea that the school, and education in general, should be removed or separated
from any outside influence of the world. Oakeshott believed that the idea school is that of
detachment from the immediate, local world of the learner, its currentconcernsanddirectionsit
gives to his attention, and Dewey, in a similar tone, claims it is the business of the school
environment to eliminate, so far as possible, the unworthy features of the existing environment
from influence upon mental habitudes (DE, 20). Putting aside for a moment the ambiguity of
Deweys phraseunworthyfeatures,boththinkersbelievethatthereissomethingundesirablein
students simply being submersed or indoctrinated intotheeverydayworldaroundthem,andthat
theschoolshouldfirstandforemostmakedistinctionsbetweenthesetwoworlds.
But for Dewey it isnt that the school was something
better than society or the
community, but rather he wanted it to be merely one more
partofthecommunity:schoolmust
represent the present life. As such, parts of the students home life (such as moral and ethical
education) should take part in the schooling process the teacher is a part of this, not as an
authoritativefigure,butasamemberofthecommunitywhoistheretoassistthestudent(ibid.).
It is obvious that Oakeshott and Dewey are separated by more than just an ocean, so to
understand both the subtle and glaringdifferencesintheirrespective philosophiesofeducationit
is necessary to summarize their larger philosophical projects so that these subtleties are better
illuminated. As Timothy Fuller says of Oakeshott (which holds true for Dewey as well): the

quest to identify distinctive features of important humanactivitieshasalwaysbeencentraltohis

philosophical investigations seeking and distinguishing features of teaching and learning are
inseparable fromhiswork asawhole(VLL,xvi). Usingtheir
generalphilosophiesasastarting
point, one can put into perspective howbothOakeshottandDeweythoughttheschoolshouldbe
organizedfrom its character to its essential aims. One can see, then, that their philosophical
visions of the world go hand in hand with their philosophical visions of and for the school. For
both thinkers this latter taskthat of trying todefinethecharacterofeducationisabstract,but
is necessary as a foundation to understand why they then promote certain types of teachers and
curriculums. Both the role of teacher and how the curriculum is to be structured are two of the
most essential aspects of Oakeshott and Deweys educational systems, and thus, as will be
shown,themostspecificaswell.

TheLargerPhilosophicalProject
Oakeshott sees the world as separated into different components, and in a posthumously
published essay titled
Work and Play
, he distinguishes two such ways of being active in the
world: work and play. He believes that the former eclipses the latter almost completely in
our lives. Play for Oakeshott is forgotten and replaced by worksomethinghebelievesthe
ancients (Greeks, Romans, etc.) had a better appreciation and thus balanceof.Tobeatplayis
to to try to understand and toexplaintheworld,andthisobviouslyentailsanattitudetowards
the world that is
not one in which it is regarded as material that can be used to satisfy wants
(emphasis mine) (WP). For Oakeshott the imbalance between workan activity that seeks the
satisfaction of wantsand play is fostered in formal education and thus creates citizens that

only think in term of wants and how to get those wants. In short, Oakeshottthinkstheres
more
thanthis(ibid).
But Oakeshott doesnt want to banish work he merely wants a distinction between
learning to
exploit the world to get somethingwewantandenjoyingsomething
foritsownsake
.
School for him is the placethatthisdistinctioncouldbemadeexplicit,whereitwasunderstood
to be a place where one was introduced to those activities and attitudes towards the world that
were
not
concerned with satisfying wants, where one was introduced to those activities of
explanation and imagination that were free because they were pursued for their own sake and
were emancipated from the limitations and anxieties of work [School]comesfromaGreek
word
skole
, which means leisure or free time (ibid). The difference for Oakeshott is that
work is designed to impress some temporary human purpose upon some component of the
world while play is to reveal the world as it is and not merely in respect of its potential to
satisfy human wants (ibid). This is key to Oakeshotts overall project: he wants humans to
recognize that the greater part of what we haveisnot aburdento becarriedoranincubustobe
thrown off, but an inheritance to be enjoyed (VLL, 74). He even extends this thought into the
realm of education when he states that there are some people who allow themselves to speak

As if arrangements were intended, For nothing else but to be mended

(ibid). This attitude of
dissatisfaction toward the world is detrimental if it becomes all consuming, and our
determination to improve our conduct does not prevent us from recognizing that we should
enjoyarrangementsastheypresentlyappeartous(ibid).
However, Oakeshott is not so naive to think that practical influences wouldnt pervade
every aspect of our human lives.Hesays,Theremust,tobesure,beaplaceforlearninghowto

use the resources of theworld forthesatisfactionofhumanwants.Butwearefortunateifweare

not encouraged to confuse the two quite different experiences of the world (WP). In the end,
Oakeshott does not wish to rid ourselves of ourpracticalpursuits,butonlywishestoseethatwe
understand that there is a distinction between work and play and, ultimately, to retrieve the
importance ofplayinoureverydaylives.Inthisimportantessay,Oakeshottconnectshistheidea
of playwithhispreviousideasabout poetrywhenhesaysthatin
bothplayandpoetryimagesin
contemplation are merely present they provoke neither speculation nor inquiry about the
occasion or conditions of their appearing but only delight in their having appeared (ibid). This
delight that Oakeshott refers to throughout his work is an attempt to reclaim the voice of
poetry that has been silenced by thepracticalandscientificsincetheEnlightenment.Poetry,like
the practical and the scientific, is just one more voice among many Oakeshott sees as joined in
theonlywaytheycanbe:inaconversation.
It is alsocrucial,then,tounderstandOakeshottsuseoftheconversationalmetaphor.The
metaphor of conversationsomething he refers to quite often throughout many of his
writingsis one in which he finds justification for many of his philosophical views. In a much
quotedpassagehesaysofconversation:

In a conversation theparticipantsarenotengagedinaninquiryoradebatethere
is no 'truth' to be discovered, no proposition to beproved,noconclusionsought.
They are not concerned to inform, to persuade, or to refute one another, and
therefore the cogency of their utterancesdoesnotdependupontheirallspeaking
in the same idiom they may differ without disagreeing And voices which
speak in conversation do not compose a hierarchy. Conversation is not an
enterprise designed to yield an extrinsic profit, a contest where a winner gets a
prize, not is it an activity of exegesis itisanunrehearsedintellectualadventure.
It is with conversation as with gambling, its significance lies neither in winning
nor in losing, but in wagering. Properly speaking, it isimpossibleintheabsence
of a diversity of voices: in it different universesofdiscoursemeet,acknowledge

each other and enjoy an obliquerelationshipwhichneitherrequires norforecasts

theirbeingassimilatedtooneanother(RP,196198).

And later, connecting it with education, he says Education, properly speaking, is an initiation
into the skill and partnership of this conversation in which we learn to recognize the voices, to
distinguish the proper occasions of utterance, andinwhichweacquiretheintellectualandmoral
habits appropriate to conversation. And it is this conversation which,intheend,givesplaceand
character to every human activity and utterance (ibid). Here we see Oakeshotts philosophy
culminating in what he calls the conversation ofmankind.Oakeshottenvisionedsocietybeing
in a constant and neverending conversation with our cultural inheritance, and that so our
association as citizens is not of pilgrims traveling to a common destination, but of adventurers
each responding as best he can to the ordeal of consciousness in a world composed ofothersof
his kind (OHC, 243). Both his conversation metaphor and pilgrim metaphor point to the same
idea: that there is no specific place our conversations nor society is
supposed to go no
preordained course to follow. Similarly, both metaphors imply that what is most important is
what is passing before us at the present moment, so education for Oakeshott is the intervalin
which human beings gain a deeper and broader insight so that they may attend to this passing
beforethembothconversationallyandastravellers.
It is also important to note that in his later writings Oakeshott was skeptical about the
joining of theory and practice. This, in short, is the breaking point between Deweys larger
philosophy and Oakeshotts: both thinkers agreerather unsurprisingly due to their mutual
contact with British Idealism and Hegelon many issues, but on the role theory, philosophy,
andpracticeshouldplaytheyareessentiallyonoppositesides.

While Oakeshott would agree with Dewey when he says that men are not isolated
nonsocial atoms, but are men only when in intrinsic relations, he would disagree with the
progressive line of thought that Deweytakesnaturallyfromthisidea(EW1,231).Thatinquiry
is problemsolving, is historical and progressive, andiscommunal.Weengageininquiryaspart
of a struggle with an objectively precarious but improvable environment.1 Whereas Oakeshott
embraces a pluralistic, contingent society, Dewey acts as more of a visionary in his belief that
there is almost always common ground between diverse groups, and thisfactofferscontinuing
hope that challenges can be confronted as aunifiedpublic.2Inshort,Deweyseesthestatusquo
as a crust of convention to be broken through, and even defines morality assimply growth.
Democracy,then,wastheultimategoalforDewey.
Even though Dewey believes in individual rights he thinks the community should and
would ultimately supercede peoples innate drives to selfishness. He therefore believes his
explicit promotion of teamwork and community in schools would naturally lead one to
promoting democracy. Education is absolutely crucial to bring about progress and his vision of
the world. As such, much of Deweys educational thought stems from his pragmatism more
specifically, the view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern
philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active
adaptation of the human organism to its environment.3 This empirical and naturalistic
approach for Dewey isin modern termsthe scientific approach: much of his work on
education revolves around the useofthelaboratory,experimentation,andmodern(19thcentury)
science to bolster his views. His progressivism stems naturally from this pragmatic process:
1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deweypolitical/
Hildebrand,p140.
3
http://www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/
2

human beings need to be flexible, openminded, imaginative, andexperimental iftheyaregoing

tomeetthechallengesofafutureunknownworld.
It is not hard to see where Oakeshott and Dewey diverge in terms of their larger
philosophical projects. Dewey envisages a fully democratic community as the ultimate end to
societal arrangement. He took what he saw as an end which allows the greatest flourishing of
individuals and then proceeded to backtrack and analyze democracys pillars: education, the
economy, the media, and the social sciences.4 Oakeshott on the other hand purposely
sketches a limited and somewhat vague vision of ideal societal arrangements whenhedescribes
society as an association of adventurers (OHC, 243). In short, everything for Dewey traces
back to his staunch optimism in human progress his belief in adaptation and growth being
absolutelycrucialifhumansaregoingtokeepupwithaconstantlychangingenvironment.While
Oakeshott wouldnt disagreewithDeweysanalysisthattheenvironmentconstantlychanges, his
skepticism on the subject of conscious and social progress in lightofthischangeshinesthrough
in most of his work. To sum up, Deweys focus is on the progress a society can make, while
Oakeshottwouldratherfocusonenjoyingwhatisinfrontofus.
So whereas Oakeshott says that subjects like Philosophy, science, andhistoryare,then,
activities that belong not to work but to play, Dewey would say almost the exact opposite
(WP). He believes this gathering of philosophic, scientific, and historicknowledgeareactivities
to be used so that we might make use of them to make the world a better place inwhichtolive
and, specifically, promote democracy. Again, Oakeshott does not deny the use of thesesubjects
for satisfying contingent wants and goals, but makes the suggestionthatthisknowledgeshould

Hildebrand,p95.

not be confused with scientific knowledge, and that winning this sort of knowledge is not to be
confused with the scientific enterprise of understanding and explaining (ibid). Understanding
and explaining for Oakeshott are other ways of saying play, because they have no
inherent
energy to move into the practical world of affairs.ForOakeshott,playislargely disinterested.
So Dewey explicitly thinks education is designed to, in Oakeshotts words, impress some
temporary human purpose upon some component of the world, or gathering the necessary
knowledge to change the world for the better (ibid). Dewey complains, the conception thatthe
mind consists of what has been taught, and that the importance ofwhathasbeentaughtconsists
in its availability for further teaching, reflects the pedagogues view of life...It takes, in brief,
everything educational into account save its essence vital energy seeking opportunity for
effective exercise (DE, 71). In short, Dewey thinks thatper his pragmatism and naturalistic
psychologythere can be no learning for the sake of learning just as there cannot be learning
only to be inculcated into the practical worldaroundus.ThetwoareoneinthesameforDewey.
While not completely disagreeing with this, it is this wanting to change the world with the
knowledgeacquiredinschoolthatOakeshottthinksisoveremphasizedintheeducationalrealm.
Both thinkers fear the explicit politicization of information learned in school, but due to
Oakeshotts belief that the plurality of voices (and and
all voices) should be allowedtodevelop
naturally he stays further away from this possibility than Dewey does. In other words,
Oakeshotts educational system would have far fewer children learning things to promote
specific ends like democracy or equality, whereas Dewey encourages this type of environment
(albeit subtly). It would be no surprise, then, to see Deweys educational philosophybeingused
for ends other than what
he thought they should be used forit can easilybegearedtowardthe

promotion of Fascism or Communism. However it is not hard to see how being educated in
Oakeshottian fashion might lead tousing Deweys phrasealoofness and indifferenceso
insensitive in his relations to others as to develop an illusion of being really able to stand act
alone (DE, 44). Although Oakeshotts view of education doesnt lead to directly to aloofness
and indifference orindividualism,itisnotwithoutitsdifficultiesthemostglaringoftheseis
its failure to balance its obvious concern with intellectual excellence with any sort of
consideration of equity or of other purposes education might serve in a democratic society5
Here we seethegapbetweenDeweyscollectiveeducationandOakeshottsindividualeducation
widen.
But the two thinkersdifferindegreeswhenitcomestothisbalanceofworkandplaythe
impression that Dewey does not promote learning for its own sake or Oakeshott learning for
vocational purposes would be to misread their respective philosophies under a black and white
lens. It should be clear at this point that the
reason Oakeshott wants the school separated from
ordinary life is because he believes life has more to offer than satisfying wants, while Dewey
wishes it to be separatedsothatstudentsimagination andproblemsolvingskillsarentstifledby
influences from the status quo world around them. In short, this difference between the two
educational philosophies can be most easily understood in light of their views about the
theorypracticedistinction.

TheCharacteroftheSchoolandtheAimsofEducation

Franco,p124.

Where Oakeshott and Dewey disagree mostisonthetopicof

whatexactlyaschoolenvironment
should be like, or rather what purpose it serves and what means it employs to serve those ends.
The interest, attention, and the discipline of the student are important for both thinkers but for
opposite reasons: Deweys frustration stems from the fact that he believes The inclination to
learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such that all will learn in the process of
living is the finest product of schooling (DE, 51). This creed, Dewey says, should be the
mission of every educational institution and any other aim than this the school all but destroys
thechildsinnatetendencytobe interestedand
voluntarilyactiveinthelearningprocess.Inother
words, to make this learning process go on outside of the schools walls the school must spark
the interest of the child by connecting what is learned to their lives the school must show the
student the
relevancy of what is being taught to them.Otherwisewhenmaterialhastobemade
interesting, it signifies that as presented, itlacksconnectionwithpurposesandpresentpower:or
that if the connection be there, it is not perceived (DE, 127). In short, Dewey uses his
naturalistic psychology to bolster his views about childrens and humans natural tendency to
want to learn when they see how it affects their everyday lives. Here Dewey is working off the
assumption that people cannot learn unless they are motivated. The school today, by forcing
discipline and using external reward systems irrelevant to what is learned, destroys the chances
of education fostering the inclination to learn from life itself. He states rather forcefully that
no one has ever explained why children are so full of questions outside of the school, and the
conspicuous absence of display of curiosity about the subject matter of school lessons (DE,
155). Deweys most damning critique of the school systems was justthis:confusion about
how
to goaboutteachingandlearningtheschoolseithertreatedchildrenastheimmaturebeingwho

is to be matured the superficial being who is to be deepened" or they focused

too much on the
child which Dewey saw equally detrimental to the learning process (DE, 238). To remedy this
confusion he statesthatthechildand thecurriculumaresimplytwolimitswhichdefineasingle
process. Just as two points define a straight line, so the present standpoint of the child and the
facts and truths of studies define instruction" (CC, 278). Deweys pragmatism makes itself
known in this last statement by acknowledging the balance between wholly subjectcentered or
whollychildcenteredapproached.Bothextremesaredetrimentaltothestudent.
In stark contrast to Deweys focus on naturalistic psychology, Oakeshott states that
education begins with the appearance of a teacher with something to impart which is
not
immediately connected with the current wants or interests of the learner (VLL, 68). Whereas
Dewey explicitly states that the students innate and present interest
should be fostered,
Oakeshott says that upon entering the school the student should be ready to embark on the
serious and orderly initiation into an intellectual, imaginative, moral, and emotional
intelligenceThis is a difficult undertaking it calls for effort (VLL, 69). The contrast here,in
modern terms, is between Deweys more
child
centered approach and Oakeshotts
teacher/conversation
centered approach, and, as if Oakeshott were speaking to Dewey directly,
he states that to corrupt School by depriving it of its character as a serious engagement to
learn by study, and to abolish it either by assimilating it to the activities, interests, partialities
and abridgements of a local world is one of two sides of the current project to destroy
education (VLL, 82). In short, the childcentered approach for Oakeshott is one based on the
interests, and thus whims of the student, rendering it unserious and unfocused. On the other
hand, Oakeshott sees himself as promoting a more serious engagement. But Oakeshotts

characterization of the university and school in general shouldnt be read broadly: he

acknowledged
othertypesofeducationssuchasvocational,butthatthemixingofdifferenttypes
thathaddifferentgoalsandoutcomeswasthecoreproblem.

TheTeacher
One of Oakeshotts most remarkable commentaries is on the roleoftheteacher.Forwhomcan
a man be more deeply indebted thantotheonetowhomheowes,nothismereexistence,but his
participation in human life? It is the Sage, the teacher, who is the agent of civilization (VLL,
39). It is the types of education that focus solely on the material and subjects as facts to be
imparted that render the teacher useless in Oakeshott vision. To merely teach information or
subjects istomerelylistentowhata manhastosay,butunlessweoverhearitinamindatwork
and can detect the idiom of thought, we have understood nothing (VLL, 59). This is what
Oakeshott called style...the choice made, not according to the rules, but within the area of
freedom left by the negative operation of the rules (ibid.). This style was heardnot
surprisinglythrough a conversation between the teacher and student. At this point, wecansee
Oakeshotts larger educational question: whether the pursuit of university education is to
acquire knowledge of some specialized branch oflearning,connectedperhapswithaprofession,
or whether it is for something else besides this (VLL, 156). What a man has to say is not
necessarily subordinate for Oakeshott, but the something else besides thishis styleis
just
as important for him. Furthermore, thislatterstylecannotbeviewedfromtheoutsidebythose
demanding to know what educationisfor(itcanonlybetransmittedbetweentheteacherandthe

student in the immediateenvironmentit cannotbewrittendowninacurriculum),sowebegin

totalkofintegratingcoursesandofculturetoappeasethoseontheoutside(ibid.).
Lastly Oakeshott believes the business of the teacher is to release his pupils from
servitude to the current dominant feelings, emotions, images, ideas, beliefs and even skills, not
by inventing alternatives to them which seem to him more desirable,butbymakingavailableto
him something which approximates more closely to the whole of his inheritance (VLL, 42).
This, in keeping with the idea thattheschool mustberemoved,wasanopportunitytoputaside
the hot allegiances of youth without the necessity of acquiring new loyalties totaketheirplace
(VLL, 127). Here Oakeshott wants to shed wholly the idea that education is
for something to
help us satisfy our wants whether that be money or a good job. He believes this narrow and
shallow way of thinking about education misses much of what is to be valued, namely, our
culturalinheritance.
Although Dewey belonged more to the childcentered camp, he no sooner separated
himself from them by acknowledging the extremely tough role of the teacher. Throughout
Democracy and Education
, Deweyhintsthattheroleoftheteachertobebothflexible,effective,
and subtlealmost an impossibilityinlightofhispragmatism.
Thebusinessof theteacheristo
produce a higher standard of intelligence
in the community
, (emphasis mine) Dewey claims
immediately distinguishing his collective education from Oakeshotts individualistic education
(LW, 159). But the role of the teacher was equally as demanding
possible more sothan
Oakeshotts:forDewey,teachersneedtobe

intelligently aware of the capacities, needs, and past experiences of those under
instruction, and secondly, to allow the suggestions made to develop into a plan

and project by means of the further suggestionscontributedandorganizedintoa

wholebythemembersofthegroup(EE,71).

Furthermore, they only create a starting point tobedevelopedintoaplanthroughcontributions

from the experience of all engaged in the learning process and this process involves a
reciprocal giveandtake, the teacher taking but not beingafraidalsotogive(ibid.).Thislatter
point coincides with Oakeshotts idea of a conversation nicely: Dewey was frustrated with the
expert imparting knowledge onto a blank slate theory of education, that he too sawtheroleof
the teacherasaconversationalist.Buthedidnotpromoteawhimsical,unstructuredclassroomas
some of his progressive contemporaries thought a childcentered approach should be, but rather
the teachers job was to keep students on track by imparting their greater insight to help
organize theconditionsoftheexperienceoftheimmature[students](ibid.).
Howeverhesaysof
this imparting that, frontal attacks are even more wasteful in learning than in war (DE, 169).
This pragmatic balance between the teacher subtly guiding the direction of the curriculum and
lettingthechildsexperienceandinnateinterestwanderisahardequilibriumtostrike.
Deweys teacher, according to many critics, is an impossibility. To have a teacher be
attentive to the constantly changing needs of any given numberofstudentseverysingledayand
still fostering their innate and individual curiosities is a fantasy.Thechallengefortheteacherin
both Oakeshotts view and Deweys is keeping the interest of the students. An Oakeshottian
teacher that can keep students attention about things unconnected to their lives is almost as
unrealistic as Deweys doingitallteacher.Tobefair,Oakeshottdoesntthinkabout
attentionas
much as Dewey because he doesnt think much of the caliber of students entering school in the
postwar period in which he is writing. The
real problem with the universities wasnt due to

incompetent teachers or a looselystructuredcurriculum,butaninfluxof studentsunpreparedto

take advantage of the opportunity to stretch ones sails to the wind(VLL,127).Furthermore,
Oakeshott hopes that students realize there are
different types of education all with the goal of
helping us get on in the world. Tothinkthatuniversityeducationistheonlyoptionasitseems
todayis both damaging to the character of the university and to the student. Both Oakeshott
and Dewey would probably admit that the teachers they envision as best exemplifying their
philosophy are rare. One could even argue that their respective attributes describing the teacher
are modeled off themselves, as both were successful and famous educators throughout their
lives.

WhatIsLearned
Throughout the essays in
The Voice of Liberal Learning
, Oakeshott constantly berates
general education or an education concerned with the substance of culture as
something undesirable in the educational environment (VLL,21).Substanceofculture
here must be differentiated from cultural inheritance: the former is the culture of the
present moment our everyday surroundings while the latter is the
whole of our culture
its traditions, history, and everything up to this point. He goes on to say thatthistypeof
education is so anxious that everything shall receive mention that it canaffordnomore
than a fleeting glimpse of anything in particular. Here learning amounts to little more
than recognitionitneverachievesthelevelofanencounter(VLL,21).Atthis pointitis
clear that Oakeshott is in favor ofa
specificeducation,onethathasanarrowfocusrather
than wide and unspecificeven if it leaves out a good amount of what is considered

general and required. This latter type ofeducationproducesnothing morethanaculture

philistine: a person who only understands culture insofar as it helps them pursue and
satisfy contingent wants (ibid.). The culture philistine is shallow and lacks true
understanding. In response to Walter Moberlys plea to present students with a unified
conception of life, or a synoptic, integrated view of the moral and intellectual world,
biographerPaulFrancowritesthat

Oakeshott finds nothing in all this but nonsense. In the first place, no
such integration of the world of knowledge is currently available to us.
Second, no such integration is necessary for the university toexerciseits
function. There is a way in which the various specialisms can come
together in a meaningful way in the university without being integrated
fromabovebysomesortof
Weltanschauung.6

Here we see Oakeshotts larger beliefthat there are numerous ways to go about
educationtying in with his specific beliefs about what a curriculum should look like. In other
words, there is no overarching or unifying theme that explicitly answers the question what is
educationfor?
Without this seriousand
specific
engagement to learn by study students miss the
object of education: to enable a man to make his own thought clear and to attend to what
passes before him (VLL, 156). Dewey would assuredly agree with Oakeshott and even echoes
him when he states that education is that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which
adds to the meaning ofexperience,andwhichincreasesabilitytodirectthecourseofsubsequent
experience (DE, 76). And, in passage that Oakeshott could have written himself, says that

Franco,118

education is meant prepare him for the future life which means to give him command of
himself it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities
(ibid.). For Oakeshott, his educational writings get as close to pragmatism than any other late
work. But whereas Dewey wants to
explicitly
state that whatwelearnshouldbeusedinhowwe
moveabouttheworld,Oakeshottonlyhintsatthislogicalend.WhatOakeshottfailstorecognize
is that when a studentduring this intervalspends time looking into the mirror of [his or
her] cultural inheritance, they will likely result in a better human being. Better in this sense is
the same as Dewey would describe: imaginative,reflective,moral,andbeingabletoattendwhat
passes before them in a manner that requires these attributes. In short, Dewey would agree that
this is the ultimate object of education
even if his larger philosophy hopes that the students
become Democratic, progressive, and worldchangers. Ultimately, Dewey believes that the sort
of education that Oakeshottorhehimselfwouldrequirewouldproducethesametypeofstudent.
Oakeshott, on the other hand, does not believe this to be the case, but rather believes that
Deweys students would produce exactly the kind of human who can only view things in terms
ofhowtheycanbeused.
The tendency to lump Dewey into the socialization camp as Oakeshott sees it, is to
misunderstand Deweys goal: he wants to teach students to think, but unlike his more
progressive contemporaries, he does not wish toseethisthinkingunconnectedwiththesubjects.
Both Oakeshott and Dewey do not believethinkingcanhappeninavacuum,buttheirdifference
lies in the structure of the curriculum. Again, Oakeshott sees the ability to think as a byproduct
of being engaged in a specific subject matter seriously and in a disciplined manner. Dewey, on

the other hand, sees the occasion as serious but the engagement as natural and thus discipline
stemmingfromtheinherent
usefulness
ofthesubjectmatterforthestudent.
OnmattersofthespecificcurriculumOakeshottwasequallyasfrustrated.Heclaimsthat
....instead of teaching the languages and literature of the world it has
become a school for training interpreters, that instead of pursuing science it is
engaged in training electrical engineers or industrial chemists, that instead of
studying history it is studying and teaching history for some ulterior purpose,
that instead of educating men and women it is training them exactlytofillsome
nicheinsociety(VLL,116).

In short, the subjects in school are being taught merely as means to an end and not as
ends in themselves. As mentioned earlier, Oakeshott promotes
specific education because what
we have in front of us in terms of our inheritance has no meaning as a whole it cannot be
learned or taughtinprinciple,onlyindetail(VLL,49).Oakeshottsskepticismaboutbeingable
to present students with a coherent picture stems fromthefactthathebelieves
thereisnonethat
canbeoffered.
But to characterize Dewey as someone who promotes a general and unspecific
curriculum would be a disservice. Since Dewey makes no distinction between intellectual and
practical studies he has no reason to believe that there is one kind ofeducationandanotheras
Oakeshott sees it. He says, the notion that knowledge is derived from a higher source than is
practical activity,andpossesses ahighermorespiritualworth,hasalonghistory,andtracesthis
back to Plato and Aristotle who he undoubtedly thinks made a misstep in believing there was
some higher knowledge (DE, 262). For Dewey, education leads to one outcome: action. There
can be no knowledge for its own sake because even thisknowledgehaspracticalbearingonour
actions and how we move about the world we inhabit. This Jamesian psychological position

amounts to saying that there really is no distinction between knowing for its own sake and
knowing for something else. The difference, then, lies in
how knowledge is imparted for both
thinkers: Oakeshott wants to educate for educations sake
even if
the outcome has practical
bearing on the student. Dewey merely acknowledges this latter point by saying education
is
indeedfor
somethingelseameanstoends.

Conclusion
Obviously, Oakeshott reconciled with many of Deweys thoughts, but two major strands stand
out: that fullfledged democracy is the end to communal life, and that our thinking about most
matters should begin with the psychological or naturalistic. But to focus on the glaring
differences in their broader philosophies would be to miss the subtle similarities in their
educational philosophies. Both thinkers undoubtedly believe that the school should be its own
environment separatedfromtheoutsideworld,andfornotallthatdissimilarpurposes:ultimately
the outside world represents something undesirable either as an influence on the school
(Oakeshott)orasarepresentationofthestatusquo(Dewey).Boththinkersbelievetherole ofthe
teacher is immensely challenging. Oakeshott wouldprobablyagreewithDeweywhen hesaysof
the teacher:
"No one can be really successful in performing the duties and meeting these
demands of teaching who does not retain [their] intellectual curiosity intact throughout [their]
entire career"(LW,343).OakeshottandDeweysview oftheteacherdifferenormouslyfromthe
teachers in strictly subjectcentered or childcentered classrooms the demand, discipline, and
intelligencesimplyisnttherelikeitisintheirphilosophies.

Oakeshotts radical pluralism also seems to come to a head with Deweys idea that
there is no difference betweenthinkinganddoingorbetweenintelligenceandpracticalaffairs.It
ishardtoblameDeweyforwantingtoblurthis line fortworeasons.Thefirstbeingthathewasa
serial optimist in his hope for humans to actively create a better worldusing intelligence via
their educationfor each subsequent generation. The second reason being his psychological
background: Dewey found that in most cases even the most remote knowledge had anaffecton
human beings actions. Oakeshott doesnt want to blur this line, and although he realizes both
sides exist, he merely wants a
distinction between the two types of knowledge. But applying
Deweys reasoning to Oakeshotts view of education ends up being something very similar toa
practical education. Since there is no difference between purely intellectual affairs and purely
practical ones,Oakeshottseducationstillendsup
beinggoodforsomethingevenifitissimplya
better human being. Tobefair,Oakeshottseemstobegrudginglyacknowledgethiswhen hesays
that all education is social, and that education in general presupposed the belief that welivein
societies which, because they are associations of human beings, depend upon their members
being human, that is, being in some degree educated (VLL, 79). The irreconcilable difference,
then, is that this almost platitudinous presupposition for Oakeshottthat human beings
inherently socialis Deweys starting point. Inshort,Deweywantstousethisinherentsociality
as the focus and springboard for his whole philosophy whereas Oakeshott shies away from this
so as to allow the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of each individual voice tobeheard.Intheend,
it might only be that Deweys voice is just one more among many for Oakeshott. But the same
should be said from Deweys perspective: that Oakeshotts philosophy is just one more
welcomedvoiceinDeweysdemocraticUtopia.


AbbreviatedReferencestotheWorksofOakeshott&Dewey
(DE)Dewey,John.1997.
DemocracyandEducation:AnIntroductiontothePhilosophyof
Education.
NewYork:Free.
(EE)Dewey,John.1938.
ExperienceandEducation.
NewYork:Macmillan.
(LW)DeweyJohnandJoAnnBoydston.1981.
TheLaterWorks,19251953.
Carbondale:
SouthernIllinoisUP.
(OHC)Oakeshott,Michael.1991.
OnHumanConduct.
Oxford:ClarendonPr.
(VLL)Oakeshott,MichaelandTimothyFuller.2001.
TheVoiceofLiberalLearning.
Indianapolis,IN:LibertyFund.
(WP)Oakeshott,Michael.1995.WorkandPlay.
FirstThings.

1. Franco,Paul.2004.
MichaelOakeshott:AnIntroduction.
NewHaven:YaleUP.
2. Hildebrand,David.2008.
Dewey:ABeginnersGuide.
Oxford:Oneworld.
3. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deweypolitical/

4. http://www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/