Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Politics of Democratic Collective Action

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy

  • 237 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the pragmatist group-based theory of politics. It begins by reconstructing some tenets of the political debates of the age, and proceeds to discuss Arthur Bentley’s interest-based theory of democracy, Mary Parker Follett pluralist theory of democratic group formation, and John Dewey’s theory of publics. It then introduces and discusses some basic categories of the pragmatist group-based theory of politics, such as those of consequences, public, institutions, and problem solving. Like in the previous chapter, the contribution of these authors to the genesis of the ideas presented in the chapter is acknowledged and shown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the connection between Bentley and pragmatism with reference to political theory, see LaVaque-Manty (2006). It is remarkable that referring to his 1908 book, Bentley named Dewey as one of the “real writers of this book”, cit. in LaVaque-Manty (2006, 5).

  2. 2.

    See, in particular, Bentley (1908, Ch. 2).

  3. 3.

    Follett , like Dewey, was an important interlocutor and source of inspiration for Laski, and for the British pluralists more generally.

  4. 4.

    This theme has been masterfully developed by Dewey in Dewey (1930).

  5. 5.

    For a view of how these themes were common to a wide range of political traditions across the Atlantic divide, see Kloppenberg (1986), Rodgers (1998).

  6. 6.

    See previous chapter.

  7. 7.

    The recently discovered unpublished manuscript of these lectures has modified in significant ways our understanding of Dewey’s social and political philosophy. I have examined this theme in detail, with a focus on the notion of groups, in Frega (2015b). See also the series of articles published in the volume 53, 1, 2017 of the Transaction of the C. S. Peirce Society.

  8. 8.

    For Lippmann’s critique of the omnicompetent citizen, see, in particular, Lippmann (1927, Ch. 1).

  9. 9.

    See, in particular, Lippmann (1922, Chs. 13–14).

  10. 10.

    Whilst in Lippman (1927) Lippmann will refine his analysis by differentiating public opinion from interest-based groups, this move does not, however, modify significantly the function of the public.

  11. 11.

    On pragmatism and pluralism see Smith (1964); da Silva (2009).

  12. 12.

    On the connection between pragmatism and the pluralists see Ehrlich (1982). On the relations between Dewey and Laski see Westbrook (1991).

  13. 13.

    See Ehrlich (1982). French pluralists and solidarists such as Leon Duguit were however well known among pragmatists like John Dewey and Mary Parker Follett. For a useful reconstruction of the circulation of political ideas between Europe and America at the time, see Kloppenberg (1986); Rodgers (1998).

  14. 14.

    For a reconstruction of the uses of the notion within the pragmatist tradition see Campbell (1992). For a study of the intellectual history of the notion see Quandt (1970).

  15. 15.

    Jefferson , all quotations from Sheldon (2000, 91–92).

  16. 16.

    Cit. in Versluis (2006, 10).

  17. 17.

    See, for example, Dewey (1940).

  18. 18.

    In what follows I will refer to publics in the plural form because part of the strength of the pragmatist theory of democracy resides precisely in its capacity to conceptualize the pluralistic nature of modern politics.

  19. 19.

    For more details on this transition, see Frega (2015b).

  20. 20.

    The term “ecology” is used here in the sense of the “human ecology” that was developed by the first generation of the Chicago School of Sociology.

  21. 21.

    See note 7 at Dewey (1927, lw2.276) for a clear statement of the functional definition of the state, government, officials, and all the main political terms in Dewey’s political philosophy.

  22. 22.

    This intuition has later been pursued by the pragmatism inspired tradition of the sociology of social problems. See Cefaï and Terzi (2012). See below in Chap. 8 my discussion of the pragmatist idea of a “problem-solving state”.

  23. 23.

    In Chaps. 9 and 10 I will show how political pragmatism inscribes these institutions within the framework of a global conception of democracy.

  24. 24.

    For a rich account of the pragmatist conception of inquiry see Pappas (2016).

  25. 25.

    See, in particular, Dewey (1930, 1935).

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Cefäi and Trom (2001); Cefaï and Joseph (2002).

  27. 27.

    James Bohman (Bohman, 2010) gets Dewey’s theory of politics wrong precisely because he fails to see that Dewey has a dual understanding of this notion.

  28. 28.

    For a more complete analysis of this theme, see Frega (2015b).

  29. 29.

    These interpretations of science and art have notoriously been carried out by Dewey in his masterworks (Dewey, 1934, 1938).

References

  • Ansell, C. (2009). Mary Parker Follett and pragmatist organization. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, A. (1908). The Process of Government, a Study of Social Pressures by Arthur F. Bentley. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (2010). Participation through publics: Did Dewey answer Lippmann? Contemporary Pragmatism 7(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. (1992). The community reconstructs: The meaning of pragmatic social thought. University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefaï, D. and I. Joseph (Eds.) (2002). L’Héritage du pragmatisme. La Tour d’Aigues: Ed. de l’Aube.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefaï, D. and C. Terzi (Eds.) (2012). L’expérience des problèmes publics. Paris: Edition de l’EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefäi, D. and D. Trom (Eds.) (2001). Les formes de l’action collective. Mobilisations dans des arènes publiques. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva, F. C. (2009, September). Bringing republican ideas back home. The Dewey-Laski connection. History of European Ideas 35(3), 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 2. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism Old and New. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 5. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience, Volume 10 of The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 14. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1935). Liberalism and Social Action. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 11. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. The Theory of Inquiry. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 12. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1939b). Freedom and Culture. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 13. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1940). Presenting Thomas Jefferson. In The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 14, The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 14, pp. 201–224. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (2015). Lectures in social and political philosophy. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. and A. Bentley (1949). Knowing and the Known. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 16. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, S. (1982). Pluralism on and off course. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett, M. P. (1918). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett, M. P. (1919b). The Philosophical Review 28(6), 576–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. (2015b). John Dewey’s social philosophy: A restatement. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. (2014b). Rethinking private authority: Agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunnell, J. (2004). Imagining the American polity: Political Science and the discourse of democracy. University Park: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, P. (2005). The pluralist theory of the state: Selected writings of G.D.H. Cole, J.N. Figgis and H.J. Laski. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenberg, J. T. (1986). Uncertain Victory. Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaVaque-Manty, M. (2006). Bentley, Truman, and the study of groups. Annual Review of Political Science 9, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion (1st Free Press pbks. ed.). New York: Free Press Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1927). The phantom public. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahowald, M. (2014). Communities in Pursuit of Community. In Jason Bell and Kelly Parker, editors. The Relevance of Royce, pp. 246–264. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiowetz, D. (2008). “Interest” is a verb Arthur Bentley and the language of interest. Political Research Quarterly 61(4), 622–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas, G. F. (2016). The pragmatists’ approach to injustice. The Pluralist 11(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quandt, J. (1970). From the small town to the great community: The social thought of progressive intellectuals. Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, D. T. (1998). Atlantic crossings: Social politics in a progressive age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-Democracy. Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, G. (2000). Eclectic Synthesis: Jesus, Aristotle, and Locke. In Thomas Engeman, editor. Thomas Jefferson and the politics of nature, pp. 81–98. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. G. (1964). Pragmatism and the group theory of politics. American Political Science Review 58(03), 600–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toennies, F. (2001). Community and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Versluis, A. (2006). The revolutionary conservatism of Jefferson’s small republics. Modern Age 48(1), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, R. (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin, Germany

    Roberto Frega

Authors
  1. Roberto Frega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frega, R. (2019). The Politics of Democratic Collective Action. In: Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18561-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation