Drops of the ink on the surface of water By Sthir Babu Subedi, Mphil Scholar, Maths Abstract: This studyd was mainly focused on Karl Marx, John Dewey and Stuart Hall and their philolosophical perspectives. Marx wanted to reconstruct society through a new economic system in which labor owned the means of production. Dewey wanted to reconstruct society through education. Hall wanted to reconstruct society through culture including Marx philosophy.They were revolutionary thinkers, and Dewey and Hall was well-aware of Marxist thought.
Dewey concern about the role of big business in education would have been influenced by Marxist thinking. Background: This study has been carried out among the three world popular philosopher Karl Marx, John Dewey and Stuart Hall about their philosopy and impact in today’s society in and all arouond the world. Karl Marx was a German political philosoper. Marsixm or marsixt theory is based on ideas formulated by Max and Engels as a critique of industrial capitalism. It focuses attention on social history in relation to political economy, especially class struggle.John Dewey was a American preeminent educational philosopher. Dewey continued to write and speak about philosophical and eduational issues until shortly before his death.
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
Dewey was always fascinated by epistemology or the theory of knowledge and how we come to have knowledge.Stuart Hall was born and grew up in Jamaica in the West Indies, receiving a traditional colorial British education. Hall was a facilitator in Open University in 1979. Hall’s work has been profoundly influenced by Karl Marx and Marxism. For Hall, Marxism is closely linked to the anticolonial struggles of less-developed countries like Jamaica.
Hall’s Marxism is a ‘Marxism without guarantees’. Hall is centrally concerned with the question of ideology, through he didn’t draw on traditional Marxist doctorine.Problem Statement: Various philosophers have been contributed a lot in the field of social science and education.
Most of them has a common point that is maintaining the social balance either through the economic, or education or by the culture. In this study the researcher has focused on three philosopher Karl Marx, John Dewey and Stuart Hall. The statement of the problems are as followsHow have the Marxist way of analyzing the society informed the theorists like John Dewey and Stuart Hall?How can we relate their ideas in present educational context of Nepal?How do the eimplication of these ideas help to improve the existing educational system of Nepal?Literature Review and Research GapsA literature review is a critical and in depth evaluation of previous research. It is a summary and synopsis of a particular area of research, allowing anybody reading the paper to establish why you are pursuing this particular research.
A good literature review expands on the reasons behind selecting a particular research question.A literature review is not simply a chronological catalog of all our sources, but an evaluation. It pulls the previous research together, and explains how it connects to the research proposed by the current paper. A good literature review should critically evaluate the quality and findings of the research.
Keeping these things on mind the reseracher has been reviews the following research paper, articles and dissertation which are listed here.Steve Shuklian (1995) has been studied on the Marx, Dewey, and the instrumentalist approach to political economy. His article has attempted to demonstrate that the economists Karl Marx and John Dewey had much more in common than has been acknowledged historically by both Marxists and institutionalists. Marx’s dialectical method and Dewey’s instrumentalism share common visions about what it means to be a human being, about the nature and growth of human knowledge, and about the ways in which many of the institutions of modem capitalism constrain the growth of knowledge and human development. Marx and Dewey rejected the utilitarian conception of human nature and the Newtonian conception of socioeconomic processes that have been the pillars upon which orthodox economic theory has rested since the eighteenth century. They rejected this superficial, dualistic, and teleological system of thought because it led to misconceptions about the nature, growth, and role of human knowledge and action in human development. The traditional conceptions of human nature, of socioeconomic processes, and of the nature of human knowledge actually eliminated any role for human beings to play in their own development and served only to justify the power and privileges of dominant social classes.Thomas M Jeannot (1994).
(Vol 10,11,12) has been studies on A Marx/Dewey Dialogue on the Prospects for an American Socialism. His article has attempted to demonstrate the poor reception of Marxiam in America. He has added that historically, Marxism has not fared well in the US, for reasons too many to enumerate here, and despite its significant role in the development and fortunesof the labor movement. At the end of the twentieth century, principally two factors atand in the way of its hospitable reception first the history of communism in this century must be considered tragic. An interpretation of Marx’s thought was instaintiated and institutionalized by the Bolshevik revolution and once this interpretation become cannonical, the fate offMmarxism was bound to the weal and woe of the soviet expriement. When that experiment ended in dismal failure.Secondly, the variant of Marxism that have been influential in the US. since the end of second world war important as they have been almost entirely confined to the academy while their influence on mainstream political life has been marginal.
Dewey would have found a merely academic Marxism useless, which brings me to the underlying problem motivating a comparison of his thought with that of Marx in the first place.Fred Harris (2007) has beed studies on Dewey’s Materialist Philosophy of Education: A Resource for Critical Pedagogues. This article looks at some similarities and differences between key elements of Karl Marx’s critique of capital and John Dewey’s philosophy of education, both substantively and methodologically.
Substantively, their analyses of the relation between human beings and the natural world—what Marx calls concrete labour and Dewey generally calls action—converge. Similarly, methodologically they converge when looked at from the point of view of their analysis of the relation between earlier and later forms of life. In Marx’s case, it is his comparison of the relation between capitalist society and earlier societies. In Dewey’s case, it is his comparison of the relation between adult experience and childhood experience. Dewey’s practical realization of his distinction of adult and childhood experience in the creation of a materialist curriculum embodied in the Dewey laboratory school in Chicago (of which Dewey was director from 1896 to 1904) also accords in many ways with Marx’s theory of concrete labour. On the other hand, their analyses diverge substantively when viewed from the point of view of their critique of capitalist society; Marx united concrete labour with his concept of abstract labour to provide a basis for criticizing modern society on its own terms rather than in terms of Dewey’s concept of a cultural lag. The divergence is explained by their divergent methodologies in analyzing modern capitalist society.
Despite this difference, the article concludes that critical pedagogues would do well to incorporate Dewey’s materialist curriculum into their own practices—with modifications.Reserch GapMost of the above research has been explained about the contradition and relation of the Karl Marx and John Dewey. Few articles mainly focuses on Stuart Hall, his biography and his contribution in the field of culture. Reviewing these research articles, the researcher has found the gap that comparing these three philosopher is one of the novel research in the field of education, more over their role in the education system of Nepal definitely full fil the research gap. Theoritical Framework:Karl Marx was personally concerned with the need for social change in light of what he saw as the injustice and oppresssion caused by nineteenth century industrial capitalism and econimic relations. Marsixt theory is a way to analyzee not only econimic relations but also those values and view points created by industrial capitalism that affect education, religion literature and culture. Historical materilsim; historical change occurs due to action of human beings within the material world and not as the caused by god or some other extra humans or spritituall force.
Marx’s explained class struggle in capitalist society that Capitalists who own and control the means of production. Proletariant workers who sell their labour power for a wage in order to make a living enables. Bourgeoisie are neither owners nor workers but service prvider such as teacher, doctor. They have same class characterists as capatalists. Marxit scholars of education argue that schools privide key support for the popular ideology of ‘ meritocracy’ the notion that one has earned one’s place in a capitalist society through individual effort.School reproduce and naturalize class divisions in several different ways.Teachers didn’t make real connections to underlying thought processes nor to authentic problem solving.The executive elite school stressed reasoning through problem solving as well as organic connections between subject areas.
Students of the exectuive elite were learning to make the rules and to control the lives and labor of others. In this case capitalist ideology ws reproduced through the education process.According to John Dewey, his apporoach to ethics was essential to democratic form of life. He argued that collection of individula working to make life better.Knowledge and learning are thus produced through active manipulation of the environment.Knowledge is constituted in and through our relations with the world.He went on to argue that for such an ethics to take hold, the development of democratic habits must start in the earliest years of children’s socialization through schooling.
He argued, is a cultural product through which people express what is significant about their lives, as well as their joys, suffering hopes and ideas.Dewey’s theory of education and experience flowed seamlessly from his pragmatic epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics. The propose of education is the intellectual, social, emotional, and moral development of theh indifidual within a democratic society.Inquiry is the term Dewey most often used in talking about educative experiences.Dewey was critical of schooling in which the connection between process and product is overlooked and where logically formulated, ready-made infromation is transmitted to the learner and instruction is delivered in lock step fashion with the cut and dried logic of an adult.Dewey proposed a unique way for teachers to cultivate reflective habits of mind in their students, which he referred to with the somewht odd term social control.Teachers and students both are learners within a social group or community of practice. Dewey believed that education and social democracy are mutually constitutive.
He thought that schools should focus on judgment rather than knowledge, that they should help students learn to live and to work cooperatively with others and that students should participate in decisions sthat affet their learing.Stuart Hall was profoundly influenced by Karl Marx and Maxism. Different ideas can be idelogically linked together. Popular culture as an uncertain terrain of allegiance and common sense continually fought over. Continuous and necessarily uneven and unequal struggle by the dominant culture, constanly to disorganize and reorganize popular culture.Hall’s experience as a teacher attempting to understand the range of cultural resources and influences yound people bring to the classroom. More broadly, Hall has been critical for those in education working through questions of culture and representation, particularly around questions of race and popular culture.
In addition, Hall’s caraful attention to questions of identity, difference, and culture allows us sharper purchase on the lived realities of young people today.Research HypothesisHo : There is no significance difference among the Marx theory and John and Hall theory to analyze the society.H1 : There is significance difference among the Marx theory and John and Hall theory to analyze the society.
Ho : Marx , John and Hall theory is not sopportive to our current education sytem of Nepal.H1 : Marx , John and Hall theory is sopportive to our current education sytem of Nepal.Study Design, Methods, Tools and Data Analysis This study is mainly focuses on the three philosoper Karl Marx, John Dewey and Sturt Hall only. This resesearch is descriptive and analytical in nature. Qualitative research design has been adopted.
No statistical tools has been applied. Data were collected from various sources like textbooks, general articles and online and offiline materials publised in different areas in different dates. On the basis of the topic and objectives all the information were crtically analyzed and described clearly.Expected FindingsOn the basis of the study the researcher has find the following points.Karl Marx:Karl Marx was a politician and he wanted to reconstruct society through a new economic system in which labor owned the means of production.
He didn’t belive in God or any sperictual concept.Class society should be totally eradicate.There is a single truth and skill and trade should be guided to the people as their demand.
Media should be controlled because they may support to the elite group.John Dewey:Dewey wanted to reconstruct society through education. Dewey was well-aware of Marxist thought.His concern about the role of big business in education would have been influenced by Marxist thinking.He believed in God.Individual respect and learning by doing are the theme.
Curriculum should be develop according to democratic idea.Stuart Hall:Influnced by Karl Marx and Marxism.Cultural aspect is most in his philosophy.They were revolutionary thinkers and wanted to reconstruct the society through a new economic system, education and culture.To reconstruct our society all the dimensions economy, education and culture are equally important. We need to remove the class society. we can observe class in boarding and government education system in Nepal.
Similarly, learning by doing and democracy idology should be adopted in our education sytem. We Nepalese are from different cultures and values so, we should respect and teachers should equally behave the students from different cultures.Limitations and DelimitationsThis study is mainly focused on three philosopher Karl Marx, John Dewey and Stuart Hall. Our objectives is mainly focuses on their contribution in the society and education system.References:http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9510042240/marx-dewey-instrumentalist-approach-political-economyhttps://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/a-marx-dewey-dialogue-on-the-prospects-for-an-american-socialism-p8xUiLc0Jghttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10848770600668266?journalCode=cele20https://books.google.com.np/books?id=TFCa-Gl5wIkCThank you