Philosophy Faculty Publications

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Spring 2010

Publication Source

Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society

Abstract

There is general consensus that Randolph Bourne was right in his criticism of Dewey's support for U.S. participation in World War One. Bourne's central argument against Dewey was that war is inexorable. War cannot be controlled; pragmatist method becomes inoperable. Jane Addams largely agreed with Bourne, but would question his claim that war's inexorability is absolute. I will use Addams's participation with the U.S. Food Administration to show cracks in the inexorability of war and also to raise questions about the pragmatist grounding of Bourne's attack on Dewey. I argue that although Addams's participation with the Food Administration was in some ways morally ambiguous, it also demonstrated a more throughgoing, pragmatist understanding of democracy than Bourne's critique contained.

Inclusive pages

282-299

ISBN/ISSN

0009-1774

Document Version

Published Version

Comments

This document is provided for download in compliance with the publisher's policy on self-archiving. Permission documentation is on file.

Publisher

Indiana University Press

Volume

46

Issue

2

Peer Reviewed

yes

Download

Share

COinS