Inividuals Role in Democracy

The Individual’s Role in Democratic Society

In comparing Jane Adams and John Dewey the idea of democracy as a way of life is fundamental to the relationship of the individual to society. Once an individual chooses to undertake democracy as a way of life, their own self-interested goals and morality can be converted into broader social values used to promote the common good. Dewey supports this when he writes, “democracy is a personal way of individual life; that it signifies the possession and continual use of certain attitudes, forming personal character and determining desire and purpose in all the relations of life.”(241) However the freedom that democracy offers can easily become corrupted when society ceases to reap the benefits of individual morality.
When democracy is viewed as a way of life, a person’s own selfish goals can also be seen in terms of the common good. Adams demonstrates this point best when she writes “in certain stages of moral evolution, a man is incapable of action unless the results will benefit himself…it is along step in moral progress to set the good of the many before the interest of the few.”(100) It is human nature to help ones self first and what is leftover can be used for the benefit of society. The difference is in a democracy the leftovers will eventually trickle down the masses because the leaders are intimately linked to the people. Therefore they will not be reelected if the people do not feel they are getting any thing in return. This can be done either by way of corruption or of a more enlightened form but no matter the form it takes it the price a society must pay in democracy, which Adams points out when she writes, “the penalty of democracy is that we are bound to move forward or retrograde together.”(112) This also supports Dewey’s view that democratic life is governed by people’s day-to-day cooperation even though the needs of each individual are different. By being able to cooperate with many people with varying needs democracy gives people moral experience expanding social values and contributing to the common good.
In this manner, Adams and Dewey think that personal experience shapes a person’s moral character and the attainment of experience is inherent in a democracy. As Dewey shows when he states, “the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.”(245) Similarly Adams believes that a person’s experience shapes the moral framework of their life, thus this experience will be transferred into that person’s view of democracy. According to Adams people’s common experience is the source of social morality, so if experience is limited then morality is limited. This is illustrated when she writes, “Already there is a conviction that we are under a moral obligation in choosing our experiences, since the result of those experiences must ultimately determine our understanding of life.”(8) Therefore if the role of democracy is to create a more humane environment for people to gain experience the selfish acquisition of personal experience will only advance social morality working toward a greater common good.
However, if the aims of individuals cease to be moral and exist only for individual gain, democracy can become corrupted and immoral. Dewey argues that when democracy becomes sentimental and ceases to be practiced every day is when the greatest damage is done. Dewey makes note of the anti-democratic view of American slavery in the United States and how it “has left us with habits of intolerance toward the colored race.”(208) Also according to Dewey identifying democracy with economic individualism has hurt democracy and will do further damage if not contained. (209)
On the other hand, Adams would disagree and say that the few immoral individuals that abuse democracy will bring the masses together and create a platform further the spread of democracy. As long as the immoral individual is working within the moral framework of their community then the social values are still upheld, and the greater good still benefits. Even though corrupt leaders are in place, the community as whole still reaps the benefits of democracy even though they came through unscrupulous means. In looking at democracy at a local level Adams shows how the immoral self interest of one person can still democratic because the community at large is still benefiting from it. In focusing on the local character of democracy and how corruption fits into the moral framework of particular community is detrimental to the idea of democracy. If democracy is to be set up as an ideal and a moral way of life it must flow from the top down. Therefore even at the local level it must reflect the ideals of the larger society.
Looking at democracy as way of life is essential to understanding the individual’s relationship to the larger society. Even though democracy produces a strong sense of individualism it can still serve the greater good of society. It does because the individualistic pursuit of experience adds to the morality of a group. Democracy also make the individual a part of the whole by the daily cooperation with each other which creates shared experience which also broadens the moral base that democracy stands. However this can all fall apart if the ideals of democracy cease to be practiced and become sentimental.