




































JOHN DEWEY’S PREOCCUPATION WITH OCCUPATIONS:   

FROM SAVAGE MIND TO DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION 
 

Gregg Joregensen 

Western Illinios University 

 

Abstract 

 This article explores John Dewey‘s 

concept of occupations which remains a primary 

cornerstone of his philosophy of education.  

However, due to the fact that Dewey addressed 

occupations in both general education and 

vocational contexts, confusion reigns.  Focusing 

on Dewey‘s use of occupations in articles and 

books ranging from ―Savage Mind‖ to 

―Democracy and Education‖, this study 

articulates Dewey‘s expansive theoretical 

application of occupations in teaching and 

learning throughout education.  

 

Introduction 

Over time, in fact most of the 20
th

 century, 

many interpretations and ideas of John Dewey‘s 

concept of occupations have been developed.  For 

instance, Westbrook (1993) observed that by 

focusing on his theory on occupations Dewey 

created the opportunity for both historical inquiry 

and basic skills training.  Westbrook further noted 

that Dewey‘s presentation of occupations led to 

study in many disciplines such as art, music, 

mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, 

reading, and languages.  Dewey argued that 

gaining knowledge and understanding of 

occupations was central to understanding 

individuals and societal groups.  By consistently 

revisiting and renewing his philosophy for 

education, John Dewey certainly provided 

scholars with more than ample opportunities to 

delve into his innovative views on occupations.  

My goal is to closely examine John Dewey‘s 

expansive theoretical application of occupations 

for teaching and learning in education.  The 

central underlying question involved is:  What‘s 

in an occupation?  Dewey‘s answer could be 

expressed as:  More than meets the eye.  A 

corollary objective is to examine that, contrary to 

the notions of some scholars, Dewey‘s focus on 

occupations did not develop merely as an 

educational methodology and was not solely a 

utilitarian pursuit.  Dewey‘s theory that 

occupations were a direct reflection of mankind in 

general is often misinterpreted. In Dewey‘s view, 

occupations did not comprise vocational 

education nor were occupations only destined as a 

decision point for an individual‘s future.  This 

close examination is important because various 

existing interpretations tend to skew and diffuse 

Dewey‘s intent for his creative use of the study of 

occupations in the curriculum. 

Did Dewey‘s seemingly preoccupation 

with occupations constitute a unifying theme in 

his ideas and theories?   My theory is that Dewey 

believed occupations were the glue that bound 

together the inherited gifts of all mankind.  Why 

do some scholars believe his view of occupations 

amounts to little more than learning basic job 

skills?  Or, did making effective use of 

occupations as a focus of study begin as, and 

remain, the cornerstone of Dewey‘s educational 

philosophy?  I will examine Dewy‘s ideas on 

occupations as activities in his discussions of art, 

literature, geography, history, science and what he 

described as the savage mind.  I believe that 

examining John Dewey‘s broad-based concept of 

occupations is vital in order to determine how and 

why his philosophical treatment of occupations 

can be used as an insightful educational tool to 

compel thinking and create interest in learning in 

virtually all disciplines.  My purpose will be to 

make sense of the rationale behind Dewey‘s study 



 
 

16 
 

of occupations concept—that is, the importance 

that knowledge of occupations plays in our 

understanding of mankind and as a useful concept 

for curriculum building in schools. 

 

Occupations as an Issues Based Concept 

Dewey returned time and again to 

occupations in writings such as My Pedagogic 

Creed, The School and Society, Child and 

Curriculum, Interpretation of Savage Mind, How 

We Think, and Democracy in Education to 

support his ideas for educating students in any 

community.  However, Dewey launched his 

innovative views of occupations as early as 1894 

with the start of his experimental laboratory 

school, prior to penning his own pedagogic creed 

in 1897.  Dewey initiated his focus on 

occupations as a study in curriculum 

development.  Records for the Dewey School at 

the University of Chicago indicate lessons in such 

endeavors as blacksmithing and gardening.  

However, it could be considered a folly for 

scholars to take only a cursory look at the Dewey 

School subjects and subject matter.  Morgan and 

Shermis (1970) took the position that the ideas 

expounded in several Dewey books, such as 

School and Society, How We Think, and 

Democracy and Education, ―were formulated as 

Dewey, his wife and a staff of creative teachers 

originated and tested ideas about curriculum, 

administration, method and learning theory‖ (p. 

65).  

 Other scholars appear to easily draw a 

reference to the societal environment in the late 

1800s and early 1900s.  During this time, under 

pressure from rapidly growing industrialization, 

both the types of jobs and job skills requirements 

increasingly demanded specific vocational 

training.  Some scholars, such as Jenness (1990) 

and Saxe (1991), have concluded that Dewey 

supported social efficiency views related to the 

demand for vocational education during that era 

and have transitioned this into the suggestion that 

the use of occupations in the Dewey School was 

akin to vocational training.  In his chapter on 

school reform, Martin (1991) succinctly noted 

that he believed Dewey‘s opposition to a reform 

movement to separate curriculum and create 

vocational schools was based on his concern that 

such a change could result in reinforcing a class 

system.  Morgan and Shermis (1970) point out 

that Dewey‘s educational philosophy was honed 

during ten years of experimenting with 

curriculum at the University of Chicago 

laboratory school.  These authors suggest that 

Dewey‘s theory was to unite a liberal academic 

education with an injection of vocational 

curricula.  Further, they indicated that Dewey did 

not regard vocational curriculum in the traditional 

narrow definition of technical training as 

preparation to work.  Instead, they insightfully 

state: 

Through the serious study of vocations, 

one might undergo considerable 

intellectual growth.  What is needed to 

understand a vocation is, in fact, an 

infinitely expandable series of principles 

and generalizations.  For instance, the 

sewing of a button is not simply a self-

terminating activity:  it suggests a study 

of cotton and woolen fibers, and this in 

turn suggests a variety of studies, such as 

physics, geography and history‖ (p. 72). 

 

Reflecting on their judicious use of the phasing 

―serious study of vocations,‖ leads to delving 

deeper into Dewey‘s ideas and thinking and opens 

the door to investigating and discovering 

Dewey‘s path and purpose in developing his 

philosophy on occupations.  

 

 

  



 
 

17 
 

Occupations and Dewey’s Creed 

My Pedagogic Creed (1897) represents 

Dewey‘s eloquent expression of his own 

pedagogy refined and distilled into a reflective 

writing.  Dewey‘s creed consists of five articles of 

belief.  The articles identify (a) what he believed 

education is and what education represents, (b) 

what schools are or should be, (c) what subjects 

to teach and what activities to teach, (d) 

methodology for education is described in four 

detailed belief statements, and, (e) in the final and 

fifth article Dewey outlined his belief and 

rationale that education is the foundation that 

provides for the continuation of social progress 

and the initiation of societal reforms.  Dewey‘s 

creed was thoughtfully developed over years of 

gathering philosophical insights and gaining 

understanding of social and psychological needs 

of society and individuals.  Throughout the 

subsequent years, he remained steadfast to the 

tenets of his own pedagogic creed. 

 The tone and tenor of Dewey‘s creed that 

was written entirely as ―I believe‖ statements 

evidences his commitment to these beliefs.  

Among many aspects of his educational 

philosophy, Dewey‘s creed contains the basis for 

his belief in the value and importance of the study 

of occupations.  In Article 2, Dewey stated:  ―I 

believe that education, therefore, is a process of 

living and not a preparation for future living‖ (p. 

78).  Immediately following this belief, Dewey 

expressed:  ―I believe that the school must 

represent present life – life as real and vital to the 

child as that which he carries on in the home, in 

the neighborhood, or on the play-ground‖ (p. 78).   

Then, in Article 3, Dewey focused on the 

type and nature of subject matter for education as 

a key to training or growth.  His beliefs are 

specifically unified in this singular statement:  ―I 

believe, therefore, that the true center of 

correlation on the school subjects is not science, 

nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the 

child‘s own social activities‖ (p. 79).  This 

particular belief introduced Dewey‘s concepts on 

―social activities‖ which in Deweyan terms 

became synonymous in many ways with 

―occupations‖ in subsequent writings.  It is 

important to note Dewey‘s emphasis on the aspect 

of ―true center‖ for what are considered 

traditional school subjects.  This idea is further 

developed in a subsequent Article 3 belief 

statement that expressed there is one method, and 

only one, to raise or increase a student‘s 

knowledge of how his own society progressed 

which ―is to enable him to perform those 

fundamental types of activity which makes 

civilization what it is‖ (p. 79). 

Dewey (1897) reiterated in Article 3 that 

the basis of correlation or knowledge is 

―expressive or constructive activities‖ (p. 79).  

Further, he stated his belief that this idea 

established a standard that activities such as 

sewing, cooking, and gardening should be part of 

the curriculum.  However, this author cautions 

readers to not stop here and leap to the traditional 

vocational training conclusion of some scholars.  

The very next belief statement solidified Dewey‘s 

theory that the study of occupations is 

groundwork for the study of academic subjects.  

Dewey affirmed: 

 

I believe that they are not special studies 

which are to be introduced over and 

above a lot of others in the way of 

relaxation or relief, or as additional 

accomplishments.  I believe rather that 

they represent, as types, fundamental 

forms of social activity; and that it is 

possible and desirable that the child‘s 

introduction into the more formal 

subjects of the curriculum be through the 

medium of these activities (p. 79). 

 



 
 

18 
 

Dewey‘s creed provided the foundation for his 

ideas of ―activities‖ or ―social activities‖ as 

―occupations.‖   In several places in Article 3, his 

creed also expressed his concepts about 

―experience,‖ ―experiences,‖ ―previous 

experiences,‖ or ―developing a new interest in 

experience‖ (pp. 78-79) and his rationale for how 

this played into the nature of education and his 

ideas on studying occupations. 

 

Window into the Laboratory School 

 By the time The School and Society was 

published in 1899, Dewey‘s laboratory school had 

been operating for several years.  In School and 

Society (1899) Dewey equated common needs 

and aims with common and productive activity.  

This led Dewey into a comparison of social 

organization on the playground with the 

classroom community.  He noted:  ―There is 

something to do, some activity to be carried on, 

requiring natural divisions of labor, selection of 

leaders and followers, mutual co-operation and 

emulation‖ (p. 12).  As a result, Dewey believed 

that occupations or activities should be made the 

―articulating centers of school life‖ (p. 12).  In his 

view the type of motive, spirit, and atmosphere 

that existed in ―a busy kitchen in which a group 

of children are actively engaged in the preparation 

of food‖ exhibiting ―buoyant outgoing energy‖ 

and psychological ―change in social attitude‖ (p. 

12) was a contrast to the schools of Dewey‘s 

present day.  Specifically, Dewey believed that 

the ―weakness of the present school‖ (p. 12) was 

the lack of his definition of activity or activities 

and his concept of using activities to teach 

students.    

 Related to this idea, Dewey also discussed 

the importance of understanding that in the 

society prior to industrialization, children learned 

skills at home which were not necessarily just 

farm or ranch home skills, but also such skills as 

weaving, spinning wool, candle making, etc.  

Every family member participated in these types 

of activities.  Children learned that the entire 

process for goods and services took place in their 

town, their community.  As children grew and 

gained more knowledge, their participation in 

processes increased.  In the background, 

according to Dewey, there was ―continual training 

of observation, of ingenuity, constructive 

imagination, of logical thought, and of the sense 

of reality acquired through first-hand contact with 

actualities‖ (p. 8).  

 Dewey reinforced his belief in this 

concept after cautioning that undirected activity 

or activities to keep busy or to occupy time 

inherently had a bustle or hurriedness atmosphere, 

which in his mind was not an effective teaching 

aspect.  Therefore, Dewey in a direct manner 

stated: 

 

 But out of the occupation, out of doing 

things that are to produce results, and out 

of doing these in a social and co-

operative way, there is born a discipline 

of its own and type….In critical 

moments we all realize that the only 

discipline that stands by us, the only 

training that becomes intuition, is that 

got through life itself (p. 14).   

 

Expanding this view, Dewey returned to his 

theme that individuals learn from the writings and 

books of others more comprehensively if they 

were related to experience. Thus, Dewey believed 

that one ―learns through directed living‖ not 

through ―abstract and remote reference of some 

possible living to be done in the future‖ (p. 15).  

Later on in 1910, Dewey entered into a 

protracted, in-depth discussion of abstract 

thinking and its positive functionality for 

individuals in education.  This was an integral 

part of his ideas about How We Think (1910). 



 
 

19 
 

 To implement his concept of occupations, 

a key question for Dewey was ―how shall 

we…introduce into the school…occupations 

which exact personal responsibilities and which 

train the child in relation to the physical realities 

of life?‖ (p. 9).  Subsequently, Dewey provided a 

rationale and an answer by stating his belief that 

occupations such as metal work and 

woodworking, as well as cooking, weaving, and 

sewing should not be viewed as distinct studies.  

Instead these occupations represented methods of 

living and learning.  He expanded his discussion 

by adding ―We must conceive of them in their 

social significance, as types of the processes by 

which society keeps itself going, as agencies for 

bringing home to the child some of the primal 

necessities of community life, and as ways in 

which these needs have been met by the growing 

insight and ingenuity of man‖ (p. 11).   

 In many of his writings, Dewey 

incorporated geography into the discussion.  In 

School and Society (1899) he expressed that ―The 

unity of all sciences is found in geography‖ (p. 

16).  For Dewey, geography was significant in 

that it presented the earth to students as the 

―enduring home of the occupations of man‖ (p. 

16).   He related the world directly to human 

activity.  The earth was the raw material for all 

activity, which Dewey identified as ―the great 

field…great mine…great source of the energies of 

heat, light…great scene of ocean, stream, 

mountain‖ (p. 16).  Within these elements of 

earth, Dewey placed ―all our agriculture and 

mining and lumbering, all our manufacturing and 

distributing agencies‖ (p. 16).  Thus, for Dewey 

geography was not places on the globe.  Instead 

the environments of the geographical world 

determined the occupations by which humanity 

progressed historically both socially and 

politically.  These occupations, according to 

Dewey, also developed the ―intellectual and 

emotional interpretation of nature‖ (p. 17).  

Dewey concluded that these various occupations 

as presented in the school would not have a 

practical orientation, nor represent ordinary 

employment.  Instead, by using geography and its 

related occupations as a basis, schools became 

―active centers of scientific insight into natural 

materials and processes, points of departure 

whence children shall be led out into a realization 

of the historic development of man‖ (p. 17). 

 Dewey maintained that ―The child has not 

much instinct for abstract inquiry‖ (p. 43).  He 

believed that the child‘s natural impulse to be 

active led to investigating instinctively.  He 

pointed out ―There is no distinction between 

experimental science for little children and the 

work done in the carpenter shop.  Such work as 

they can do in physics or chemistry is not for the 

purpose of making technical generalizations or 

even arriving at abstract truths‖ (p. 43).  At the 

same time, Dewey clearly believed that children 

could acquire a certain amount of reasoning 

power through learning mathematics and science, 

but this could be considered more remote learning 

compared with the concentration of attention and 

judgment growth stemming from doing actual 

things that involved real motives and real 

outcomes. 

Dewey pointed out that occupations as 

applied in a school enjoy a freedom from, in the 

alternative, of simply being viewed as a way to 

earn a living.  That is, even the creation of a work 

product in the classroom through various work 

functions can allow students to valuably focus on 

a number of ways to understand society and its 

social processes—rather than simply viewing 

work as the creation of a product that has value in 

the marketplace.  In writing about the value of 

understanding the way occupations work in 

society, he explained that ―The aim is not the 

economic value of the products, but the 



 
 

20 
 

development of social power and insight‖ (p. 16).  

This freedom or openness created the avenue for 

the practical activities to become allies to the 

school subjects of art and geography and to act as 

―centers of science and history‖ (p. 16). 

Throughout his discussion of the 

connecting relationships of ―school and society,‖ 

Dewey encouraged society to break out of its 

current, narrow, practical focus.  Education 

should be viewed and developed as an ―end and 

aim in a less exclusive way‖ (p. 26). Dewey 

advocated that schools introduce ―active 

occupations, of nature-study, of elementary 

science, of art, of history‖ (p. 27) while also 

relegating what he considered symbolic and 

formal teaching to a ―secondary position‖ and 

changing the school atmosphere.  That is, Dewey 

promoted bringing into the classroom ―activities 

which appeal to those whose dominant interest is 

to do and to make‖ (p. 26) and the result should 

find students regarding school as ―more vital, 

more prolonged, containing more of culture‖ (p. 

26).  If this modification—broadening the focus 

of education to reflect the significance of 

occupations—were adopted, then to do so ―means 

to make each one of our schools an embryonic 

community life, active with types of occupations 

that reflect the life of the larger society and 

permeated throughout with the spirit of art, 

history, and science‖ (p. 27). 

 

Another Window into the Laboratory School 

 It is likely that Dewey‘s laboratory school 

experiences and experimental practical 

application of educational theory were actively 

reflected in The Child and Curriculum, which 

was first published as a pamphlet and copyrighted 

in 1902.  Here, Dewey‘s philosophical discussion 

involved the debate between advocates of 

teaching the child versus teaching the subject.  He 

intensely detailed both sides concluding that the 

debate should cease and desist.  Instead he 

reformatted the opposing sides into his definition 

and idea of teaching through experience.  His 

views on the curriculum in place at that time 

concluded that ―the subject-matter does not 

appeal; it cannot appeal; it lacks origin and 

bearing in a growing experience‖ (p. 37). 

 Dewey believed the child needed to be 

connected to reality symbols, not formally 

developed symbols.  He explained that teaching 

should provide genuine forms or symbols to 

―serve as methods in the holding and discovery of 

truth‖ (p. 31).  Thus, actual experiences which the 

child had previously gone through provided the 

path to learning.  Dewey stated that ―A symbol 

which is induced from without, which has not 

been led up to in preliminary activities, is, as we 

say, a bare or mere symbol; it is dead and barren‖ 

(p. 32).  He proceeded to connect activity or 

activities with his idea of teaching through 

experience.  In Child and Curriculum Dewey also 

issued his caution regarding what he considered 

the teaching fallacy of ―the recourse to 

adventitious leverage to push it in, to factitious 

drill to drive it in, to artificial bribe to lure it in‖ 

(p. 35).  In Dewey‘s view, this methodology was  

 

Unpleasant, because meaningless, 

activities may get agreeable if long 

enough persisted in.  It is possible for the 

mind to develop interest in a routine or 

mechanical procedure, if conditions are 

continually supplied which demand that 

mode of operation and preclude any 

other sort (pp. 35-36). 

 Suffice to say that Dewey strongly 

advocated that curriculum should emulate real life 

experiences and activities, what he more 

frequently described as occupations, of everyday 

life.  According to Dewey, learning occurred in 

doing, not in repeating facts and figures.  



 
 

21 
 

Kliebard (2004) observed that Dewey first 

detailed his central principle that ―disciplines of 

knowledge, whatever their lofty status, had their 

origins in basic human activity‖ (p. 198) in Child 

and Curriculum. 

 

A View of “Savage Mind” 

What can be gleaned out of Dewey‘s 

perhaps most uniquely titled writing, 

―Interpretation of Savage Mind‖ that can shed 

light on his concept of occupations?  I suggest 

that the focus of this article is principally about 

humankind, understanding mankind, and is linked 

directly to occupations of man theoretically in any 

society.  ―Interpretation of Savage Mind‖ was 

published in 1902 when Dewey‘s involvement in 

the laboratory school was still in play. Various 

interpretations of Dewey‘s ―interpretation‖ 

surfaced—even as soon as that early 20
th

 century 

year.  M.S. MacDonald wrote a critique of 

Dewey‘s ―Interpretation of Savage Mind‖ in the 

September 5, 1902, issue of The Philosophical 

Review in which MacDonald presented an 

analysis that was consistent with Kliebard‘s 

(2004) conclusion almost 100 years later.  

MacDonald (1902) wrote: 

The abuse of the comparative method, 

which has resulted in the neglect of the 

mental structure of the savage by genetic 

psychology, is due to the lack of a 

proper method of interpretation….We 

must recognize that mind has a pattern, 

or schema of arrangement in its 

constituent parts….The group of 

occupational activities affords the 

schema or pattern of the structural 

organization of mental traits (pp. 529-

530). 

I suggest that Dewey‘s (1902) extended savage 

mind discussion represented his philosophical 

view of mankind relative to the education of 

mankind and the individuals that comprise any 

society.  That is, Dewey‘s view was that his 

concept of occupations supported a way of 

organizing mental traits and related activities that 

provided a broad scoped understanding of the 

social nature of humankind. 

As Kliebard (2004) pointed out the 

―savage mind‖ article addressed complex ideas in 

a classic Dewey innovative manner.  What seems 

to be lost in some accounts of ―Savage Mind‖ is 

Dewey‘s overarching focus on occupations of 

mankind as a whole, not as historical epics or 

cultural stages of ―primitive‖ or ―savage‖ people.  

For instance, in a discussion on the Dewey 

School, Fallace (2011) adopted the position that 

―Instead of viewing children and savages as 

inchoate and lacking, they should be approached 

on their own terms, as prior, necessary steps 

toward the civilized mind‖ (p. 56).  However, 

according to Kliebard (2006), Dewey ultimately 

rejected historical epochs as a curriculum tool to 

connect the experiences of the human race and the 

involved knowledge disciplines to students‘ 

learning experiences.  Thus, Dewey‘s ―savage 

mind‖ discussion was not about a cultural stage.  

Kliebard (2006) believes ―Dewey substituted a 

reconstruction of the evolution of organized 

knowledge for the recapitulation of human 

history…‖ (p. 124), and, that Dewey interjected 

his particular concept of occupations into the 

curriculum.  Kliebard (2004) in his analysis of 

this article concluded that ―Perhaps the fullest 

explanation of the importance that he [Dewey] 

attached to the notion of occupations is found in 

one of his brilliant essays, ‗Interpretation of the 

Savage Mind,‘ a work written during the period 

of the Dewey School, but not on any pedagogical 

topic‖ (p. 60).   

Why does Dewey‘s ―Savage Mind‖ 

involve occupations?  I argue that occupations or 

activities are a core concept for Dewey.  I believe 



 
 

22 
 

that this Dewey article did not support ideas of 

man evolving throughout hierarchical levels.  

Instead, Dewey essentially designed an 

educational format in order to meet the present 

needs and interests of students as well as to 

enhance their readiness to deal with real life 

problems though the inherited cultural capital of 

all mankind.   Dewey presented an approach that 

drew upon the experiences or occupations of all 

people, including what he called primitive and 

savage people, as teaching and learning tools to 

live more enriched lives.  According to Kliebard 

(2004), the reason was that Dewey believed the 

central problem for educational theory would be 

resolved by providing occupations as ―the bridge 

that would harmonize individual social ends‖ (p. 

61).  This explains Dewey‘s overriding interest in 

using occupations as a platform from which to 

gain an understanding of all mankind.   

Studying occupations, or the methods of 

activities, of individuals as a societal group, 

represents Dewey‘s foundational cornerstone for 

education.  In ―Savage Mind‖ Dewey (1902) 

stated:  ―So fundamental and pervasive is the 

group of occupational activities that it affords the 

scheme or pattern of structural organization of 

mental traits.  Occupations integrate special 

elements into a functioning whole‖ (p. 220).  

Dewey was occupied with ―occupations‖ during 

the tenure of his laboratory school and throughout 

his writings.  Kliebard (2006) cautions scholars 

that Dewey‘s concept of occupations ―is a 

deceptively complex idea and, from Dewey‘s 

treatment of it in Democracy and Education 

alone, it may be difficult to apprehend just how it 

is supposed to  function in his theory of 

curriculum‖ (p. 114). 

 

Dewey’s View of How People Think 

Many, if not all, of Dewey‘s philosophical 

educational writings up until 1916 resulted in the 

educational concepts extensively defined in his 

acclaimed Democracy and Education (1916).  His 

eloquently thoughtful publication How We Think 

was one of several important building blocks or 

precursors to the all encompassing Democracy 

and Education book.  In his discussion of How 

We Think, Dewey entered into his view of 

abstract versus concrete thinking.  The former, 

abstract thinking fell into the theoretical arena.  In 

turning to the latter, concrete thinking, Dewey 

noted that concrete thinking applied to activities 

that needed to handle situations or problems in a 

practical method.  For Dewey, concrete thinking 

required ―doing.‖  In particular, Dewey 

encouraged teachers to ―make much in 

occupations that are not of a routine and 

mechanical kind and hence require intelligent 

selection and adaptation of means and materials‖ 

(p. 139).  So after several reflective chapters on 

how mankind thinks, Dewey reached again for his 

study of occupations concept.  More specifically, 

Dewey‘s view of concrete thinking wrapped in 

his occupations and activities theory because it 

involved ―the use of natural materials, tools, 

modes of energy‖ and he directed that teachers 

―do it in a way that compels thinking as to what 

they mean, how they are related to one another 

and to the realization of ends; while the mere 

isolated presentation of things remains barren and 

dead‖ (p. 140). 

  

Occupations in Democracy and Education 

In Democracy and Education (1916), 

Dewey purposefully stepped back into his 

―savage mind‖ discussion of occupations.  He 

defined life under a broad scoped description of 

life experiences, meaning both individual and 

societal.  He explained that examining life 

entailed looking at society historically, early and 

in its current surroundings, as well as ―the 

conditions and occupations of the family‖ (p. 2).  



 
 

23 
 

Dewey then stated that similarly ―we speak of the 

life of a savage tribe, of the Athenian people, of 

the American nation. ‗Life‘ covers customs, 

institutions, beliefs, victories and defeats, 

recreations and occupations‖ (p. 2).   

Kliebard (2004) noted that Democracy 

and Education was published at the pinnacle of 

industrialized society‘s emphasis on ―direct trade 

training‖ (p. 125).  Therefore, consistent with his 

previous writings, Dewey restated his own 

definitions for vocation and occupation in an 

effort to end confusion regarding vocational 

training as defined by society versus occupation 

as conceptualized in his view.  Dewey‘s goal was 

to clarify and crystallize his concept of the study 

of occupations versus the vocational training 

advocated by the social efficiency proponents of 

the 1916 era.  He believed that until society and 

educators, or more specifically teachers, 

understood his theory of occupations, they would 

be unable to recognize the dichotomy of the two 

educational approaches and the vast difference in 

Dewey‘s motivation and rationale for using 

occupations and activities in teaching.  The 

chapter titled ―Play and Work in the Curriculum‖ 

represents Dewey‘s synthesis of previous writings 

on the study of occupations.  However, Kliebard 

(2006) indicated that Dewey was not sufficiently 

clear and articulate in order to preclude and 

prevent misperceptions regarding his theory of 

occupations.  Similarly, DeFalco (2010) noted 

―Much of what has been written about Dewey‘s 

occupations and vocational education is 

confusing‖ (p. 83).  This notion is in line with 

Kliebard‘s (2006) observation that ―Vocational 

education…appealed to the longstanding 

belief…that schooling exists primarily, almost 

exclusively, to get jobs‖ (p. 126).  In Kliebard‘s 

view Dewey devoted one entire chapter in 

Democracy and Education to a serious critique of 

that assumption.  Therefore, Kliebard indicates 

that Dewey ―found himself swimming against the 

tide of prevailing American public opinion‖ (p. 

126).   

Dewey (1916) extensively addressed ―the 

vocational aspects of education‖ in the chapter 

under this title.  As in previous writings, Dewey 

considered ―the varied and connected content of 

the vocation and the broad background upon 

which a particular calling is projected‖ (p. 360).  

However, he believed that ―an occupation is the 

only thing which balances the distinctive capacity 

of an individual with his social service‖ (p. 360).  

Here lies Dewey‘s line of demarcation from the 

vocational training advocates of the era.  Dewey‘s 

view was much like Krug‘s (1964) suggestion 

that two recognized understandings of society‘s 

social efficiency ideas were in place during this 

era—that is, education for social control and 

education for social service.  Krug suggested that 

the social reforms of that day involved both.  I 

believe this represents Dewey‘s position on social 

efficiency in the 1916 era, and, therefore, leads to 

an understanding of Dewey‘s study of 

occupations versus vocational training or 

education  

Therefore in Democracy and Education, 

Dewey (1916) argued that ―an occupation is a 

continuous activity having a purpose‖ (p. 361).  

The value provided to education through the 

study of occupations is that ―it combines within 

itself more of the factors conducive to learning 

than any other method‖ (p. 361), such as calling 

habits and instinct into play and reaching an end 

or result.  Therefore, Dewey concluded that the 

study of occupations ―appeals to thought‖ and, 

even more important, that ―it demands that an 

idea of an end be steadily maintained, so that 

activity cannot be either routine or capricious‖ (p. 

361).  Dewey believed that the study of 

occupations was the vehicle to meet students‘ 

interests as well as present needs of growth only 



 
 

24 
 

if occupation study was ―pursued under 

conditions where the realization of the activity 

rather than merely the external product is the aim‖ 

(p. 362).  Thus, pursuant to Dewey‘s philosophy 

of education, ―the only adequate training for 

occupations is training through occupations‖ (p. 

362).  Dewey advised ―that all the earlier 

preparation for vocations be indirect rather than 

direct; namely, through engaging in those active 

occupations which are indicated by the needs and 

interests of the pupil at the time‖ (p. 363).  I 

believe this view of occupations represented the 

classic Deweyan principle of meeting pupils‘ 

immediate interest and needs. 

 

Conclusion 

 John Dewey‘s focus on the study of 

occupations has frequently been misinterpreted 

and sometimes maligned by scholars.  Contrary to 

some views, Dewey‘s laboratory school was not 

merely all play and did not teach routine work.  

Occupations, not jobs, and genuine activities such 

as art represent John Dewey‘s cornerstone theory 

for educating all humankind, all individuals.  

Various scholarly interpreters apparently become 

entrapped in semantics and miss the intent and 

rationale behind Dewey‘s thinking.  It is 

important to sort through the plethora of scholarly 

views on Dewey.  It is also important to recognize 

that Dewey‘s elaborate writing technique is often 

not direct and straightforward.  I believe that this 

close examination of his theory of occupations in 

Dewey‘s My Pedagogic Creed, The School and 

Society, Child and Curriculum, Interpretation of 

Savage Mind, How We Think, and Democracy 

and Education illustrates that Dewey‘s use of 

occupations reinforced a consistent educational 

philosophy.  That is, the importance that 

knowledge of mankind as gained through his 

concept of occupations plays in our understanding 

of humanity and the social nature of all societies.  

Using the study of occupations as a platform from 

which to consider the social nature of humankind 

has the potential to create an active, issues-

centered approach for teaching and learning in 

education.  Dewey‘s uniquely stylized theory of 

occupations serves as a timeless foundation on 

which to build curriculum that still has significant 

relevance in the 21
st
 century. 

References 

DeFalco, A. (2010).  An analysis of John 

Dewey‘s notion of occupations: Still        

pedagogically valuable?.  Education and 

Culture, 26(1), 82-99. 

Dewey, J. (1897).  My pedagogic creed.  School 

Journal, 54, 77-80.  

Dewey, J. (1899).  The school and society.  

Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.  

Dewey, J. (1902a).  The child and the 

curriculum.  Chicago, University of Chicago 

Press. 

Dewey, J. (1902b).  Interpretation of savage 

mind.  Psychological Review, 9, 217-230. 

Dewey, J. (1910).  How we think.  Lexington, 

MA:  D.C. Heath. 

Dewey, J. (1916).  Democracy and education:  

An introduction to the philosophy of 

education.   New York: McMillan. 

Fallace, T.D. (2011).  Dewey and the Dilemma of 

Race: An Intellectual History 1895-1922.   

New York: Teachers College Press. 

Jenness, D. (1990). Making sense of social 

studies.  New York, NY: Macmillan. 

Jorgensen, C. G. (2010).  Unraveling conflicting 

interpretations:  A reexamination of the 1916 

Report on Social Studies.  Published Doctoral 

dissertation, Utah State University, Logan. 

Kliebard, H. (2004).  The struggle for the 

American curriculum:  1893-1958 (3
rd

 Ed).    

New York:  RoutledgeFalmer. 



 
 

25 
 

Kliebard, H.M. (2006).  Dewey‘s reconstruction 

of the curriculum: From occupations to 

disciplined knowledge.  In D. T. Hansen 

(Ed.), John Dewey and our educational  

prospect:  A critical engagement with 

Dewey’s Democracy and Education.  Albany:  

State University of New York. 

Krug, E.A. (1964). The shaping of the American 

high school 1880-1920. Madison: University 

of Wisconsin Press.  

MacDonald, M.S. (1902). Summary of 

Interpretation of Savage Mind. The 

Philosophical Review, 11(5), 529-530. 

Martin, D. T. (1991).  The Political Economy of 

School Reform in the United States.  In M. B. 

Ginsburg (Ed.), Understanding educational 

reform in global context:  Economy, ideology, 

and the state.  London:  Routledge.   

Morgan, J. &  Shermis, S. (1970).  Origin, theory 

and practice: Dewey‘s early philosophy. 

Midcontinent American Studies Journal, 11-1, 

65-79. 

Saxe, D.W. (1991). Social studies in schools:  A 

history of the early years.  Albany: State 

University of New York Press. 

Westbrook, R. B. (1993).  John Dewey (1895-

1952).  Prospects:  The Quarterly Review of 

Comparative Education, XXIII, 277-291. 

 


