Dewey's Active Self Theory as a Framework
for Understanding Social Capital Formation

(Draft paper, April 13, 2004)

      We are living in an age of marvelous advances in technical knowledge. Yet despite so many significant technological developments in recent decades, progress in addressing our chronic social problems seems as slow as ever, perhaps even slower than in some past eras. It may be this emerging disparity between the rates of our technical and social progress which has prompted so much recent interest in understanding how effective communities form. For example, a recent World Bank committee paper (2001) established the goal "to identify ways in which outside assistance can promote social capital formation". Yet the same publication observed that "the social capital literature at large (has) been more successful at documenting the beneficial impact of social capital than deriving policy prescriptions and providing guidelines about how to invest in it.".

      This paper discusses one theoretical model for conceptualizing the process of social capital formation. John Dewey’s (1916) concept of the active self locates the origin of social capital formation within ongoing change processes thought to be occurring constantly within each individual. According to this model, social relationships arise out of the crucible of this continual self change process. Guided by their own subjective understandings of what needs to be done, when the appropriate conditions and resources are present individuals within a community can be counted upon to spontaneously leverage these resources along with their own efforts to create new social roles, resulting in the formation of social capital. According to Dewey’s active self model, this is how social relationships normally form. Understanding the process of social capital formation through the lens of Dewey’s concept of the active self may have implications for the design of programs intended to promote the development of effective communities. In general, this model may imply that the optimal role of development organizations is to work to create the conditions which best allow the active self process to unfold spontaneously.

Understanding Dewey’s Active Self Model

      Dewey presented the "active self" theory in Chapter 26 of his book "Education and Democracy". The central idea of the theory of the active self is that the self is not a "fixed or isolated quantity" but rather is something "in a continuous process of formation through choice of action". According to Dewey’s model this socially-formative process explains why individuals are sometimes willing to make contributions to a social system even when doing so appears to be contrary to self-interest. In fact, and as all of us have observed on various occasions, individuals may at times be willing to make great personal sacrifices for a social cause.

      To illustrate the psychology behind this voluntary prosocial behavior Dewey presents a hypothetical example of a doctor who is faced with serving a community beset by a highly contagious disease. The doctor is faced with a serious dilemma. If she continues to treat patients she runs a high risk of contracting the disease herself and possibly dying. If she isolates herself and refuses to treat patients many more people may die. Yet the doctor decides to continue to treat patients anyway. According to two common misconceptions the doctor’s prosocial behavior can be misunderstood in one of two ways. The first misconception would have us believe that her behavior is really selfish, because she must be receiving intangible or psychic gratification for doing what she is doing. The second misconception attributes the doctor's prosocial behavior to the opposite cause, saying that she is completely selfless and is not interested in her own well-being. Dewey highlights the error in each of these two misconceptions and then goes on to present an alternative explanation based on his active self theory.

      With regard to the notion that the doctor is motivated by intangible psychic rewards such as social approbation, Dewey points out that no amount of intangible rewards would really justify that sort of behavior. Similarly, the doctor's behavior could not be merely a question of unselfishness, because "why would any rational individual ever find it convenient to be that unselfish?". So Dewey dispenses with both of these common misunderstandings of voluntary prosocial behavior. As an alternative explanation of prosocial behavior, Dewey proposes his model of the "active self". Dewey’s active self theory describes how social relationships are recognized, resulting in what we now term social capital. The "active self", according to Dewey, is not a "fixed or isolated quantity" but rather is something "in a continuous formation through choice of action". Rather than being something "fixed antecedent to action", Dewey says that the self is something which is constantly changing based on the choices that are made and on the self one prefers to be.

      In essence Dewey's active self is someone who is constantly answering the question "Who do I say I am?" by means of choice of action. In deciding which path to select Dewey’s hypothetical doctor must tacitly answer a number of questions, including "who do I say I am?", and "who do I say society is?" via a process of action involving continuous self-formation. Particularly relevant to the current discussion of social capital formation is how Dewey describes the consequence of this active self process. According to Dewey, what distinguishes one alternate social system/social identity from another is the extent to which certain interpersonal relationships are recognized versus denied and the ways in which personal resources are used. Dewey says:

"When the physician began (her) career (she) may not have thought of a pestilence; (she) may not have consciously identified (her)self with service under such conditions. But, if (she) has a normally growing or active self, when (she) finds that (her) vocation involves such risks, (she) willingly adopts them as integral portions of (her) activity. The wider or larger self which means inclusion instead of denial of relationships is identical with a self which enlarges in order to assume previously unforeseen ties."

      It is interesting to note within the above example how Dewey's model of the "active self" relates to the formation of social capital. Dewey says that:

"The generous self consciously identifies itself with the full range of relationships implied in its activity, instead of drawing a sharp line between itself and considerations which are excluded as alien or indifferent; (and) it readjusts and expands its past ideas of itself to take in new consequences as they become perceptible."

      In deciding to interpret her role as involving service at a personal risk to herself, the doctor is recognizing social relationships she might otherwise have denied. In essence according to Dewey’s model it is via this process that our social identities are realized. A key point in understanding this model is to note that the individual does not effect this process of identity-formation in a vacuum. Rather we create ourselves through our social systems. In this respect the social system becomes a medium for the individual.

      Dewey's solution is similar but not identical to common ideas of utilitarianism. Within Dewey’s framework what holds utility for an individual is a social system. The individual is not primarily interested in herself, and she is not primarily interested in everyone else. Rather, she is interested in a prospective social system into which she projects herself, and it is this system which is also of interest to the wider society.

      As interpreted by Dewey, there are two common forms of utilitarianism which might be characterized as the "individualistic" form and the "universalistic" form. The individualistic or simple form of utilitarianism says that individuals act based on what is pleasing to themselves personally. The universalistic form of utilitarianism says that we take into account the needs of others in determining what is pleasing to ourselves. Dewey's model of the active self may be seen as occupying a middle ground between individualistic utilitarianism and universalistic utilitarianism. The individual acts prosocially not out of self-interest and not out of a vicarious interest in the self-interest of others, but rather out of an interest in a social system into which she or he projects her or himself. For example, when the individual is thinking about becoming a doctor she isn’t thinking about her own interests per se, nor is she thinking abstractly about the interests of others per se. Rather she is thinking about a projected social system of interest to her and to society, where she will fit into society and it will be of interest to both her and society. Hence we might refer to this dimension of the active self theory as social utilitarianism.

      Dewey's model thus provides a new way of thinking about social capital formation. Understood in this way, social capital is formed when we see a social system at hand which is possible and which is better than its alternative systems, based on our own subjective vision of the way the world should be, and we see that we have a part in the new vision or social system. For the active self these moments are golden because they provide an opportunity for actions which actualize parts of the self previously latent in the old social arrangement.

Implications for Development Organizations

      The picture of social capital formation sketched by Dewey in this theory is perhaps quite a bit different and broader than the way we may be accustomed to thinking about this subject. According to Dewey’s model, social relationships or social capital are not formed as an end in themselves. Rather, the recognition of social relationships with others is a by product of internal processes within each individual. In practice, this means that the individual first experiences a change, and that these individual changes later emanate and result in newly recognized relationships with others. For example, one individual may decide to attempt to change in one way or another, such as by undertaking some new activity or resolution, and as a result of that change within the self she or he may begin to interact differently with other individuals, or develop new connections with others in the community where no connection was previously recognized. But the main point, according to Dewey’s theory, is that these relationships are not the immediate end of the activity, but rather that they are the downstream effects of a change process which begins within some individual.

      Viewing social capital formation through the lens of Dewey’s active self process may have implications for the design and evaluation of programs intended to promote the development of communities. First of all, Dewey’s model of the active self implies a social capital formation process which is very individual and idiosyncratic. It is not predictable in any strict sense how any particular individual will change at some time in the future, nor is it predictable when they may change. The basic impetus for the changes is highly individual, and depends a great deal on personal and situational factors which are unknowable a priori. This suggests generally that programs which assume that large numbers of individuals are going to change in the same way or at the same time may encounter problems. It is like knowing where lightning may strike. Rather, from this perspective, a far better strategy for development organizations might be to focus on creating an environment conducive to personal change, broadly speaking, while avoiding assumptions about how or when any particular individuals may be expected to change. Based on this theory, it may be that development programs can be more effective in attempting to create the conditions which allow individuals to develop to the maximum extent of their capabilities, while attempting to place a minimum of presuppositions as to how this process of change ought to unfold.

      Whereas the active self process is highly individual and idiosyncratic, it does not occur in a vacuum and development organizations may have an important role to play in helping to ensure that the proper social environment exists to promote the active self process. In cases where the active self process does not function well, it may be because individuals are constrained from change due to a lack of resources or opportunities in the environment.

      From this perspective, one important role of development organizations may be to strive to make sure that social resources are available within the environment to support this process while at the same time making sure that no individuals can overly tax or appropriate these resources. Pursuant to Dewey’s active self theory, these common pool resources within the social domain then become available for use by individuals who, acting as social utilitarians, will leverage these socially-shared resources along with their own efforts in order to instantiate their own new social identities through the medium of social systems, creating social capital along the way.

      This understanding of the role of development organizations vis-à-vis resource provision goes to the heart of ones basic development philosophy. Understood from the perspective of the active self model, the goal of development organizations is not to distribute aid or resources to individuals unless of course there is some emergency requiring direct aid. Normally however the most effective function of development organizations may be in helping to increase and manage the common shared pool of resources available to the entire community. These shared community resources then become available to each member of the community to be leveraged along with their own efforts in the process of social capital formation.

      The outstanding example of a modern program which has done that successfully is the Grameen Bank, where social resources are accumulated, lent and then later largely repaid by the beneficiaries. Although the Grameen Bank is satisfied if it can merely on average recover the principle of the amount it lends, it still is in doing so building an accumulation of social capital so that the efforts of the donors and program participants are not dissipated and wasted.

      Managing resources in the social domain is one major role of development programs. A second and by far more important role of these programs may be educational. We said, based on the Dewian model discussed above, that individuals function basically as social utilitarians. That is to say they attempt to actualize their subjective visions via the implementation and modification of social systems. However their subjective visions often clash and this results in competition for resources. Given this, it may be important that development organizations participate in an educational process, to help each member of the social system understand how she or he can in effect become a better social utilitarian, or work to instantiate systems which are more mutually beneficial to all the members of the social system.

      Thus perhaps the most important role of any development program, wherever it might be, , may be promoting civility. There needs to be a moral education and any sort of development program which is really going to help people has to promote this as a central focus of the program, for everyone, (and especially always remembering that we ourselves who may think we need this education the least may in fact often need it the most). Promoting a generalized mores of civility is the most important thing development organizations can do, and successful development organizations like the Grameen Bank do it well. In promoting these standards of civility this is not to say that we can always live up to them. We are all human and we often fail. No one can completely live up to the ideal. However while realizing this, we should at the same time maintain the goal of promoting civility, and promote it as a central part of any development effort.

      This is not to say that we ought to attempt to make decisions for other people , but rather that we ought to try to support them in their own inclinations to choose well. An organization which is a model of effective moral education is Alcoholics Anonymous. While not imposing any particular beliefs on participants or assuming a "holier than thou" attitude, AA shares wisdom with participants in helping them to see the social world more objectively, making them in effect better "social engineers". It doesn't impose a plan on them, but it gives participants rubrics and heuristics which can help them more effectively implement their own emergent visions of how to live better, one day at a time. AA provides its members with conventions to let the individual mark themselves against some fixed goal, and general advice on being responsible and caring for others. Thus AA is an excellent example of how a development organization can participate in moral education without imposing upon the beliefs of others.

      Basically then organizations are the third component which is suggested by the Dewian model of social capital, the other two elements being resources in the social domain and the subjective visions of the individuals involved. Conceptualizing development as a dynamic interaction of these three basic elements interpreted through the lens of John Dewey’s theory of the active self, it is hoped, may help practitioners to analyze and evaluate the process of social capital formation in a variety of different settings and situations.

Very preliminary draft: Please do not quote without permission.
Comments welcome at KenDaniszewski@yahoo.com
© Copyright by Kenneth Stanley Daniszewski 2004