A “New Republic”? The debate between John Dewey and Walter Lippmann and its reception in pre- and postwar Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article tackles the historical context, the genesis and the German reception of two different concepts of elitist governmental people’s instruction and public education drafted by two main intellectuals in the era of American progressivism – Walter Lippmann (1889–1974), journalist and former spin doctor of US-President Wilson (1856–1924), and the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952). The examination of Lippmann’s books Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925) and Dewey’s studies The Public and its Problems (1927) and Freedom and Culture (1939) reveals that both concepts are based on different notions of democracy, but on similar perceptions of modernity. Accelerated sequences of economic boom and depression, technological innovation, rapid social change and the seduction of mass media were seen as threats of public participation and of nationwide mobilization. These pessimistic notions of modernity as well as their implicit interactive perceptions of European socialism, nationalism and fascism facilitated the reception of Dewey and Lippmann in Germany. In doing so, German communication scientists, intellectuals, and pedagogues transformed terms like political leadership, community, action and creativity into the German context of nationalism and holistic community. But is this adoption a misreading or is this interpretation injected in the concept of both, Dewey and Lippmann? The comparison and reconstruction of these two concepts will show that their reception in Germany after 1945 was an amalgamation by intermingling different aspects of both models instead of a clear takeover of one model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".