John Dewey

Unfortunately, when the falsity of this view was perceived, it was replaced by the idea that states “grow” or develop instead of being made.

This theory discouraged recourse to the only method by which alterations of political forms might be directed: namely, the use of intelligence to judge consequences.

Equally with the theory which it displaced, it presumed the existence of a single standard form which defines the state as the essential and true article.

Incidentally, the theory flattered the conceit of those nations which, being politically “advanced,” assumed that they were so near the apex of evolution as to wear the crown of statehood.

Developments of better methods of thinking bring about observation of consequences which were concealed from a vision which used coarser intellectual tools.

Quickened intellectual insight also makes possible invention of new political devices.

In short, the hypothesis which holds that publics are constituted by recognition of extensive and enduring indirect consequences of acts accounts for the relativity of states, while the theories which define them in terms of specific…

The only constant is the function of caring for and regulating the interests which accrue as the result of the complex indirect expansion and radiation of conjoint behavior.

We conclude, then, that temporal and local diversification is a prime mark of political organization, and one which, when it is analyzed, supplies a confirming test of our theory.

A second mark and evidence is found in an otherwise inexplicable fact that the quantitative scope of results of conjoint behavior generates a public with need for organization.

As long as the prevailing mentality thought that the consequences of piety and irreligion affected the entire community, religion was of necessity a public affair.

If one wishes to realize the distance which may lie between “facts” and the meaning of facts, let one go to the field of social discussion.