What Pragmatism Was

F. Thomas Burke

Description

A look back at pragmatism to chart its course for the future

F. Thomas Burke believes that pragmatism, especially as it has been employed in politics and social action, needs a reassessment. He examines the philosophies of William James and Charles S. Peirce to determine how certain maxims of pragmatism originated. Burke contrasts pragmatism as a certain set of beliefs or actions with pragmatism as simply a methodology. He unravels the complex history of this philosophical tradition and discusses contemporary conceptions of pragmatism found in current US political discourse and explains what this quintessentially American philosophy means today.

Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Pragmatic Maxim
1. Peirce's Early Presentation of the Maxim
2. James's Presentation of the Maxim
3. Peirce's Later Versions of the Maxim
4. A Composite Sketch of the Maxim
5. Empiricism versus Pragmatism
6. Measurement and the Observer Effect
7. Perception and Action
8. Addams and the Settlement Movement
9. Truth, Justice, and the American Pragmatist Way
10. Twelve Misconceptions of Pragmatism
Conclusion: Belief and Meaning
Appendices
Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Épistémologie
• Movements
• PHILOSOPHY
• Philosophie et théologie
• Pragmatism

Informations

• Publié par: Indiana University Press
• Date de parution: 14 juin 2013
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780253009623
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

What Pragmatism Was
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY John J. Stuhr, editor
EDITORIAL BOARD
Susan Bordo Vincent Colapietro John Lachs No lle McAfee Jos Medina Cheyney Ryan Richard Shusterman
What Pragmatism Was
F. Thomas Burke
Indiana University Press
Bloomington and Indianapolis
This book is a publication of
Indiana University Press
Office of Scholarly Publishing
Herman B Wells Library 350
1320 East 10th Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47405-3907 USA
iupress.indiana.edu
Telephone orders 800-842-6796
Fax orders 812-855-7931
2013 by F. Thomas Burke
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition .
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992 .
MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Cataloging information is available from the Library of Congress
1 2 3 4 5 18 17 16 15 14 13
To the Memory of Michael Eldridge
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Pragmatic Maxim
1 Peirce s Early Presentation of the Maxim
2 James s Presentation of the Maxim
3 Peirce s Later Versions of the Maxim
4 A Composite Sketch of the Maxim
5 Empiricism versus Pragmatism
6 Measurement and the Observer Effect
7 Perception and Action
8 Addams and the Settlement Movement
9 Truth, Justice, and the American Pragmatist Way
10 Twelve Misconceptions of Pragmatism
Conclusion: Belief and Meaning
Appendices
Bibliography
Index
Preface
Throughout his 2008 campaign and into the early months of his presidency, Barack Obama was both praised and condemned on various grounds for his professed pragmatism.
So my whole goal over the next four years is to make sure that whatever arguments are persuasive [are] backed up by evidence and facts and proof that they can work, that we are pulling people together around that kind of pragmatic agenda. (Obama 2009)
Just the fact that a U.S. president would claim to be a pragmatist calls attention to the importance of the question of what pragmatism is. Any U.S. president, Obama or otherwise, perhaps should indeed be a pragmatist, in some sense of that term. Such a claim is worthless, though, if we do not know what it means to make it. It is worse than worthless when, for whatever purpose, the meanings of the terms pragmatist , pragmatism , and pragmatic are so distorted or misused as to promote rather than dispel confusion. The latter point assumes, of course, that we might know how to use those terms properly. So how do we do that? What is pragmatism?
There are numerous possibilities if we can believe what we read in the political news media.
For instance, a common view seems to be that to profess pragmatism simply means that one would avoid dogmatic ideology for its own sake in favor of commonsense post-partisan (pluralistic) practicality (Berkowitz 2009; Bronsther 2009; CBS News 2012; Cohen 2010; Critchley 2008; Dionne 2009a;b; Goldberg 2010; Gordon 2009; Hamburger and Wallsten 2009; Hayes 2008; Lerner 2009; Lim 2009; Lizza 2007; Lowry 2009; Packer 2008; Payne 2008; Rivas 2009; Salam 2008; Schultz 2009; Sunstein 2008; Worsnip 2012; Zelizer 2012). In one form or another, this is apparently at least part of what Obama means by it (as in wanting to be pulling people together around [a] pragmatic agenda ).
It is also common to think that pragmatism means that policy decisions are to be made on the basis of what works -on the basis of what is effective in getting things done (Aboulafia 2009d; Hayes 2008; Ignatius 2007; Koopman 2009; Kroft 2008; Lowry 2009; Schultz 2009; Worsnip 2012; Wickham 2008). This also comes through in some of Obama s statements, including the preceding quote (Obama 2009).
To some the latter characterization suggests an emphasis on means, not ends-that is, a focus on instituting effective means to achieve given ends (Reich 2009). To others it entails a problem-oriented focus on ends, consequences, results, as the measure of what works (Hayes 2008; Kantor 2009).
An emphasis on results may suggest a kind of data-driven evidence-based empiricism (Dionne 2009a; Engel 2002; Payne 2008; Revesz and Livermore 2009; Sunstein 2002; 2008), while others would deny such a suggestion if empiricism simply means an exclusive emphasis on the techniques of game theory, decision theory, risk assessment, or cost-benefit analysis (Acronym Required 2010; CPR 2008; Mooney 2009; Shapiro and Schroeder 2008). Either way, empiricism does not preclude a concern only for what works to successfully promote preconceived favored agendas or partisan causes (Berkowitz 2009; Gerson 2009).
Or is pragmatism simply a kind of anti-intellectual practicality (Bronsther 2009)? It might be worse than that. To some, any emphasis on what works may signify only a concern for expediency at the expense of principle (Hayes 2008), often as if principle and expediency exclude one another-a matter made all the worse if it is only self-serving vote-winning political expediency at issue. This often seems to be what real-world politics is ultimately about-the pragmatist being one who readily accepts this fact and strategizes accordingly (saying or doing whatever one must, rational or not) for political advantage (Aboulafia 2009b;c; Dionne 2009b; Lim 2009; Lizza 2007; Packer 2009; Smith 2008; Weisberg 2009). Obstructionist tactics designed by one faction solely to prevent or undermine an opponent faction s successes are labeled as pragmatic if not pragmatist in this latter sense.
This may suggest to some an ethical and philosophical emptiness and, thus, a lack of moral leadership (Aboulafia 2008; Bronsther 2009; Critchley 2008; Gerson 2009; Goldberg 2010; Packer 2009; Reich 2009; Worsnip 2012). Pragmatism in this sense takes our hope away and tells us that all we can do is muddle through (Fish 2010).
On the other hand, pragmatism to some means open-mindedness, epistemological modesty, an appreciation of human fallibility, and prudent flexibility in solving problems-versus dogmatic adherence come what may to rigid moral ideals or political agendas (Aboulafia 2009a;d; Hayes 2008; Kloppenberg 2011; Schultz 2009; Sunstein 2008).
This in turn suggests to some a kind of waffling opportunism, giving no weight to overarching ideals at all (Gerson 2009; Hamburger and Wallsten 2009; Landler and Cooper 2011; Sunstein 2008).
And on it goes.
A pragmatist may indeed be any of these things; but it is not clear that any of these things, alone or together, really tell us what pragmatism is. Minimally, if this quick survey is any indication, the meaning of the word pragmatism is in need of clarification.
It is hoped that a philosophical look at the historical origins of pragmatism as a distinctively American philosophical standpoint will help to correct this problem. That is in any case what this book is about-the nature of pragmatism as reflected in its historical origins.
One cannot be sure what Obama means by the term pragmatism ; but one thing that it should mean, we will come to see, is that one s concepts-and thus one s ideologies and their constituent principles-are not as clear as they could be until one has operationalized them (and if that cannot be done, then those concepts and principles are to that extent unclear). Pragmatism is after all a philosophical stance or attitude that includes a certain view about the contents of our concepts, asserting that it is not enough to know how concepts are formally related to one another but that we also need to know how they work on the ground when applied in concrete situations (Engel 2002; Kantor 2009; Lizza 2007; Obama 2008b; Schultz 2009). In particular, costs and benefits associated with a given regulation cannot be evaluated in any reliable and veridical sense without our being able to specify what one will have done to gauge such values (the problem perhaps not being so much that values are quantitative in nature but that no ways of objectively and routinely measuring such quantities are available). It is this latter operationalist feature of pragmatism that one does not see enough of in the press. It also indicates how and why it is rather hard actually to be a pragmatist and not just to brandish the term about to gain rhetorical points, or worse, to try to legitimize self-serving policies.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution-a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part-through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk-to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. (Obama 2008a)
For Obama, whether as a clear-headed realist or merely as a self-interested political strategist, these statements may be the expedient things to say in a speech on race in the midst of a campaign for the U.S. presidency. In fact, though, and in spite of any such political expediency, these statements point to an important defining feature of pragmatism as it plays out in political arenas-the view, namely,