by Madeleine KandoEver since my oldest daughter’s visit last week,I have been obsessed with the concept of ‘pragmatism’. If I had to choose one word in the English language to describe her personality, that would be it. My husband likes to describe her personality as ‘Dutch’, as if she was a piece of cheese, but that does not do justice to her OR Dutch cheese. There are hundreds of types of Dutch cheeses, just as there are many flavors of pragmatism and calling someone pragmatic is just as vague as calling someone 'Dutch', but for lack of a better word I will stick to that description.
The word pragmatic comes from the Latin word ‘pragmaticus’ (being skilled in law or business) and the Greek root ‘pragma’, which means a thing done, a fact. There is a wonderful interview on NPR with historian Robert Richardson, author of ‘The Heart of William James’, which describes some of the ins and outs of Pragmatism as a philosophy.
I personally like the following definition of a pragmatist: ‘One who acts in response to particular situations rather than upon abstract ideals; one who is willing to ignore their ideals to accomplish goals.’
Well, in that sense, aren’t we all pragmatists by default? The question is not whether you are willing to ignore your ideals in the face of reality, but how far you are willing to go.
It is often said that the American character is quintessentially pragmatic. American inventors like Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell epitomize Pragmatism and the Yankee spirit of tinkering. Pragmatism says: Try something and see if it works. Pragmatism means that you experiment, and you find out the results. America itself was a (successful) experiment. Pragmatism judges whether something is good by its consequences. Pragmatism means = practical. Science is pragmatic. Pragmatism says that there are no absolute truths. Nothing is sacred.
For example, is it pragmatic to steal a car so you won’t have to walk to work? Well, according to one of the founders of pragmatism, William James, pragmatism is what works for the majority of people. If everyone started to steal cars, it wouldn't be good for the people whose cars got stolen (or for the car thieves who go to jail), so in the long run, stealing a car to go to work is not pragmatic.
If pragmatism is so American, how come we have so many 'principled' politicians in government? The current grid-lock is a direct result of falsely-interpreted idealism on both sides of the isle. From the Republicans' 'no raising taxes' pledge and anti-abortion zealots to the unwillingness to compromise on the Democratic side. It's all very non-American, if you ask me. The only pragmatist in the entire political body is Barack Obama.
Did Americans forget their own philosophical tradition? Even though William James was talking about religion when he said that values should be judged 'by their fruits…not by their roots', it does apply to politics as well.
But I won't venture further into the murky world of Pragmatism as a philosophy because I am not knowledgeable enough and it would be more pragmatic to avoid being called an 'ignoramus'.
I know what my husband was trying to say when he said that my daughter is 'Dutch'. She is what they call 'nuchter', translated as 'solid', 'sober' and sometimes even 'passionless'. Yes, the Dutch are ‘nuchter’. In fact, the Dutch are the world’s designated drivers according to this World map of drunk and sober.
My daughter is certainly solid, not always sober (living in San Francisco is bound to make you intoxicated some of the time since it probably has the most bars per capita in the entire country) but she is definitely not passionless. You might get a better idea of what 'nuchter' means by looking at its opposite: someone who is floating on a cloud, wishy washy, airy-fairy or full of hot air.
I see my daughter as a symbol of what is good and strong in America. It is still a country where idealism and pragmatism can co-exist. Just like I, the idealistic, airy-fairy mother can learn from my pragmatic, 'nuchter' daughter, so can she, hopefully, get inspired by my idealistic view of the world. leave comment here
9 comments:
Hi Madeleine,
Just a bit of hair splitting:
your favorite definition says:"one who is willing to ignore their ideals to accomplish goals." But aren't goals defined in function of ideals??
Oh, and sorry for having mis-spelled HitchEns.
Loved the NPR discussion of James!
The Pragmatist's view of human experience can be tricky because it runs counter to the way we experience the world in everyday life. Pragmatism is not based in ideas about how the world really is, but rather HOW we human's know the world---the process of knowing itself.
You say. "Pragmatism = practical. Science is pragmatic. Pragmatism says that there are no absolute truths. Nothing is sacred."
Not quite: It is true that Pragmatism says that we cannot know any absolute truths--that the truth of a proposition can only be asserted in terms of our purposeful actions tested in practice---what works given our intentions. But this begs the question of the bases for our purposes? How do we know what we SHOULD intend?
The Pragmatist says there are no truths "out there" but sees that human experience is founded in BELIEF and such belief is SACRED.
Practical experience and the method of empirical observation--are founded upon beliefs that we hold BEFORE any facts ascertainable in practice.
The Pragmatist sees that in order for we believers--we are all believers--to not fall prey to our method of knowing, we must understand belief itself as conditional. We can ask ourselves what our sacred belief actually does in practice.
Belief is not something fixed in our heads, it is something produced in our belief-based active experience. There's a spiral of self-creation in this process in which our beliefs guide our practical activity and our purposeful activity gives rise to revolutions in our system(s) of belief.
Pragmatism is simple but tricky. It sees that as knowers of the world we are and must be believers (a moral relation) but that the process of our believing springs from our activity in relation to a world that is "truly" consequential. Unlike Positivistic "scientism", Pragmatism recognizes that at the root of ALL KNOWING lies SACRED BELIEF.
Csaba:
I simply meant that sometimes you have to make do with a lesser version of your 'ideal' goal in order to accomplish it. Yes, I agree with you that goals are based on an idea(l).
Marc:
Do you mean that we experience the world as static moments, one following the other? There is no real way to know how the world really is other than through our experience. So I am not sure what to make of your first paragraph.
Yes, believing something (if it works for you) is all you have since there is no absolute truth. You call this sacred belief which is true: it is sacred for YOU, not necessarily for me. That is what William James meant when he said that beliefs should be “judged by their fruits, not their roots”, didn’t he?
You are hitting the nail on its head here, very well put. Anything that is not ‘fixed’, that is constantly changing, is tricky. But it also leaves room for improvement. That is why James felt that pragmatism was going to make the world a better place.
We cannot "experience" the reality of the world. We experience the world as the consequences of our purposeful activity. Our "experience" is of our relation with the world insofar as in pertains to us. In knowing WE really are at the center of the universe.
The real world is REALLY out there and as we go about our purposeful activity, the real world constrains our doing--some actions work and some don't. We bump into the world as it pertains to our activity and, as knowers, when we bump into the world we form symbolic constructs called theories about what it is we are bumping into--about how things work. Our theories constitute our knowledge of the world, which entails "factuality" based in our belief about the world. Our everyday sense of the world is that as we go along it really becomes more and more "known" to us, even though we are only knowing it insofar as it pertains to our purposes.
The relativism implied by my sacred v. your sacred was a weak point in the NPR discussion IMHO. All belief systems are not equal. Some work better and some work worse, given some intention toward which we act in PRACTICE. The improvement process as understood by the Pragmatists hinged on the sharing of moral purposes by which we can judge our actions as more or less effective.
Once we find common ground in purpose, our experience in action in the world will tell us what is working better and what is working worse. This process of improvement is not arbitrary. In a world that really goes bump, some things work and other don't. As this process unfolds--bump, bump, bump--we do not only make our actions work better but we also construct a sense of greater shared purpose that is ensconced at the root of knowing as scared belief.
The process of knowing--purposeful action, bumping into the world, and symbolic re-representation of systems of causes and effects--works as a whole. The very brilliant Dr. W. E. Deming, a very practical disciple of the Pragmatic view of the world, represented this as the process of PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act). It is theory-based method of how we create our knowledge of the world.
NOTE: In the above, the word "experience" is contingent on conscious reflection called knowing. This means that our bumping into the world is not "experienced" until we "know" it.
At the risk of overstaying my welcome, allow me to pose the following thought exercise. I myself perform this exercise quite frequently.
In the classic sense of science--positivistic--the scientific enterprise is to discover the true facts of the world and infer the orderly laws of causation that govern how the world really works.
Questions:
1. What is the nature of the sacred belief that guides these practitioners of science?
2. What are the implications and practical consequences of this form of belief for a society of true believers?
Marc:
Thank you for your excellent clarifications of many aspects of Pragmatism.
They show how rich and worthwhile of a philosophical tradition Pragmatism
is, with important implications for our course of action, as individuals
and as a nation. Great! Thanks!
Here is something that I have used in my work with success.
The Thinking Strategies:
Allen F. Harrison and Robert M. Bramson distinguished five thinking strategies in their book The Art of Thinking.
The five strategies are common to all of us, and are called Synthesist, Idealist,
Pragmatist, Analyst and Realist.
Distinguishing the thinking strategies and your preferences for each allows you to gain a deeper appreciation for the way that you and others see the world, and to have differences be a source of contribution instead of conflict.
Here is a brief summary of each Thinking Strategy: how we solve problems and approach our work.
Realist
Relying on “facts” and expert opinions and achieving concrete
results.
Analyst
Seeking “one best way” and scientific solutions.
Pragmatist
Finding “whatever works” and seeking the shortest route to
payoff.
Idealist
Welcoming a broad range of views, seeking ideal solutions.
Focusing on the human aspects of a task.
Synthesist
Seeing likeness in apparent unlikes, seeking conflict and change
Often we have a combination of leading preferences. For example I have a pragmatist/idealist preference.
The book: "The art of thinking" contains a diagnostic that will show you your preferences.
Paul: Very interesting view on how we think. I am not sure what my preferences are.. probably a combination, like you.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!