Creative Destruction

April 19, 2006

Pragmatism is the New Idealism

Filed under: Blogosphere — Brutus @ 1:21 am

Prior to last month, I hadn’t been an avid reader of weblogs. Now that I’ve taken the plunge and gotten my own and joined a group blog, I’ve become more familiar with the style of writing, the arguments, and such as I’m able, some of the underlying attitudes. I specifically wanted to put myself in harm’s way and confront fairly actively some ideas different from my own. It’s been an eye opener.

My earlier post on the Ascent of the Blog is a modest appraisal of the blog as a new and formidable instrument of democratic political and cultural activity. It’s democratic precisely because it lacks the imprimatur of traditional media, with its increasing spurious claims to authority. I’m convinced that blogging will eventually come to be seen as grass roots activism, though it could be all over the map as to focus and agenda.

What concerns me now is what I perceive as a heavy reliance on pragmatism in both poorly and well-reasoned argument. I don’t intend to provide an exhaustive definition of the term or a survey of the various forms of the philosophical school of pragmatism as, for instance, pioneered by John Dewey and William James. That would take me too far afield and I frankly lack the expertise. Rather, the pragmatism I witness is the same seat-of-the-pants problem solving and enlightened self-interest that’s been remarked upon by Tocqueville as a fundamental — even clichĂ© — element of American character.

As my ideas began to take shape, I had intended to contrast pragmatism with idealism as opposites of a spectrum: pragmatism being the manifest reality of attitudes held and actions taken, idealism being the guiding dogma and theoretical philosophizing motivating us to recognize the directions we wish to go and restraining us from adopting solutions to problems that might lack conscience or balance. It occurred to me, though, that pragmatism has itself become an ideal, and that when applied as an ideal good, it tends to sweep aside judicious approaches to issues and seeks only emphatically efficient answers.

For instance, the Bush administration has been remarkable unrepentant after being called on the carpet for its disinformation campaigns and repeated lies designed to sway public opinion in favor of preemptive war and now preemptive nuclear war. Rather, for the administration, it’s been full steam ahead, no looking back, and who cares what got us here, we’re here now and we’ve got a job to do. (Not that it’s getting done, but that’s a different post). Similarly, arguments that the quality of life we now enjoy in the first world absolves the nastiness knowingly committed to get us here are perfect (and bankrupt) ends-justify-means arguments. It’s also endemic in the blogosphere that any proposition, however preliminary, must be weighed in terms of potential application (pragmatism), but there is frequently diminished or simply no concern over whether a proposition is truly a thoughtful, responsible direction to go (idealism). If we identify something we want, the problem solving that gets us there is primary. Consideration of the possible ramifications, especially the difficult to foresee kind, no longer function as reasonable restraints over our appetites and desires.

Perhaps the worst result of pragmatism’s primacy is the defeatism that sets in among thinkers straining to find a better way when it’s argued not that an idea is not ideal (as in a good idea) but simply that it won’t work for a variety of reasons. It doesn’t matter that feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, educating the public (not merely children, but everyone), providing medical care to the disenfranchised, etc. are righteous ideas. If a trial balloon is sent up advocating some way those worthy goals might be accomplished, it’s quickly shot down in disputes over implementation. A few traverses across that ground and even the most well-meaning sort (funny how well-meaning has morphed into a slur) learns to not even bother, to join the dominant flow. Resistance is futile. See this case in point.

My concern is not to offer a solution (pragmatism) but to identify the problem. I’m still straining to get my head around it, but I feel certain that it’s about how we think about our place in the world (idealism).

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. You raise an interesting point about blog dynamics. Many blog postings appear to be in the form of brainstorming. “What if…?” In face-to-face conversation among reasonably well-socialized people, this opening gambit invites additional suggestions. I may have critical things to say, but I know to save them until people’s tone and body language suggest that the brainstorming session has petered out.

    On the web, I can’t read each other’s tone or body language, and I may not have time to wait for the brain-storming part of the conversation to end and the evaluation part to begin. So often I spit out some evaluative remark, only to realize later that I may have derailed the brainstorm.

    And among the easiest evaluative remarks to make is “That’ll never work.” It’s an especially easy thing for econ guys to say. Find one guy in the chain of events who is being asked to do something without regard to his own self-interest, and bingo! Instant objection.

    That said, let me offer a critical remark: I was just reflecting on people’s embrace of idealism over “practicality” over at Amp’s place, http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/04/13/2255/

    Check it out.

    Comment by nobody.really — April 19, 2006 @ 3:37 pm | Reply

  2. Actually, I agree with you on this one. If one were to simply pragmatism into putting on a pedestal “what works”, it’d be easy to point out that “what works” is entirely a value judgment.

    “Practical” is, as you say, as much an ideal as “self-sacrifice”.

    Comment by Adam Gurri — April 19, 2006 @ 11:35 pm | Reply


  3. It occurred to me, though, that pragmatism has itself become an ideal, and that when applied as an ideal good, it tends to sweep aside judicious approaches to issues and seek only emphatically efficient answers.

    I think it has been that always, in some extent. Perhaps it is due to the chaotic global situation we live in: In more relaxed settings, with no threats looming over the horizon (practical solutions urgent), an idealist approach gains strength (people have time to think about the direction they need to take their pragamatist tendencies).

    Of course, I think pragmatism vs. idealism is something of a false dilemma: Idealism without practical concerns will fail to achieve the ideal, and mere pragmatism without direction (idealism) is mere survival. Perhaps the balance is, at least on the right-wing (on foreign politics at least), very much on the pragmatic side, with the pragmatism in itself truly becoming a value.

    Comment by Tuomas — April 20, 2006 @ 1:29 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: