Pragmatism,

 Democracy,  
 and  the  Common  Good  
By  Jane  Gilgun  

 
 
 
 
 
Summary  

  Pragmatism  is  the  only  philosophy  that  originated  in  the  United  States.  Based  upon  
principles   of   democracy,   pragmatism   has   a   moral   dimension   that   judges   actions   by   their  
consequences.  This  article  highlights  how  pragmatism  shows  us  that  consequences  for  the  
common   good   is   the   basis   of   whether   actions   should   be   continued   or   not.   Pragmatism  
rejects  actions  that  benefit  few  and  harm  many.  

About  the  Author  

Jane   F.   Gilgun,   Ph.D.,   LICSW,   is   a   professor,   School   of   Social   Work,   University   of  

Minnesota,  Twin  Cities,  USA.  See  Professor  Gilgun’s  other  articles,  children’s  stories,  and  books  
on  scribd.com,  Amazon  Kindle,  and  iBooks  for  a  variety  of  e-­readers  and  mobile  devices.  
 Pragmatism,  Democracy,  
 and  the  Common  Good  
By  Jane  Gilgun  

P  
ragmatism  is  based  on  democratic  values  and  is  the  only  philosophy  that  originated  
in   the   United   States.   The   founders   of   pragmatism   include   Ralph   Waldo   Emerson,  
Charles  Pierce,  Henry  James,  John  Dewey,  Jane  Addams,  and  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  
(Deegan,  1990;  West,  1989).  

A  Moral  Dimension  

Pragmatism   has   a   moral   dimension   based   upon   concern   for   individual   and   common  
good   (Dewey,   1958;   Menand,   1997;   West,   1989.   A   central   principle   of   pragmatism   is   the  
notion   that   actions-­‐-­‐which   are   inseparable   from   beliefs-­‐-­‐are   to   be   judged   on   their  
consequences   for   the   common   good.   Human   actions   often   are   responses   to   problematic  
situations.  Individuals  must  act  in  order  to  solve  problems.    

Observe  Consequences  of  Actions  

To  know  whether  actions  are  effective,  pragmatic  actors  observe  the  consequences  
of  their  actions.  They  learn  what  works  and  what  does  not,  develop  new  beliefs,  and  modify  
their   actions   in   order   to   solve   problems   more   effectively   (Menand,   1997;   Rorty,   1982a,  
1999).   Rorty   (1982b),   a   pragmatist   philosopher,   saw   these   series   of   actions   as   part   of  
Dewey’s  notion  of  experimentalism,  where  “knowledge-­‐claims”  are  “proposals  about  what  
actions  to  try  next”  (p.  204).    

Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  articulated  these  principles  in  his  interpretations  of  judicial  
and   practical   decision-­‐making.   He   observed   that   individuals   make   decisions   and   then  
reflect  upon  the  principles  behind  the  decisions  (Menand,  1997).  He  believed  that  the  bases  
of  decisions  are  experience—not  so  much  personal  experience  or  individual  life  histories,  
but   the   experiences   of   the   culture   in   which   one   lives.   This   is   a   more   general   understanding  
of  experience  that  includes  the  beliefs  and  assumptions  of  the  collective  experience  that  is  
the   equivalent   of   culture.   Individuals   often   are   unaware   of   the   various   ways   that   cultural  
beliefs  and  practices  influence  their  thinking  and  actions.    

Although   Holmes   did   not   consider   himself   a   pragmatist,   Menand   said   that   his  
disciples   considered   him   one.   Years   before   he   became   an   attorney   and   then   a   Supreme  
Court  judge,  he  was  part  of  a  philosophical  discussion  group  at  Harvard  that  included  the  
originators  of  pragmatism,  who  were  Charles  Sanders  Pierce  and  William  James.  

Experience  as  Paramount  

  Pragmatism   also   emphasizes   the   precariousness   and   instability   of   experience   and  

the  difficulties  of  understanding  it  (Dewey,  1958).  Understanding  human  experience  can  be  
so   much   work   that   some   philosophers   have   abandoned   the   attempt   and   substitute   a  
“theoretical   security   and   certainty”   (p.   xi)   (emphasis   in   original).   The   result,   according   to  
Dewey,   is   the   crafting   of   laws   of   nature,   universals,   and   systems   that   show   unity   among  
entities.   Individuals   who   crave   and   create   certainty   back   away   from   pluralism,   change,   and  
particulars,  which  are  hallmarks  of  pragmatism.    

   I  do  not  wholly  agree  with  Dewey.  On  the  one  hand,  understanding  experience  and  
then  communicating  these  understandings  are  difficult  in  my  personal  experience.  On  the  
other  hand,  some  features  of  experience  can  be  constructed  as  mechanistic  and  invariant,  
such   as   if   you   tell   children   they   are   worthless,   they   will   be   hurt   or   if   you   throw   a   stone   at   a  
person’s   head,   you   risk   causing   serious   injury.   I   believe   that   we   need   both   mechanistic  
universals  and  recognition  of  the  instable,  complex  particulars  that  compose  experience.  

Applications  of  Pragmatism  to  U.S.  Politics  

  The  political  scene  in  the  United  States  today  is  full  of  tension  and  acrimony.    On  one  
side   are   politicians   and   voters   who   seek   the   greatest   good   for   the   greatest   number   amid  
this   uncertainty.   They   are   willing   to   experiment   and   to   see   whether   these   experiments  
result   in   good.   If   harm   comes   from   experiments,   then   they   change   their   programs.   An  
example   is   de-­‐regulation   of   banks.   This   led   to   the   financial   disasters   of   2008   whose  
consequences  continue  to  harm  others  today,  with  home  foreclosures  and  unemployment  

  On  the  other  side  are  voters  and  politicians  who  are  unconcerned  about  the  greatest  
good  for  the  greatest  number,  but  are  concerned  only  about  themselves.    They  do  not  think  
in   terms   of   consequences.   So   they   want   freedom   from   government   controls,   which   cause  
the  financial  disasters  in  the  first  place.  

  Freedom  is  high  importance  in  a  democracy,  but  with  freedom  comes  responsibility.  
Your   freedom   stops   where   my   freedom   begins.   A   democracy   allows   freedom   to   the   point  
where   all   benefit   or   could   potentially   benefit.   When   human   actions   harm   many   and   benefit  
few,  this  is  not  freedom.    

  The   only   philosophy   that   originated   in   the   United   States,   pragmatism   has   a   moral  
dimension  that  judges  actions  by  their  consequences.    When  a  few  people  gain  and  many  
people   are   hurt,   democratic   ideals   require   restraints   on   actions   that     who   harm   others   and  
benefit  a  few.  

Note:   This   article   is   adapted   from   The   Nature   of   Practice   in   Evidence-­‐Based   Practice,  
available   at   http://www.scribd.com/doc/38917585/The-­‐Nature-­‐of-­‐Practice-­‐in-­‐Evidence-­‐
Based-­‐Practice