Pragmatic is an approach to language which focuses on disambiguating meaning so that people can understand each other in real-life situations. Its aim is to help people to use language appropriately for different contexts, and it also aims to promote an understanding of why we sometimes interpret one sentence differently than another. Pragmatic is used in a wide range of areas, including language teaching, philosophy, law and politics, and communication studies.
Pragmatism was originally developed by the philosophers Dewey, James and Peirce in discussions at the so-called Metaphysical Club in Harvard around 1870. This group included psychologists, anthropologists and philosophically inclined lawyers as well as philosophers. Peirce used the term pragmatics as a label for his approach to philosophy, and it is through his publications that the idea of pragmatism has achieved wider prominence.
While pragmatism began as a simple criterion for meaning, it grew into a full-fledged epistemology and has implications across the entire field of philosophy. While pragmatism may appear fragmented and unsystematic, there is considerable coherence in the overall picture that pragmatists paint.
For example, the central tenet of pragmatism is that something is true only insofar as it works. This has implications for the way we make sense of experience, and it also informs how we judge scientific claims. William James, for instance, takes a pragmatic view of religion by acknowledging that a claim that prayers are heard might work on a psychological level but not necessarily bring about the things we pray for. This does not, however, amount to a denial of the ontological validity of religious beliefs.
Among the other areas in which pragmatism has made significant contributions is the philosophy of action. Its ideas are very influential in social policy and management and have inspired the development of a number of different forms of behavioural economics. In this area pragmatism is often contrasted with the more extreme utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham.
Since the 1970s, pragmatism has experienced something of a revival. This was triggered by Richard Rorty’s bold and iconoclastic attack on mainstream epistemology which he viewed as naively conceiving of language and thought as’mirroring’ the world. This birthed a new pragmatist movement which is often called neo-pragmatism and has attracted the likes of Hilary Putnam and Robert Brandom.
Despite this revival, most contemporary philosophers who identify as pragmatists are quite critical of classical pragmatists, especially Rorty’s dismissive attitude towards truth. They tend to focus more on semantics and the philosophy of language, and their ideas are informed by a wide range of thinkers from across the philosophy spectrum. The main dividing lines between neo-pragmatists and classical pragmatists lie in the disciplines and methodology which they draw upon for inspiration and support. Some concentrate on the notion of communicative intention in the spirit of Grice, while others focus on the interaction between pragmatics and grammar; and yet others are more concerned with epistemology and the philosophy of science. Each of these approaches to pragmatism has its strengths and weaknesses, and they are all of value in the ongoing pursuit of knowledge.