A friend of mine self-describes this way, and is excited about this philosophical conference. I certainly think that pragmatism is the viable way to approach feminism if anything is; a focus on whether or not the theories lead to better practical results makes sense to me. Pragmatism is an essentially American philosophical school, oddly enough (from my perspective) associated with late-19th century progressivism. I'm not sure how well progressivisim has ever worked out, although in fairness in the 19th century it hadn't yet been tried to any degree. The inability to re-evaluate assumptions in the light of subsequent experience suggests to me a basic failure in the ability of people to apply "pragmatism" to ideological preferences.
Still, just because execution is bad doesn't mean the theory is wrong. I'm all for pragmatism for those who can be pragmatic. Or as a different friend of mine used to say, "I believe you should try pragmatism, but if it doesn't work out try something else."
2 comments:
I confess that I mostly only understand second-wave feminists at this point, likely because they are largely from my generation and I grew up with their trying out various viewpoints to see what would work for them going forward, having an actual life. They have a foot in both worlds and are thus more pragmatic. It is not just compromise and adjustment, but an understanding that we all exist in real time and in real situations; that differences in men and women are not fully erasable.
I wonder how much modern "pragmatism" means "cynical grasp for power" at this point. I certainly know individuals at work for whom that is true, but I don't know what the percentages are.
Pragmatism has always struck me as clearly the right approach, but philosophers are rarely inclined to it. I would read Aristotle as pragmatic, for example: what justifies a quality as a 'virtue' is that it more-or-less reliably has good outcomes. He says this explicitly at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics: courage may sometimes lead you to destruction, or wealth to dissolution, but for the most part you will be better able to attain your ends and excel if you have these things than otherwise. Philosophers read this section mostly as a discussion of how probable the conclusions of ethics are compared to strict logic, but it also serves as a justification of what qualifies as a virtue on pragmatic grounds.
It's this very thing that tends to trip people up, I think. It's not just hypocrisy that leads people to behave in ways that are out of order with their stated values (including feminist ones, but certainly not limited to feminism). It's that they've attained the values by an act of persuasion and/or reason, but the reasoning or persuasion doesn't actually line up with the practical facts of their lives.
So why not do the thing that works for you? Moderation is a virtue because it helps ensure health, not because it's good to pass on the second piece of chocolate cake on principle. You don't have to feel guilty about eating the second piece of cake, either; you just have to recognize the additional difficulties you're courting, and either adjust to avoid them elsewhere, or accept that you've chosen them.
Post a Comment