The terms “pragmatic” and “pragmatism” have caused trouble ever since William James adopted them as new names for some old ways of thinking. The trouble at times makes one wonder if C. S. Peirce's ugly “pragmaticism” might have caused less confusion. I knew from the moment I saw the title of Andrew Fitz-Gibbon's Pragmatic Nonviolence that the trouble might be in play. Pacifist and nonviolent literature often uses the term “pragmatic” with no reference to the American philosophical tradition. Pragmatic pacifism is a common term simply used to distinguish non-absolutist approaches to pacifism from absolutist approaches. Likewise, pragmatic has been used to modify nonviolence to distinguish it from purist commitments to non-harm. But the back cover of Fitz-Gibbon's slim volume put my fears to rest by clarifying that the work would draw from “the philosophy of nonviolence, the American pragmatist tradition and recent empirical research.” Or perhaps I should say...
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
