Pragmatism and Occupy Wall Street

Transcript of a presentation with the title „Autonomism, Praxis,and Pluralism: Locating Occupy Wall Street’s Ideologies in History and Pragmatism“ delivered together with Zeeshan Aleem at the London Conference in Critical Though 2013, Royal Holloway, University of London, June 6th & 7th 2013. Only my second part is included. Pragmatism and Occupy Wall Street Martin Bartenberger University of Vienna martin.bartenberger(at)univie.ac.at This part of the presentation tried to outline how the pragmatist principles of fallibilism, experimentalism and a do-it-yourself mentality can be found in the actions and ideas of Occupy Wall Street. It also proposes some ideas why it is important to be aware of this connection. When working with the term pragmatism it is essential to explain and define how the term is used. This isn't as easy and straight forward as it may seem at first glance. Instead this endeavor is rather complicated for different reasons, which lead Richard Posner to the conclusion that pragmatism „is a devil to define“ (Posner 2003, 24). The first reason is the fact that the fights about the term pragmatism can be traced back to its ancestors. While Charles Sanders Peirce limited his pragmatic maxim to be a method to clarify the meaning of concepts, William James has expanded the focus of pragmatism, most prominently with his theory of truth. It is a common joke therefore that Pragmatism was founded on James' misunderstanding of Peirce (see Bernstein 2005, 20). The second main reason is that additional to this philosophical blurriness the term “pragmatism” is also used in everyday language without specifying its concrete meaning most of the time. To clarify and exemplify our understanding of pragmatism in this presentation the following points are crucial: First, when we use the term pragmatism we refer to the philosophical tradition as it was founded by 1/5 Peirce, James, John Dewey, Mary Parker Follett and others and not to the everyday understanding of the term. Second, we do not define pragmatism as a coherent theory but follow Richard Bernstein's suggestion and understand it as a mentality. A mentality that is characterized by fallibilism, experimentalism and something we call do-it-yourself character. I will explain these three elements briefly: Fallibilism means that all our knowledge is potentially flawed and that therefore everything should be open for critique, revision and the tests of praxis. It is crucial that this isn't the same as relativism. Instead pragmatist fallibilism makes clear that for us to be able to act it is necessary and inevitable that we hold certain beliefs to be true. But what is important is that we are open to revise our beliefs once “real doubt” as Peirce has put it arises. Fallibilism is therefore a process, as Richard Bernstein – one of its main proponent – makes clear in this quote: “Pragmatic fallibilism does not dictate substantive conclusions and decisions; rather, it is primarily concerned with how these decisions are reached, discussed, and debated” (2005, 86). Following this fallibilistic approach a promising way to gain new knowledge of the world is not just by analyzing it from an outside position but by interacting with it, by engaging it and thereby making new experiences. Experimentialism, a way that emphasizes the importance of trial-and-error, is therefore another essential aspect of pragmatism. A prominent example in this regard is the Lab School at the University of Chicago which was founded by John Dewey as an experiment to explore new ways of education. With the phrase “do-it-yourself character” we refer to a phenomenon that was fueled by several disappointments for the left. Put simply, it were mainly two potential modes of emancipatory politics that have failed over the last 25 years. First, the fall of the Berlin wall made it obvious that the state-centered communism as it has been erected in Eastern Europe isn't a feasible way to a free and just society. Second, the gridlock of the American political system and the neoliberal infection 2/5 of social democratic parties worldwide deemed the hopes that human emancipation was possibly by the way of representative democracy. The presidency of Barack Obama is just the latest exemplification of this. Being disappointed by the political parties, by the state, and by the existing institutions, Occupy decided to follow a do-it-yourself approach. Institutions and tools such as general assemblies, the human microphone, non-hierachical decision processes and working groups were essential in this regard. In other words, we argue that it was the PROCESS of Occupy the was important, not its content or political demands and that most commentators have missed this dimension. This is close to pragmatism in at least two ways: first, it parallels William James' sentence that pragmatism is mainly a method. This is a point that was also mentioned already when talking about fallibilism. Second, it emphasizes a concept of democracy that was championed most prominently by John Dewey. Democracy thereby isn't understood as voting every four years, but as a living system that has to be nurtured by the active engagement of its citizen, by constant deliberation and creative approaches to newly arising challenges. Now the interesting question is: What does this mean for Occupy and why is pragmatism important when we talk about Occupy? To be honest, Zeeshan and I have different opinions on this. But let me begin with the beliefs we share. First and foremost we both think that elements of what we have described as the pragmatist mentality are useful when we talk about Occupy. But when it comes to the reasons for why this is so, our positions begin to differ. Zeeshan regards pragmatism as a useful analytical theory that can help us to explain and describe Occupy and some of its characteristics. Characteristics as we have pointed out, that can be found during other episodes in the history of the left and that thereby should be regarded as ancestors of Occupy. This is the external, analytical position of pragmatism. My own claim would go a bit further, in a more internal, realist direction. Although it certainly wasn't the intention of its original founder Charles Sanders Peirce, who limited the role of pragmatism to 3/5 clarify the meaning of concepts, I follow Louis Menand (1997) and believe that pragmatism can be understood as an account of the way people think and act, or to emphasize this point how people REALLY think and act. For pragmatists, I would argue, humans are characterized by being practical and creative. They gain their knowledge of the world by engaging with it, by making experiences and by taking them into account. From this perspective, the case pragmatism makes for democracy isn't mainly normative. Instead democracy, understood as radically as Dewey, Mary Parker Follett and others have done it, becomes the mode in which this human potential and characteristics can be realized in its fullest. Democracy meets the requirements of how pragmatism understand how humans think and act. In this context we believe that Occupy en gros shares this assumption and is in line with this pragmatist spirit but isn't fully aware of it. Of course this shouldn't mean that the pragmatist mentality is some ahistorical, eternal principle that was discovered by Peirce, James and others. Instead there are historical conditions for pragmatist principles to come into play. For the current situation, the fall of the soviet union and the discredit of leftist ideologies is for sure an important aspect. The crisis of the American political system and representative democracy as such is another one, as is the fact that this fundamental crisis became clearer for larger parts of the left after seeing their hopes in the Obama presidency vanish. Altogether this lead to the rise of principles such as critique, fallibilism, experimentalism and a do-it-yourself character in the form of Occupy Wall Street. Principles, as we have argued, that were present similarly in other social movements (such as operaism) and that are essentially pragmatist. References Bernstein, Richard J. 2005. The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11. Cambridge, UK: Polity. 4/5 Menand, Louis. 1997. “An Introduction to Pragmatism.” In Pragmatism: A Reader, ed. Louis Menand. New York: Vintage Books, xi–xxxiv. Posner, Richard A. 2003. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 5/5