Reconsidering Pragmatism as a Living Movement: A Special Issue Dedicated to Richard J. Bernstein

A long time ago, as an aspiring philosopher, I, Mark Sanders, did not know much about what graduate school in philosophy entailed, but I knew that I wanted to study with Richard Bernstein. After reading Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, I believed that the author of that book was the person I wanted to help guide me through the perplexing yet captivating terrain of philosophy. I consider myself to be extremely fortunate for having had the opportunity to work with Bernstein, to take classes with him, to talk to him about ideas in his office, to stay in touch with him over the years and correspond over email about teaching pragmatism, when I was teaching a course on it myself, to chat with him in his apartment in New York City about the state of the New School, and to see him honored at SAAP in 2012.It was at the SAAP Annual Meeting in Denver in 2023, less than a year after his death, that I first met Tara Mastrelli—both of us Bernstein's students, decades apart. It was comforting to hear Tara talk about Dick in a way that cohered so much with my memory of him teaching all those years before. I was extremely grateful when the opportunity was presented to both of us to co-edit an issue of The Pluralist dedicated to someone whose effect on my life, philosophically and beyond, has been immeasurable.As Tara and I communicated about what we wanted this special issue to look like, we knew we wanted to capture not just Bernstein's immense philosophical knowledge, but his vibrancy as well. It may sound clichéd, but that does not make it any less true that Richard Bernstein brought philosophy to life. The philosophical ideas he discussed in his classes and wrote about in his numerous books were undergirded by an animating passion about the vitality of the ongoing philosophical conversation that he was a part of, and to which he invited you to join as well.The last seminar that Bernstein taught on pragmatism in the Spring of 2022 was different from the one he had taught to me many years previously. I will leave it to Tara to provide the details of the changes that were made to the last seminar, but the idea that changes would be made were apparent in the last entry in my notebook from when I took Bernstein's yearlong seminar on pragmatism. (By the way, it was so long ago that I am referring to an actual paper notebook, not an electronic device.) “A common bond for all of the pragmatists is a distrust of how things are. Pragmatists are reluctant to accept the standard definitions of traditional philosophy.” Throughout the seminar, Bernstein constructed a narrative of pragmatism, but he was clear that the veracity of that narrative embodied a pragmatic sense of truth.In an essay addressed to his lifelong friend and conversation partner Richard Rorty, Bernstein explained that “what we call pragmatism is itself . . . constituted by the narratives that we tell about pragmatism” and furthermore that “the history of pragmatism has always—from its ‘origins’ right up to the present—been a conflict of narratives.”1 Bernstein claimed that William James was responsible for the “founding narrative” or more accurately the “founding myth” of pragmatism.2 It may be considered a myth because while James gave Peirce credit with the original principles of pragmatism, they were not principles that Peirce wished to be attributed to him. In fact, they could be called misrepresentations of Peirce's principles. For Bernstein, “pragmatism is the movement that began with James's misunderstanding of Peirce.”3 Bernstein admitted that James never really grasped the deep scientific method and logical distinction that underpin the crucial distinctions in Peirce's philosophy, but he did grasp a certain strain in Peirce's thinking that stressed the practical characteristic of all genuine thinking, so that even in his (mis)interpretation of Peirce, James accomplished the stuff of which philosophy is made, namely, the opening of ideas for further interpretation and discussion.Bernstein's contributions to the opening of ideas for further interpretation and discussion were and will continue to be prolific. His ability to break down complex philosophical ideas and make them understandable while not oversimplifying them, but maintaining their nuance, was an unbelievably valuable gift. His understanding that philosophical analysis and exegesis should serve a larger purpose is perhaps his most valuable gift to us. Bernstein exhibited the best of the pragmatic tradition (in a way that perhaps brings the very term “tradition” into question) in his ongoing focus on the importance of the practice of philosophy.As Mark mentioned, the last seminar that Bernstein taught on pragmatism was different from the one he had taken with him years prior. In the year leading up to his final semester, Dick said something shifted for him in the way he understood pragmatism. He was planning on writing about this shift in his thinking in an essay he would sometimes refer to as “Bernstein on Bernstein” or “Pragmatism Reconsidered.” While he did not have the chance to write the essay he had envisioned, he did articulate his thoughts throughout that final semester.4 As his teaching assistant for that seminar, I brought these ideas to Mark during our discussions on what we wanted this issue to be. From there, we came up with our theme—“Reconsidering Pragmatism as a Living Movement”—envisioning this issue as a way to honor the legacy of our dear teacher and friend through a continuation of his philosophical spirit and unfinished work.As we wrote in the call for papers for this issue, in “reconsidering pragmatism,” Dick wanted to rethink three key distortions that he thought were obscuring more rich engagements with pragmatism.5 First, he was concerned with the tendency toward essentialist definitions of pragmatism that invite the question of who really counts as a pragmatist. While, of course, there are important themes (e.g., anti-foundationalism, fallibilism, a kind of systematic rejection of Cartesianism, the meaning and failures of democracy, etc.), he felt there was no core set of commitments for which one could say “this is what a pragmatist is.” The second distortion he was concerned with was a sort of canonization that followed from these essentialist definitions. In understanding the ways in which pragmatism developed, he felt it was important to remember that much of its richness was in fact due to the lack of disciplinary boundaries in American universities at that time, and to ongoing conversations with activists and intellectuals outside of academia. In particular, he felt that the canonization of “classical pragmatism” excluded the role of women and Black thinkers, and that in these areas, we had to rethink what pragmatism was about and whom it included, looking toward a deeper understanding of not only their intellectual, but also their social and political interests. Finally, he wanted to recall the critical element to pragmatism that he felt Dewey was so sensitive in defending. Dewey thought the Europeans had misinterpreted pragmatism as a glorification of America, rather than what he felt it was—a kind of ultimate critique of America, where critique is based on a kind of understanding. Reflecting on the course during the semester, Dick said: I set the course up this way because I began feeling that even the way—self-criticism—that even the way I have taught pragmatism ends up in a dull way. It doesn't do what it says it's going to do! And now I wanted to teach pragmatism in such a way, not that you learn only about the nature of belief, about the myth of the given, about fallibilism; I wanted to set it up where the spirit animates the way in which you think. . . . 6 We can talk about unifying thought and action, but doing it, is what's really so exciting. And in a way, when we move to issues of feminism, when we move to Black thinkers, then we're going to see an application, not technically, but very much in the spirit, of “OK! So let's deal with the problems of human beings! And what are the problems for us today? They have to do with gender, with the LGBTQ community, they have to do with racism—so how can philosophy help to illuminate that? And then in some ways, you might say carrying on the pragmatic tradition is not just becoming scholars of James, Dewey, and Peirce, but taking seriously the attempt to use our philosophical resources to deal with “the real issues of our time.”7During the semester, a colleague from the politics department, Deva Woodly,8 published her book Reckoning: Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Necessity of Social Movements. In it, she codifies her observations of the Movement for Black Lives, tracking both the influence of Deweyan pragmatism and Black feminist thought on the movement's guiding philosophy. Dick read it immediately and enthusiastically added the chapter on “Radical Black Feminist Pragmatism” to our syllabus, saying he felt it was written for us, as it was exactly what he had hoped to achieve with the course—seeing how pragmatic themes were being taken up creatively and productively toward emancipatory social and political action. He invited Woodly for a separate class discussion, and themes such as intersectionality and theorizing from the margins became central to the second half of our course. These conversations sowed the seeds that later developed into my essay in this issue, “Disruptive Means and Radical Ends.”In the penultimate class, Dick had said “in spirit, although not literally at the New School, I could go on forever.”9 I have suggested one way to keep his spirit alive may be by taking seriously his provocation toward a different understanding of pragmatism—interrogating where we may be complicit in furthering the contamination of canonization; where we have allowed disciplinary boundaries or the exclusion of certain voices to distort the richness of pragmatic thought; and to answer pragmatism's call to unifying thought and action, turning toward the problems of human beings and the “real issues of our time.” The theme for this issue then—“Reconsidering Pragmatism as a Living Movement”—is our dedication to Dick's unfinished work, and an invitation to continue his legacy.The collection of essays in this volume is organized as follows: The first two essays look at some of the significant events of Bernstein's life, namely, his upbringing in New York City and his legacy at the New School as well as his lifelong friendship and ongoing discussions with Richard Rorty. The third and fourth essays present critical examinations of Bernstein's posthumously published work, The Vicissitudes of Nature. The final three essays take up the call to reconsider the philosophical implications of understanding pragmatism not as a canon but as a living, evolving movement.In “A New School Pragmatist,” Santiago Rey argues that far from being abstract or detached academic concerns, the very themes that make Bernstein's strand of pragmatism unique—pluralism, fallibilism, dialogue, judgment, and critique—are simply part of Bernstein's temperament, deeply rooted in a lifelong ethos.10 To illustrate this, he traces Bernstein's biography, including his deep ties to both New York City and the New School, in search of those experiences that shaped his peculiar philosophical vision, leading to a form of pragmatism that is flexible, sensible, and ethically oriented.In “Pragmatic Humanism in Practice: The Bernstein-Rorty Philosophical Conversation,” Chris Voparil examines the vital conversation between friends that took place between Bernstein and Rorty over the course of their lives. Voparil argues that both pushed the other to clarify their positions in ways that helped critically inform the contemporary revival of pragmatism. He captures the undulations of their dialogue over the years by identifying three stages of Bernstein's relation to Rorty—insightful interpreter, incisive critic, and passionate defender.11 While all three of these elements are present in some form throughout Bernstein's relationship with Rorty, structuring it this way and providing a corresponding time line are extremely beneficial. Indeed, Voparil argues that all three phases of interpretation are necessary for a full picture of Rorty's oeuvre and legacy, and in a manner that helps to understand pragmatism as a living and evolving movement in the way that Bernstein was so keen to express.12The third and fourth essays present critical examinations of Bernstein's posthumously published work, The Vicissitudes of Nature: From Spinoza to Freud. In “Experiencing Ecological Events: Bernstein, Dewey, and the Critique of Event Causality,” Scott Taylor heeds Bernstein's call to address our contemporary ecological crisis by “ridding ourselves of the belief that our minds and experiences lay outside of an ecological world.”13 He does so by arguing for the importance of the notion of “events” in Dewey. Taylor claims “events” can aid in our understanding of ecological crises and help contribute to possible solutions because they are more easily framed as temporal, processive, reconstructive, and ecological than experience. This proposed re-framing is the result of both a critique of Bernstein and an acceptance of the challenge that Bernstein laid down in his final book.In “The Varieties of Transcendence,” David McClean questions whether or not the philosophers that Bernstein focuses on in his last book have much to say to guide us through the hard questions and problems facing us presently, in the moment of “a world on the brink.” McClean examines the dualism between the “natural” and the “supernatural” at work, claiming that it is a dualism that valorizes the former while attempting to marginalize the latter, in a binary opposition. This in turn leads to a discussion of not merely the vicissitudes of nature, but the varieties of transcendence, and the various ways notions of transcendence play out and may shed light on the paths that may lead us out of the present crises Bernstein references—climate change, new technologies, and others.The final three essays take up the call to reconsider the philosophical implications of understanding pragmatism as a living, evolving movement. This starts off with Erin McKenna questioning the value of opposing the idea of a canon to the understanding of pragmatism as “a living, evolving movement” in the first place. In “The Spirit of American Philosophy: Both/And,” McKenna claims that the existence of a canon need not entail an essentialist understanding of pragmatism, arguing, instead, that we should embrace the pragmatist ethos of both/and over limiting either/or thinking to ensure that the visibility and richness of pragmatism remains as both an ever-evolving and diverse canon and a living, evolving movement.In “Actualizing Bernstein's Pragmatic Vision: Philosophy's Role in Shaping a Deeply Democratic Future,” Judith Green examines how pragmatist philosophers understand our history and how the requirements of our calling are necessary to go beyond thinking critically about the complex eco-social problems and intertwined crises that now trouble our world, to becoming active participants in world-changing projects to actualize deep democracy. Ultimately, she shows that the work of our pragmatist team of philosophers—in which each of us plays differing roles—includes fresh metaphilosophical, theoretical, and practical thinking about (1) who we are as human persons; (2) why we must critically revise the values, customs, and life-guiding narratives of our diverse underlying cultures; (3) why our individual attitudes and interests matter; and (4) how we can reconstruct democratically deficient institutions, systems, and public policies to make them sources of active support and guidance for deeply democratic living.14And finally, in “Disruptive Means and Radical Ends: Toward an Embodied Understanding of Dewey's Vision of Democracy,” Tara Mastrelli re-examines John Dewey's radical vision of democracy, in particular, his notion of the interplay between democratic means and radical ends. She argues that Dewey's vision of democracy requires embracing an embodied understanding of democratic means that includes disruption, emotion, and an intersectional understanding of oppression. Drawing on Jacques Rancière's concept of dissensus and Claude Lefort's notion of democracy as an “empty place of power,” she illustrates how disruptive interventions that unsettle the existing order are necessary to keep the perpetual openness and contestation essential to a healthy democracy. Introducing Deva Woodly's radical Black feminist pragmatism, she argues that radical Black feminist thought necessarily expands our understanding of democratic means by centering the experiences of those most marginalized. By welcoming interventions that are emotional as well as rational, disruptive as well as constructive, she argues that we retain democracy's capacity to transform itself and the world it inhabits, coming closer to Dewey's vision of a truly radical democracy.