Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssuesXVI-2SymposiaPragmatism and AnthropologyIntroduction: Pragmatism and Anth...

Symposia
Pragmatism and Anthropology

Introduction: Pragmatism and Anthropology

Sofia Alexandratos, Italo Testa and Tullio Viola

Full text

1Early American pragmatism was an attempt to question the philosophical conceptions of the human being inherited from modern European philosophy. This revision of the philosophical canon was deeply tied to the social, cultural, technological, and political changes that shook the structures of modern societies in the 19th century, disclosing unforeseen potentialities, unregulated powers, as well as social feelings of alienation, anonymity, and repressed social power (Bernstein 1971, 2010; Misak 2013; Calcaterra & Marchetti 2015).

2Against this historical background, pragmatism operated on a double frontline. On the one hand, it stood against traditional intellectual products of the Enlightenment, such as Natural law and Kantianism, which conceived of human beings as universally and ahistorically endowed with specific capacities, attitudes, and needs. From a pragmatist viewpoint, these conceptions are incapable of accounting for the dynamism, pluralism, and historical embeddedness of human societies. On the other hand, positions that advocated for the radical relativity of human and social life were seen as depriving philosophical and social thinking of any benchmark for normatively evaluating and regulating social transformations (Addams 1902/2002; James 1909/1977; Dewey 1920/1982; Follett 1924/2013). At the root of American pragmatism, then, was the urge to neither ignore nor blindly accept social transformations, but to embrace them intelligently and critically deal with them. An analysis of human nature, an anthropology capable of accounting both for its constitutive conditions and intrinsic dynamism, for its unity and difference, as well as for its physiological and pathological developments, was at the heart of its philosophical project.

3Such a critical, yet constructive attempt was wide and diversified in its scope and philosophical implications. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify a common anthropological core lying under the theoretical projects developed by early American pragmatists, a common core that has recently allowed theorists to refer to a “pragmatist anthropology” (Goldman 2012; Dreon 2022). Here we would like to identify three main features of a pragmatist anthropology: the first is the study of human beings not as an entity independent from, and unrelated to, nature, but as an intrinsic part of it. The second is a willingness to consider anthropological reflections not as an end in itself, but as a critical tool to improve human experience. Thirdly, pragmatists were eager to let philosophical reflections on human nature be informed by a dialogue with other sciences.

4This special issue is dedicated to pragmatist anthropology, and to its past, present, and future relevance. Our goal is to analyze the three distinctive features of pragmatist anthropology with a reconstructive lens. But we are also interested in the relevance that a pragmatist anthropology can have to present and future times. The ecological crisis, resting on the exploitation of nature; the stiffening reproduction of sexist, classist, and racist practices and structures; the urgent need for a scientific community based on a reciprocal criticism and enrichment among disciplines – these are some of the recent problems which expose the need for a renewed anthropological reflection in contemporary societies, and in particular for a pragmatist anthropology. Needless to say, this doesn’t mean dogmatically adhering to past theories and authors, nor erasing the historical distance between contemporary and nineteenth-century thinkers. Rather, it involves understanding past theories and authors historically, while making them relevant to new challenges, and enriching them with new voices and communities. The present special issue intends to be just a first step in this process. Accordingly, it is organized into three thematic sections, each of which addresses one of three main features of a pragmatist anthropology mentioned above.

1. Plural Natures

5The first group of papers is dedicated to reflections on nature and human nature developed within American pragmatism and to the analysis of their theoretical implications for key concepts such as experience, mind, and practice. In the contributions by Roberta Dreon, Etienne Raduly, and Daniel Feige, the first key feature of a pragmatist anthropology clearly emerges: (re)thinking the human is possible only in light of a broader consideration of nature, to be conducted hand in hand with past metaphysics and scientific findings. Indeed, pragmatist anthropological reflections – from James’ to Mead’s, Dewey’s, Addams’ and Du Bois’ – were framed within a broader redefinition of traditional metaphysics that was deeply influenced by Darwin’s evolutionism and Spencer’s evolutionary philosophy (Fischer 2019; Pearce 2020). Darwin’s conception of the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development of species in light of ongoing adaptive and selective interactions with the external environment allowed American pragmatists to reconsider human beings as one component of nature among others. Such a reconsideration was accompanied by the effort to investigate the continuity and discontinuity between human beings and other natural entities, with the development of a plural and processual conception of nature and a theory of society and culture as “second natures” (Testa 2017; Viola 2020).

6In this respect, pragmatist anthropology shares some common premises with the German tradition of philosophical anthropology. Classical representatives of that tradition, such as Scheler, Gehlen, and Plessner, attempted to investigate the specific natural endowments of human beings in light of a naturalistic analysis and biological findings (Scheler 1928/2018; Plessner 1928/2017; Gehlen 1962/2016; Honneth & Joas 1980). Nonetheless, the uniqueness of the pragmatist approach lies in its abandoning the theory of an ontological gap between human beings and other natural organisms, with its dangerous anthropocentric arguments for human exceptionalism and ontological superiority (Dreon 2022). Rather, as the essays of this section point out, pragmatists were more interested in placing human beings and their specific form of life in its continuity, emergence, interconnectedness, and reciprocal transformation with the rest of nature. The identification of different but interconnected dimensions of nature (inorganic, organic, and human) discloses fundamental perspectives for our present, such as the acknowledgment of the affective dimension of human experience and normativity (Dreon); the practical rootedness and renegotiation of self-consciousness, reason and freedom (Feige); and the extension of symbols and mind to nature (Raduly).

2. Critical Natures

7The second group of papers focuses on the critical aim of a pragmatist anthropology. In the pragmatist tradition, philosophy was far from being a merely theoretical, armchair intellectual exercise: it was conceived rather as a practical and experimental enterprise, a tool for the enhancement and reconstruction of life, and given the social aspect of human life, it was a means for social transformation. The anthropological reconsideration of human beings, human societies and cultures as parts of nature led American pragmatists to further grasp the practical, normative, and transformative import of thinking in general, and philosophical and scientific thinking in particular. If natural life, across its plural dimensions, is interdependence, transformation, and change with the external environment, then thinking, and especially philosophical thinking about human nature, not only takes part in life as transformation but acquires the task of intelligently analyzing social experiences and critically orienting change with an eye to improving associated life (Särkelä 2017). Nature, society, and critique are thus constitutive and interconnected elements of a pragmatist anthropology. This has allowed contemporary studies to acknowledge American pragmatism as part of the broader family of critical theory, along with the Marxian and the Frankfurt School traditions (Frega 2014; Testa 2017; Renault 2018; Särkelä 2020; Viola 2020; Alexandratos 2021; Gregoratto et al. 2023). It has been shown that pragmatist anthropologies such as Dewey’s, Follett’s, Addams’, and Du Bois’ provide critical perspectives on the categories that we live with every day in contemporary societies, such as those of self-realization, values, gender, race, ecology, and class (Seigfried 1996; Sullivan 2001; Pappas 2008; Gregoratto 2018; Boronat 2022; Hensoldt 2022).

8The essays by Armando Manchisi, Matteo Santarelli, and Shannon Sullivan go in this direction while showing that recovering a pragmatist concept of nature and human nature does not entail either outlining rigid and absolute accounts of human self-realization and social interests or naturalizing systems of social oppressions such as racist relationships. On the contrary, recovering a pragmatist concept of nature means shedding a critical light on stiffening social processes, structures, and conditions in light of a relational and creative understanding of the human-environment relationship and a critical observation of experience. A pragmatist anthropology lends itself to disclosing new accounts of human self-realization, where the concept of individuality goes hand in hand with that of creativity and sociality (Manchisi), new conceptions of human interests alternative to individualistic, economic, and value-free ones (Santarelli), as well as fundamental elements for a critical anthropology of race and whiteness (Sullivan).

3. Interdisciplinary Exchanges

9Finally, the anthropological ideas of the early pragmatists either influenced or were in a fruitful exchange with the approaches and theories of nascent cultural and social anthropology, in line with the interdisciplinary commitment intrinsic to their philosophical tradition. Cultural and social anthropologists such as Franz Boas, Bronisław Malinowski, Gene Weltfish, Alexander Lessler, Leslie White, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict share several theoretical assumptions with pragmatist anthropology, such as the primacy of experience on theory and the centrality of the categories of communication, freedom, and education (Torres Colón & Hobbs 2015). These scholars also informed the empirically rich, holistic and pluralist understanding of culture which characterizes pragmatist anthropology (Zask 2003; Brereton 2009; Goldman 2012; Dreon 2022).

10The exchange between philosophy and anthropology continues to this day. A pragmatistically oriented anthropology is committed to disclosing a pluralist perspective on nature while tracing an ontological continuity in the pervasiveness of habits and meanings in nature: this may reveal major points of convergence with recent attempts by contemporary anthropology to question the modern anthropocentric and Eurocentric cosmology (Descola 2005; Viveiros de Castro 2012; Kohn 2013).

11The contributions by Antonio Nunziante, Trevor Pearce and Christian Frigerio shed light on the interdisciplinary exchanges between pragmatism, anthropology and other social sciences. Nunziante and Pearce explore these exchanges by focusing on the history of late nineteenth-century and mid-twentieth-century thought, while Frigerio draws a connection between William James and more recent works by Latour, Viveiros de Castro, and other scholars involved in the “ontological turn” of contemporary anthropology.

12As research on the specific contours of a pragmatist anthropology is relatively new, this special issue intends to focus on the uniqueness of early American pragmatists’ anthropological reflections, with attention to their theoretical, political, and social-critical implications. In parallel, it aims to investigate the intersections of pragmatist anthropology with the cultural anthropology of the time, its points of continuity or discontinuity with other traditions of philosophical anthropology, as well as its possible exchanges with, and contributions to, contemporary anthropology’s elaboration of a pluralistic conception of nature. Exploring the relationship between pragmatism and anthropology, in both a narrow and a broad sense of these two terms, and considering the past, the present, and the future of this relation is relevant from two main perspectives. First, it contributes to investigating the shared and personal contributions of early American pragmatists such as Peirce, James, Dewey, Follett, Addams, Du Bois and Mead to the development of a pragmatist anthropology, as well as its suitability to address contemporary social challenges. Second, it offers an opportunity to examine the exchanges that a pragmatist philosophical anthropology could have not only with other traditions of philosophical anthropology, but with anthropology itself, thus fostering inter- or trans-disciplinary discussions.

This research was supported by University of Parma through the action Bando di Ateneo 2021 per la ricerca co-funded by MUR-Italian Ministry of Universities and Research - D.M. 737/2021 - PNR - PNRR - NextGenerationEU,” and by the project PNRR-M4C2- I1.1 – MUR Call for proposals n. 1409 del 14-09-2022 - Bando PRIN 2022 PNRR - ERC sector SH5- Project title: Transforming Habits [TRANSHAB]. Agency, Cognition, and Social Change - Project Code P2022K7B7E- CUP Code D53D23019710001- Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU.

Top of page

Bibliography

Addams Jane, (1902/2002), Democracy and Social Ethics, Champaign, University of Illinois Press.

Alexandratos Francesca Sofia, (2021), “The Structure of Human Action as a Criterion for Social Analysis. The Living Bond Between Honneth and Joas’ Project of Social Action and Human Nature and John Dewey’s Naturalistic Humanism,” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 13(2). Online: https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.2553.

Bernstein Richard, (1971), Praxis and Action, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bernstein Richard, (2010), The Pragmatic Turn, Malden, Polity Press.

Boronat Núria, (2022), “Towards a Pragmatist and Feminist Theory of Oppression: Thoughts on Gender, Race, and Class,” in Núria Boronat & Michela Bella (eds), Women in Pragmatism: Past, Present, and Future, Cham, Springer, 27-39.

Brereton Dereck, (2009), “Why Sociological Anthropology Needs John Dewey’s Evolutionary Model of Experience,” Anthropological Theory, 9(1), 5-32.

Calcaterra Rosa & Giancarlo Marchetti (eds), (2015), Il pragmatismo. Dalle origini agli sviluppi contemporanei, Roma, Carocci.

Descola Philippe, (2005), Par-delà nature et culture, Paris, Gallimard.

Dewey John, (1920/1982), Reconstruction in Philosophy, in The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899-1924, vol. 12, ed. by Jo Ann Boydston, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press.

Dreon Roberta, (2022), Human Landscapes: Contributions to a Pragmatist Anthropology, New York, State University of New York Press.

Fischer Marilyn, (2019), Jane Addams’ Evolutionary Theorizing, Chicago, The Chicago University Press.

Follett Mary Parker, (1924/2013), Creative Experience, Mansfield, Martino Publishing.

Frega Roberto, (2014), “Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory: Social Philosophy Today,” Human Studies, 37(1), 57-82.

Gehlen Arnold, (1962/2016), Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt, Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann.

Goldman Loren, (2012), “Dewey’s Pragmatism from an Anthropological Point of View,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 48(1), 1-30.

Gregoratto Federica, (2018), “Critica del dominio di genere e di classe. Verso una lettura intersezionalista di J. Dewey e J. Addams,” La Società degli individui, 63, 20-34.

Gregoratto Federica, Renault Emmanuel, Särkelä Arvi, Testa Italo & Heikki Ikäheimo, (2022), “Critical Naturalism: A Manifesto,” Krisis, 42(1), 108-24.

Hensoldt Agnieszka, (2022), “Looking for Feminist Pragmatist Roots of Degrowth Ideas: Jane Addams, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Caroline Bartlett Crane,” in Núria Boronat & Michela Bella (eds), Women in Pragmatism: Past, Present, and Future, Cham, Springer, 237-49.

Honneth Axel & Hans Joas, (1980), Soziales Handeln und Menschliche Natur, Frankfurt am Main, Campus Verlag.

James William, (1909/1977), A Pluralistic Universe, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Kohn Eduardo, (2013), How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Misak Cheryl, (2013), The American Pragmatists, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pappas Gregory Fernando, (2008), John Dewey’s Ethics: Democracy as Experience, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Pearce Trevor, (2020), Pragmatism’s Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy, Chicago, The Chicago University Press.

Plessner Helmuth, (1928/2017), Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch, Berlin, De Gruyter.

Renault Emmanuel, (2018), Marx and Critical Theory, Brill, Leiden.

Särkelä Arvi, (2017), “Immanent Critique as Self-transformative Practice: Hegel, Dewey, and Contemporary Critical Theory,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 31(2), 218-30.

Särkelä Arvi, (2020), “American Pragmatism and Frankfurt School Critical Theory: A Family Drama,” in Michael Festl (ed.), Pragmatism and Social Philosophy, New York, Routledge, 145-62.

Scheler Max, (1928/2018), Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos, Hamburg, Meiner Verlag.

Seigfried Charlene Haddock, (1996), Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric, Chicago, The Chicago University Press.

Sullivan Shannon, (2001), Living Across and Through Skins: Transactional Bodies, Pragmatism, and Feminism, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Testa Italo, (2017), “Dewey, Second Nature, Social Criticism, and the Hegelian Heritage,” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 9(1). Online: https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.990.

Torres Colón Gabriel Alejandro & Charles Hobbs, (2015), “The Intertwining of Culture and Nature: Franz Boas, John Dewey, and Deweyan Strands of American Anthropology,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 76(1), 139-62.

Viola Tullio, (2020), “Il primato dell’esperienza: la critica della cultura nel pragmatismo,” La società degli individui, 67(1), 22-35.

Viveiros de Castro Eduardo, (2012), Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere, Manchester, HAU.

Zask Joëlle, (2003), Art et Démocratie. Les peuples de l’art, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Sofia Alexandratos, Italo Testa and Tullio Viola, “Introduction: Pragmatism and Anthropology”European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], XVI-2 | 2024, Online since 19 December 2024, connection on 18 June 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/4499; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/12yw0

Top of page

About the authors

Sofia Alexandratos

University of Minho
sofia.alexandratos[at]elach.uminho.pt

Italo Testa

University of Parma
italo.testa[at]unipr.it

By this author

Tullio Viola

Maastricht University
t.viola[at]maastrichtuniversity.nl

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search