Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism Our argument in "Why Pragmatists Cannot Be Pluralists" can be stated succinctly. Any view that deserves to be called pragmatist is broadly meliorist in that it aims at the resolution of conflicts by means of methods that can be plausibly held to be intelligent, rational, open, and non-violent. Among pragmatists there are two general styles of pursuing this meliorist aim.' According to what we called inquiry pragmatism, conflicts are to be resolved by the thoroughgoing application of proper methods of inquiry; this would require not only processes of ongoing experimentation but also efforts to maintain the conditions under which inquiry could continue. According to what we called meaning pragmatism, conflicts are to be dissolved by a pragmatic reconstruction of the terms in which the conflict is cast; this means that, when confronted with apparendy interminable disputes, we ought to revise our vocabularies in ways that, as William James advised, "bring in peace" (1977, p. 349).^ In both cases, pragmatic practice presumes that (1) conflicts are resolvable by intelligent means, and (2) it is better to resolve conflicts intelligendy than to let them stand. There is a family of views popular among contemporary philosophers, political theorists, and policymakers that is called pluralism. Although pluralism comes in several versions, ranging from Berlin-style ontological pluralism to later Rawlsian epistemic or procedural varieties, all pluralisms deny (1) or (2), or both. Our conclusion is that pragmatists cannot be pluralists. Of course, this obvious demonstradon would be of no interest were it not for the fact that contemporary pragmatists working in the classical idiom are fond of characterizing themselves as pluralists. It would be uncharitable to conclude simply that all such pragmatists are caught in a simple confusion, so these theorists must mean by 'pluralism' something else. But what'i Our survey of the contemporary literature found, despite frequent if not excessive use of the term, no explicit analysis of the concept and no comparative engagement with the alternative versions of pluralism in currency. We thus took up the task of trying to discern for ourselves what pragmatists mean by 'pluralism'. This led us to the view that by 'pluralism' pragmatists typically mean a principled commitment to admirable habits of openness, inclusion, tolerance, anti-hegemony, and experimentalism in all aspects of moral, political, and intellectual life. We share Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society Winter, 2005, Vol. XLI, No. 1 146 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin these commitments, but challenge the value of the pragmadsts' terminology. Our case against sustaining the pragmadsts' habit of employing 'pluralism' as a blanket for the above commitments is itself straightforwardly pragmadc. As the pragmadsts' commitments are incompadble with the range of views called 'pluralism' in broader, non-pragmadst arenas, the pragmadsts' habit of characterizing their commitments as 'pluralism' can only invite conftision and encourage insularity. As both confusion and insularity are blocks to the kind of amelioradve social and polidcal programs advocated by pragmadsts, we conclude that pragmadsts should drop the language of pluralism. However, we do not see our argument as simply recommending increased semandc discipline among contemporary pragmadsts. The oft-cited but much less often followed Deweyan injuncdon to surrender the "problems of philosophers" and pursue "the problems of men" (1980, p. 46) applies equally to the problems of pragmatist philosophers. We today confront a social, political, and moral landscape that invites analyses according to which deep and pressing conflicts are the manifestadon of incommensurable world views and as such are beyond intelligent or rational amelioradon.* Pragmadsts must oppose these tendencies; accordingly, they must oppose views commonly known as pluralism. When pragmadsm's aspiradon to be a fully public philosophy is conjoined with its fallibilism and expedmentalism, such opposidon must manifest itself in direct confrontadon with pluralist arguments. Thus, we conclude that insofar as pragmadsts are not undertaking the project of cridcally engaging pluralists, they are betraying their own doctrine. In the spirit of open inquiry, self-cridcism, and cross-sub-disciplinary dialogue, we delivered versions of "Why Pragmadsts Cannot be Pluralists" to pragmadst audiences on two occasions. Our arguments withstood objecdons raised in these arenas. Here, we are grateRil for the opportunity to respond to the foregoing cridcal essays. We shall argue that none of these overturns our flindamental posidon: we sdll hold that pragmadsts cannot be pluralists. In order to ensure that we attend to each line of cridcism with the necessary care, we shall address each response in turn. Before beginning, we should like to thank our interlocutors for taking the dme to craft their replies, and Peter Hare for organizing this symposium. We share with Hare the hope that this exchange will open the way for new work among pragmadsts and encourage engagement with contemporary non-pragmadst theorists. Sullivan and Lysaker: Tes, We're Talking to Tou Michael Sullivan and John Lysaker (hereafter, S&L) challenge our diesis on three fronts. First, they maintain that our choice of definidons of 'pluralism' is idiosyncradc and ill-fitted for our purposes. Second, they hold that our argument that shallow pluralism is pluralism in name only is unsound. And third, they contend that our argument against modus vivendi pluralism on the basis of Its instability misses the fallibilist heart of the pragmadst enterprise. Their essay is Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 147 rhetorically forcefiil and pointed, but they are mistaken on all fronts. The polemical tone of S8cL's paper invites a response in kind, and we shall oblige. With regard to the first challenge, both in our original paper and above we provide a rough sense of what we take pragmadsts to mean by the term 'pluralism', and argue that it is inconsistent with the pluralisms in currency in the wider philosophical arena. Apparendy, S8cL reject our characterizadon of die pragmadsts' use of the term.^ This normally places the dialecdcal onus on the purportedly pluralist pragmadst to provide a procedtirally viable pluralism that is not one of our opdons and is consistent with pragmadsm. If we have overlooked or missed some feattire of the pragmadc tradidon's explicit formuladons of the view, we ask that it be brought forth. The challenge is to formulate a pragmadc pluralism that is not shallow. S&L make no attempt to do so. Instead, S8cL press their supposed analogies between our argument and Lewis's restricted nodon of democracy and the benighted soul who objects to Kant's transcendental philosophy because it is not like Indian mysdcism. But these purportedly analogous circumstances are cases where there are clear differences between the two contested uses of the terms; that is, they are cases of demonstrable and uncontroversial equivocadon. Like James widi the squirrel debate, one addresses such conflicts by poindng out the difference between two senses of the same word. So the Kandan will say to the mysdc, "By 'transcendental' I denote a method of philosophizing from a certain perspecdve where we say something is actual, and then ask how it is possible." Or with regard to 'democracy', we say to Lewis that there are different forms of democracy such that the United States is not a direct democracy, but a consdttidonal democracy. According to S8cL, then, we have made a simple mistake; hence a simple response should be in the offing. So where is it? Is it so obvious that S&L don't need to give it, or even provide citadons to work in which it can be found.' Or are they bluffing.' A bluff is as good as a fi.ill house even in philosophy ... except when you get called on it. S8cL's second challenge is that our argument that shallow pluralism is pluralism in name only is not sound. They argue that we are wrong to contend that monists may exemplify all the descripdve and procedural components of the shallow pluralist program. In our original essay, Plato and Descartes were our examples of tolerant monists. S8cL concede that although these philosophers meet the descriptive criteria for shallow pluralism, they reject the idea that Plato and Descartes are sufficiendy committed to the procedural criterion of toleration. S&L present two nodons of how monists might meet the former criteria but fail to sadsfy the latter. They argue that although one may meet the descripdve requirement of grandng a variety of views access to public debate, one may nonetheless fail to be tolerant if one argues that all views other than one's own are bunk or if one seeks to persecute those who promote opposing views. S&L are correct to think that the suppression of dissent by raw force is not a tolerant procedure, but it is not clear that the enterprise of demonstradng that 148 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin others' views are false consdtutes intolerance. What, after all, is the properly tolerant response to deep disagreement.' Would S8cL have it that tolerance requires us to allow those with whom we disagree a place in the debate, but never engage them by offering cridcisms of their views.' Or do tliey hold that tolerance requires that we agree.' Surely tolerance can exist only where there is disagreement, and toleradon ^M« mutual disinterest is no toleradon at all. There is no intolerance in thinking that those with whom you disagree are wrong; there is, however, a serious form of intolerance in acting like you've already shown, or don't have to show, where they are wrong. There is nothing in our view of toleradon that a Cartesian or Platonist could not abide. But perhaps the thought driving S&L's point is that there is no positive case for toleradon made by these thinkers? Maybe this is true, but it is of no consequence since the case that shallow pluralism is consistent with monism about value nonetheless stands. To see this, consider as another historical example John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty (1991), Mill argues for a robust theory of individual liberty on the basis of a monist theory of value. Mill's argument is, roughly, that a society which protects a broad range of individual liberdes and which culdvates in cidzens a posidve apprcciadon of diversity is best at maximizing that which is of intrinsic value, namely pleasure. It would be difficult to name a thinker more strongly committed to the values of toleradon and diversity than Mill. And yet, as he regards "udlity as the uldmate appeal on all ethical quesdons" (1991, p. 15), he is an unabashed value monist. Xnd so our original posidon remains: Shallow pluralism is consistent with value monism, and thus not really pluralism at all. S8cL fiirther charge that our version of shallow pluralism is incomplete. In addidon to our admittedly limited list of procedural requirements consdtudve of the shallow pluralist enterprise, S8cL propose that a Rirther requirement be added, namely, that one should forego searching for criteria for categorically resolving disputes. The requirement is posited on the close connccdon between dogmadsm and intolerance - namely, that if one dogmadcally holds a view, one is inclined to be intolerant of those who do not share it. We do not dispute this connecdon; however, it is unclear that the pursuit of categorical soludons must yield either dogmadsm or intolerance. Surely one could believe that there is but one correct answer to an ethical conflict, look for it, but nonetheless take a failibilist atdtude concerning one's current answers and be willing to recognize that at least in the short-run several mutually exclusive posidons are well jusdfied. V^at modvates this failibilist atduide is the thought that when confronted with conflict, one should inquire. On the failibilist story, the value of openness to diverse viewpoints and the willingness to countenance reasonable disagreement consists precisely in that such atdtudes are necessary for proper truth-seeking. Hence S&L get the point endrely backwards. It is not the search for categorical, definidve, and final resoludons to problems that generates dogmadsm, but rather the unwarranted Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 149 confidence that one has such answers. To explain: Imagine someone unwarrantedly believing herself to have the final answer to some issue. Is she dogmatic because she'd been searching for that kind of answer.' We contend that it is the unwarranted confidence in the finality of her answer that is constitutive of her dogmatism, not her search for such an answer! Further, it is precisely in the ongoing process of pursuing such answers that false stopping points and dogmatism are held at bay. A second procedural difficulty with S&L's proposal is evident when we ask the question. What role would a Cartesian foundationalist have in the pluralist conversation were S8cL's proposal in place." No Cartesian could abide the requirement that we give up on the search for criteria for categorically resolving disputes. Are S&L proposing - in the name of tolerance and anti-dogmatism! - that we ignore or exclude foundationalists,' But this is inconsistent with the fallibilist component of the shallow pluralist program because, after all, it may be that there are some beliefs that are incorrigible or immediately justified. Suppose that some foundationalist proposed an argument that there are such beliefs and that they provided the kind of criteria that S&L deny are possible. Would S&L propose that we are not to countenance such arguments precisely because we are pluralists,' The prohibition seems then to treat the rejection of categorical solutions as itself a categorical solution. Such a prohibition is procedurally antifallibilist, and is, as a consequence, in tension with the other components of shallow pluralism, Consequendy, S&L's proposal is unstable. Yet, contra S&L's anticipations, the instability does not consist in the tenuousness of modus vivendi power balancing; rather, it is unstable because it is procedurally incoherent. S&L's third challenge is that modus vivendi pluralism is more acceptable to the Deweyan fallibilist program than we appreciate. Note, though, that this is beside the point, as our case against a Deweyan shallow pluralism derives not from the dangers of the modus vivendi, power-balancing model, but from its own staicttiral flaw. Regardless, S&L reject our argument against modus vivendi pluralism. They pose three challenges. First they claim that since we do not have 'perfect foreknowledge' of Riture events, our predictions of the model's instability are unwarranted. Second they contend that the instability of a model is not yet detrimental to the program because fallibilists aren't looking for fmal answers. Third they maintain that our review of valuational solutions to the instability - namely, indifference and recognition - is insufficiently clear, S&L's perfect foreknowledge objection is nothing more than a smokescreen. Peace that is secured by the relative balance of power between two factions who would each annihilate the other should the chance arise will dissolve when the balance of power dissipates, or appears to shift even slightly. Given that environments change and the fates are fickle, such truces are unstable. We take it that we need not catalogue the historical evidence for this position. Does this require perfect foreknowledge? No. At least no more than is required to make 150 Robert B. Talisse &: Scott F. Aikin good decisions when making seating arrangements for a wedding reception. Or for one to lock one's car doors when parking downtown. We agree that the fallibilist attitude S&:L take toward modus vivendi instability is an appropriate attitude to take toward political solutions. Often political quick fixes are all we can expect. But we deny that this could be the end of the story with Deweyan politics. How is a Hobbesian tmce between conflicted parties supposed to yield the way of life that constitutes Deweyan democracy? On this picture democracy presents no "task before us." S8cL propose that their model for Deweyan modus vivendi pluralism is stable enough and proffers these goods. They propose, further, that our sketch of modus vivendi pluralism is too thin, and it is with a more nuanced notion of recognition that the model may be saved from our criticisms. However, their proposed notion of recognition also fails to address our argument. Our claim is that recognition, as a background requirement for securing the peace (and other goods) past the threat of annihiladon is a requirement (regardless of its specific content) that cannot be presumed by a pluralist program. S&L propose the Habermasian notion of recognition as one we do not sufficiently address. But note that this Habermasian requirement is entirely conditional: S&L say recognition is "a precondition for meaningfiil debate." Yet this is to presume that the opposed parties are already committed to communicating with each other rather than to simply fighting it out. Accordingly, S&iL's point is, again, backwards: The requirement is supposed to motivate the commitment to recognition, not be motivated by it. On the one hand, unless both parties are already committed to speaking non-coercively with each other, the claims of recognition are beside the point. Again, this is because Hobbesian peace is precisely the kind of peace where those commitments do not obtain. On the other hand, recognition may be a value that the parties ought to have. But if this is the case, then there are some overriding values to countenance when facing value conflict, and this amounts to the falsity of pluralism. It follows, then, that recognition is a stmcturally flawed and, in the end, anti-pluralist means for saving modus wVewrf* pluralism. Finally, let us address the general criticism that we do not provide the pragmatist with sufficient motivation for bothering with what non-pragmatists mean by pluralism. S&iL contend we do not say what is at stake for pragmadsts such that they should heed our recommendations to even consider dropping the term so that they may more fmitfully debate with pluralists. But in both our original essay and in our introductory remarks above we in fact do make a case for the kind of engagement we are calling for, and we think that this case is pragmatic in character. To repeat: Current social and political conditions invite pluralist analyses. Such analyses contend that familiar conflicts between cultures, religions, ethnic and economic groups are irremediable except by power and coercion. The suggestion that processes of collective inquiry could help to ameliorate such conflicts is rendered sadly naive if not coverdy tyrannical. If the Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 151 pluralist analyses are allowed to stand unchallenged, the prospects for the kind of society envisioned by pragmadsts worsen; if the pluralists are correct, then pragmadsts must abandon their doctrine. Insofar as pragmadsts wish to avoid error and promote the goods they hold dear, they must engage those with whom they disagree; insofar as pluralism is a prominent and publicly engaged opposing philosophical view, pragmadsts should join the debate. Such is, for the third dme, our pragmadc case for dropping the term. S&L do not acknowledge, let alone address, this argument in their response. Nor do they give any indicadon of what they take to be the pragmadc value of retaining the term 'pluralism'. And so once again they fail to meet typical dialecdcal burdens. In this way, their dde, which alludes to the unsetding scene in Mardn Scorsese's Taxi Driver of Travis Bickle standing alone before a mirror while merely pretending to confront an adversary, is especially apt. Eldridge: Pragmatism in Mixed Company In his characterisdcally reserved and reflecdve contribudon, Michael Eldridge expresses his condnuing allegiance to the term 'pluralism' even though he is willing to concede our arguments. Eldridge's piece is especially helpfi.il in that it confirms our posidon regarding what pragmadsts typically mean by 'pluralism'. Describing a view he eventually calls "soft pluralism," Eldridge both acknowledges the inevitability of conflict, disagreement, and dissent across society, and affirms the value of pracdces that seek to transform intelligendy these forces into means out of which might develop resoludons, improved condidons, and better practices. He upholds the values of toleradon, openness, inclusiveness, and experimentalism, and, in the end, allows that the pracdce of these values must extend not only to pragmadsts who reject pluralism but also to philosophers who reject pragmadsm. We share Eldridge's atdtudes, and promise to do our best to repress cringes when he refers to himself as a "soft pluralist" in our company. Eldridge's contdbudon occasions a thought not developed explicidy in "Why Pragmadsts Cannot Be Pluralists." As Eldridge's discussion suggests, pragmadsts are committed to the values of openness, toleradon, and the like for instrumental reasons. That is, these commitments are jusdfied not by way of some theory of intdnsic value, but rather because they are appropriate means to some end. What is this end.> Eldridge gives a good pragmadst answer: he upholds these values because he wants to live in a Deweyan democradc polity that can intelligendy transform expedence and reconstaict society. He correcdy believes that the pracdce of these values is necessary to that end. But this kind of argument implicidy entails that there are no radonal-yet-irreconcilable conflicts at the level of these ends. Pragmadsts are tolerant and open because their social ends require these atdtudes; so what looks like a pluralism at one level is really only the pracdcal requirement of a deeper and-pluralism at the level of ends. This point is exemplified by Eldridge's willingness to "include in [his] 152 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin pragmadst tent all sorts of people who call themselves 'pragmadsts' but who disagree with one another about a whole variety of issues." Of course, the pragmadst tent Eldridge alludes to is a loosely-spun web of pracdces and principles that is ever in progress and always revisable. But the point is nonetheless that the tent is the pragmatist's tent, and the invitadon is to join processes-in-progress by which diese principles and pracdces are transformed. It is worth emphasizing that this tent, though it is a Quinean patchwork and not a fixed canopy, is nonetheless not value neutral and impardal. The invitadon into Eldridge's tent will consdtute to some an invitadon to abandon their most central and cherished commitments. For example, consider the Catholic who believes that certain pronouncements of the Pope are literally infallible and the reformed epistemologist who holds that the epistemic authority of certain texts trumps any countervailing evidence, observadon, or experiment. These individuals cannot pin the pragmadsts' project of subjecdng all claims to the test of ongoing inquiry. So the pragmadst's soft pluralism can serve as an invitadon only to those who already share the most ftindamental pragmadst commitments. Eldridge's soft pluralism seems to us not unlike the view we called "shallow pluralism," and it is not a pluralism at all. More importandy, we hold that Eldridge's soft pluralism is in fact at odds with the pragmadst social aspiradons that Eldridge endorses. If we are to pursue a more perfect democradc pracdce along Deweyan lines we must see our social obligadons as requiring more than a gracious invitadon to others to adopt our aspiradons and join our club. To be sure, many persons not in the pragmadst tent are thoughtfiil, intelligent, and reflecdve. Many do not merely not share the Deweyan aspiradons, they reject them, and some who reject them offer powerfi.il arguments against the Deweyan project. Here die pragmadst's fallibilism cuts both ways; it is not merely a weapon for cridcizing others' quest for certainty, it is an instrument of self-criticism. And the means of this self-cridcism consist in part in confronting the arguments, objecdons, reservadons, and cridcisms of those with whom we disagree at the most fundamental levels. In this way, the pragmatist aspiration to craft a social world more closely responsive to the best processes of intelligent inquiry requires that circle-the-wagons soft pluralism give way to a more contendous and acdvist pragmadsm, one that openly seeks out mixed company and unrecepdve interlocutors, one that thereby accepts the risks inherent in any living philosophy. Misak: Pluralism and the Practice of Inquiry Cheryl Misak accepts part of our thesis, but backs away from the Rill conclusion that pragmadsts cannot be pluralists. She agrees that insofar as pluralism is the diesis that value incommensurability is the proper default metaethic from which our philosophical deliberadons about value are to proceed, pluralism and pragmadsm are at odds. This is so, she argues, because such pluralism is at odds with the reguladve assumpdons of proper inquiry. Following Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 153 Peirce, Misak maintains that inquiry is the attempt to get the right answer to some quesdon. Accordingly, inquiry proceeds upon the reguladve assumpdon that the quesdons to which it is applied admit of some right answer. The phenomenology of moral experience - pardcularly the experience of moral disagreement - leads us to inquire into moral quesdons by exchanging reasons, arguments, and consideradons. That is, moral experience leads us to moral inquiry and moral inquiry proceeds on the assumpdon that pluralism is false. So no pragmadst can be, as Misak puts it, a "principled pluralist." We take it that Misak means by "principled pluralism" the thesis that we can know ex ante that certain moral disputes are irresolvable, and thus that inquiry into those disputes would be Ridle. However, Misak also holds that the pragmadst cannot be what we shall call a "principled and-pluralist." Principled and-pluralism is the thesis that we can know ex ante that every dispute admits of inquiry and can be resolved at least in the long run. Put another way, the principled and-pluralist holds the quasi-Hegelian view that all conflicts are transitory bumps along the road of inquiry, necessary obstacles on the way to a truth that we cannot help but realize. Hence Misak contends that a pragmadst must allow for the possibility that inquiry could lead to pluralist conclusions with regard to certain domains of opinion. She offers two types of case in which inquiry could lead to pluralism. First, Misak asks us to consider a classic tragic conflict of the Sophie's Choice variety: at the insistence of a Nazi guard, a Jewish mother must choose one of her two children to send to the gas chamber. Misak holds that this kind of case reveals that some moral conflicts are such that "no decent soludon" is possible. No soludon is decent, we suppose, because every course of acdon involves an irreparable and unacceptable loss, a "wretched compromise." We concede that such cases are possible, and that when they do occur they mark a genuine tragedy for the agents involved. Yet this is not in itself enough to entail the pluralist conclusion. Certainly, there is no decent soludon for the mother, no course of acdon will seem to her acceptable. But this is consistent with there being a single and morally opdmal soludon to her conflict. To see this, consider that if any of the going udlitarian theories is true, there could be a single, decisive, and correct answer to the quesdon, "What should the mother do.'" Admittedly, such an answer may be of litde consoladon to the mother, and even a knock-down proof of udlitarianism may be insufficient to convince her that the prescribed acdon is morally proper. Moral philosophy is different from moral psychology in at least this respect. Nonetheless, that there is no acdon available that would seem proper to the mother does not entail the pluralist meta-ethical view that the conflict is "impossible." In part, the quesdon turns on what one takes the tragedy of the case to consist in. A udiitarian could argue, plausibly in our view, that the tragedy consists not in there being no correct choice (where would the tragedy be in that>), but in the fact that the mother, even if she does the right thing, must suffer terribly and must suffer as much as she would were she to do the morally wrong 154 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin thing. Put another way, the tragedy of the case consists in that no action could seem decent, even the morally proper one\ In any case, the point is that a monist value theory can countenance the tragic nature of such cases. The pluralist conclusion follows only if it can be shown that monist ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, are false. But surely this is a matter into which there is still much inquiry to be done. Second, Misak invites us to consider cases in which there are "a number of equally good and culturally specific ways of answering a moral question." The thought here is that inquiry may lead to the conclusion that there are several distinct but well-justified answers. It seems especially likely that in cases involving cross-cultural and cross-sub-cultural comparisons we may find that "different answers will be equally acceptable." It is unfortunate that Misak does not offer an example of the kind of case she has in mind. It seems she is thinking of cases in which a group. A, comes to recognize that some other group, B, engages in moral practices that are quite different from and in conflict with its own. Inquiry into the matter could yield the result that the respective practices of both A and B, though inconsistent with each other, are nonetheless consistent with good reasons, evidence, and argument. We are prepared to admit with Misak that inquiry into a given question can result in this kind of rational stalemate among competing options. However, unlike the pragmatist, the pluralist is committed to the permanence of this condition: the deep pluralist maintains that such stalemates reveal a bnite fact about value ontology, and the modus vivendi pluralist is committed to practices that restrict the spheres of engagement among A and B. In both cases, the result is to deny or restrict occasions for fi.irther inquiry. Surely this is inconsistent with the pragmatist's fallibilism, for it is to suppose that some particular outcome of inquiry - namely, that A and B, though incompatible, are equally acceptable - is beyond revision. So we take it that where the pragmatist countenances such stalemates, she must see them as short-run indeterminacies, conflicts that in principle could be resolved by further inquiry. Of course, this does not commit the pragmatist to the practical task of refusing to let stalemates persist. Sometimes, "live and let live" policies are the best responses to conflict. However, the pragmatist is committed to leaving open the channels by which further inquiry regarding a stalemate could commence, and is flirther committed to actually pursuing those channels should circumstances require. In this respect, the pragmatist must reject deep and modus vivendi pluralism, and, as we have argued, these are the only genuine pluralisms. This is not to commit the pragmatist to a program that seeks to "level all difference" in any insidious sense. In fact, we contend that the pragmatist's injunction to never abandon inquiry is a necessary component of a proper theory of difference. To explain: it is precisely because the project of continuing inquiry Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 155 constantly places before us the rationality of those with whom we disagree that we come to respect and non-repressively tolerate deep differences. Put otherwise, it is in the process of engaging our differences - exchanging arguments, voicing cridcisms, and responding to objections - that we come to see each other as reasoning and reasonable agents. By contrast, where processes of inquiry are disengaged, straw men, as well as other, more pernicious distortions, thrive. Thus we can accommodate Misak's points. Pragmadsts must indeed recognize the possibility that moral inquiry, even when properly conducted, might fail to produce a single decisive resolution to a given conflict. But this concession is not sufficient to block the more general conclusion that pragmatists cannot be pluralists. What would be required to get that conclusion would be an argument to the effect that pragmatists may hold that, with regard to certain moral conflicts, inquiry would be in principle flitile.* But no pragmatist can hold such a view. The pragmadst is committed to the revisibility of all outcomes of inquiry, including those outcomes that led her to previously judge a certain conflict a stalemate. This fallibilism, moreover, leads the pragmadst to adopt a state of readiness to re-engage inquiry when new experience or evidence so requires. This in turn entails a recepdveness to new experiences and evidence from diverse sources. So, again, it seems that the pragmadst can be a shallow pluralist. But a shallow pluralist is not a pluralist at all. And so pragmadsts cannot be pluralists. Jackman: A Noble but Unsuccessful Proposal In his careful and well-argued contribudon, Henry Jackman takes up direcdy the challenge set forth in our paper. Jackman not only asserts, widi S&:L and Eldridge, that indeed pragmadsts can be pluralists, he acuially attempts to construct a pragmadst pluralism. Accordingly, Jackman also goes flirther than Misak. He does not present pluralism as a lamentable but possible outcome of inquiry for which pragmadsts must be prepared; instead, he presents pluralism as a posidve entailment of his pragmadsm. The result of Jackman's endeavors is a fascinadng construcdvist-pragmadst version of value pluralism. However, as we shall argue, Jackman's pragmadst pluralism suffers an internal inconsistency. Jackman contends that our argument in "Why Pragmadsts Cannot Be Pluralists" is based upon a false trilemma between deep, shallow, and modus vivendi pluralism. He maintains that a construcdvist pluralism based in a Jamesian story about value is a fourth possibility that escapes our objecdons. However, in the end, Jackman's constmcdvist program is either a modus vivendi pluralism, or it is and-construcdvist and and-pluralist. Jackman's proposal confronts a dilemma that can be derived from three of his construcdvist commitments. Jackman holds that: (1) "[VJalues are produced by our pracdce of valuing." (2) "Value judgments aspire to be truth-apt, and 156 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin because of this, any set of valuadons can be cridcized for being inconsistent." (3) "Valuadons must be brought into 'wide' reflective equilibrium, and they succeed only by being tnie if they eventually do so." Note, first, that (1) is subject to two interpretadons. On the one hand, one could take (1) to mean that there is nothing more to value than the pracdce of individuals making value judgments. That is, (1) could be taken as the claim that the fact that some subject values x makes x valuable. Call this the phenomenalism interpretadon. On the other hand, one could take (1) to mean diat value involves not simply the pracdce of making value judgments, but also the process of coordinating such judgments. On this view, the pracdce of valuing also entails making value judgments about how values are to be arranged, which ones can be sacrificed, how they may be opdmally ordered, and so on. So, on this view, the pracdce of valuing is at least implicidy intelligent and deliberadve. This is, after all, the point of (3) - that the reflecdve equilibrium of values is consdtudve of the trtith of value judgments. We call this the coordinating mttvprtfiVion. Jackman attributes (1) to William James, and he cites specifically James's essay on "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life." James's own formuladons of (1) favor the phenomenalism interpretadon. Consider the following two passages from James: Moral reladons have their status, in that being's consciousness. So far as he feels anything to be good, he makes it good. (1977, pp. 145-6) [WJe see not only that without a claim actually made by some concrete person there can be no obligation, but that there is some obligation wherever there is a claim. (1977 p. 148) James's constnicdvism is posited on the thought diat taking a thing as valuable is sufficient for a thing's having value. He overtly makes an analogy to the phenomenalist doctrine: "Its esse is percipi, like the esse of the ideals themselves which it sustains" (1977, p. 147). The aim of philosophical theorizing, then, is to trace the oughts oithtst values, not to the coordinadng pdnciples between them, but to the de facto consdtudon or temperament of the consciousness from which they arose. In contrast with James, Jackman's use of (1) favors the coordinating interpretadon of the pracdce of valuing,'' The norm constraining coordinadon is specified in (2): the values must be consistent. Certainly the consistency requirement is due not only to the truth-aptness of the values, but it is also a Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 157 requirement of pracdcal reason. The values must, when organized properly, form a set that does not entail that some values are undermined when put into pracdce. That is, the values must collecdvely consdtute a plan that will work. It seems, especially from the perspecdve of the pragmatist constaicdvist, that the grounds for the consistency requirement come from the pracdcability of the values. Thus the reason why inconsistent values are objecdonable is not because of any specific metaphysics, but because having cake and eating it are plans for acdon that are not joindy sadsfiable. It is precisely because of the pracdcal ground of value-coordinadon that the norm idendfied in (3) arises. And the pracdcal ground is also why the coordinadon is not just a subjective (or solitary) pracdce, but a ^o«'a/pracdce. The pracdcability of values not only must be assessed from the perspecdve of an individual's values but from the values individuals have as a community. Jackman notes that what forces this is that so long as individuals do not live in "twin solitudes," recognidon and interacdon involves trying to bring the combined yet confiicdng sets into reflecdve equilibrium. So, in light of the need to occupy a shared space and use the same resources, individuals must coordinate their values. But nodce that this pracdcal story is no different from our descripdon of modus vivendi pluralism. Jackman has also suggested that the indifferendst form of pluralism is a non-starter, and so he seems to be making the case for a recognidonist model. Hence Jackman notes that "[Rjecognidon and interacdon involves [sic] trying to bring the combined set of demands into equilibrium." Yet this presumes that the two individuals or groups already want to and ought to interact and recognize each other. However, this requirement is not entailed by Jackman's consistency requirement in (2). To be sure, tolerance and recognidon are indeed the operative values behind (3), but it is not clear that they are operadve in cases of real value conflict. Consider that in cases of serious conflict, people who take an atdttide of tolerance towards the other side are often considered traitors by their own. Nodce the way that the doctrine of appeasement with Hider's Germany is now viewed. Or the way die gay marriage and abordon debates proceed. In cases of deep conflict such as these, it is often thought that the very acknowledgement that there is a posidon on the other side to be reckoned with, or even responded to, is to betray one's own posidon.^ When we encounter those with whom we disagree over fi.indamental and important values, we do not see them as people with different or conflicting vzhics, we see them as people with the wrong values, or wo values at all. And the response here is that when people with the wrong values threaten our way of life, we do not go to the bargaining table with them right away. We stand up to them, we resist them, and if we can, we defeat them. It is only in cases where the prospects of successfi.il resistance are slim that we go to die bargaining table. Jackman's strategy hence presumes that atdtudes of goodwill, tolerance, and peacefi.ll interacdon are the default. But this presumpdon about humans who 15 8 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin value and feel vulnerable in the face of real conflict is unwarranted. The principle of consistency in (2) sdll obtains, but it provides no direct support for (3) on the social level. That is, as a matter of pracdcal reason on the individual level (2) underwrites (3), but this is not the case on the social level. The move from consistency to equilibrium at the social level requires that another norm be operadve. We can now state the dilemma confrondng Jackman's pluralism. Either the value of recognidon is one that is simply presumed to be part of the each member's value-set or it is a norm that regulates the social coordinadon of individual values. If it is the former, then Jackman is committed to the same background premises for stability that drove recognidonist modus vivendi pluralists. But, as we have argued, these commitments are not empirically sustainable. Real value conflict does not typically yield tolerance, but rather resentment and hatred. On Jackman's construcdvist derivadon of (3), there must be cases where values must be brought into reflecdve equilibrium because the pardes want them to be so. The fact of the matter, however, is that in cases of genuine value conflict, the pardes posidvely resist the idea of being brought into equilibrium. If (1) is true for these cases of value conflict, then (3) is false. If, alternatively, Jackman takes the latter horn of the dilemma, then there are norms that constrain the coordinadon of values and subjects. This entails that when we disagree, we ought to do something, call it x, in response to the disagreement, regardless of how we feel or what we want to do. Accordingly, on this view, those who hate their opponents and are unwilling to make concessions are simply wrong to do so. This is because there are right and wrong (or better and worse) ways to coordinate the different values. But if diis is so, then the process of coordinadng the values does not generate all the requisite norms; that is, there are some norms that govern the coordinadon independendy of our individual acts of coordinadng. On this reading of (3), the construcdvism of (1) is false. Therefore, Jackman is committed to either a recognidonist modus vivendi pluralism, or he must abandon the constnicdvism that drives his Jamesian story about value. But in neither case can he sustain his pragmadsm: modus vivendi pluralism is pragmadcally untenable because it is unstable in pracdce, and to reject construcdvism about value is equally at odds with pragmadsm. And so, again, pragmadsts cannot be pluralists. Vanderbilt University Robert.Talisse@vanderbilt.edu scott.faikin@vanderbilt.edu Still Searching for a Pragmatist Pluralism 159 REFERNCES Barber, Benjamin 1995 Jihad Vs. McWorld. New York: Ballatine Books, Crowder, George 2002 Liberalism and Value Pluralism. London: Continuum Books, Dewey, John 1980 The Middle Works of John Dewey. Vol, 10, Jo Ann Boydston (ed,), Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, Galston, William 2002 Liberal Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Gray, John 2000 Two Faces of Liberalism. New York: New Press, Mason, Carol 2002 Killing for Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, McDermott, John (ed,) 1977 ne Writings of William James. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Mill, John Stuart 1991 On Liberty and Other Essays. John Gray (ed,). New York: Oxford University Press, Mouffe, Chantal 2000 The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso, Talisse, Robert 2000 "Two-Faced Liberalism," Critical Review 14,4: 441 -458, 2003 "Can Democracy be a Way of Life?" Transactions of the C, S, Peirce SocietyXXii.lX.1: 1-21, 2004 "Can Value Pluralists be Comprehensive Liberals?" Omtemporary Political Theory 3.2: 127-139, NOTES 1, We should emphasize that we do not contend that these two styles are mutually exclusive. In fact, most versions of pragmatism employ elements of both. 2, Citations to James's work throughout will be keyed to McDermott 1977, 3, We hasten to note that pluralists may indeed be tolerant, open, inclusive, and experimental. Our point is that pluralists, unlike pragmatists, cannot uphold these as values that can be brought to hear upon conflicts among other values. That is, pluralism rejects the very idea of such prioritizing or rank-ordering of values, Pragmatists, by contrast, hold that at least with regard to a given conflict, certain values can trump those in conflict. Clear statements of the pluralist position can be found in Crowder 2002, Galston 2002, and Gray 2000, Galston is criticized in Talisse 2004 and Gray is criticized in Talisse 2000, For a discussion of pluralism as it relates to Deweyan democracy, see Talisse 2003, 4, The pluralist who most explicitly endorses this kind of view is John Gray (2000), It can also be found in agonistic pluralists such as Moufle (2000), A milder version can be found in Barber's (1995) image of "Jihad vs, McWorld," 5, A point that we make below should he noted here: Despite S&L's 160 Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin apparent rejecdon of our characterization, Michael Eldridge's contrihution to this symposium confirms our view of what pragmadsts mean by the term. 6. We add the qualifier "in principle" because we are willing to admit that pragmatists may hold that in certain contexts inquiry may be futile for other reasons: one might not have the dme to complete the inquiry, or the moral costs of inquiry might he prohibitively high, etc. 7. Given that James and Jackman employ different interpretadons of (1), we take issue with Jackman's claim that the pluralist construcdvist program he develops is Jamesian. Hence, if the program works, Jackman should get credit for it and in any case we should not be charged with overlooking it in the classical corpus. 8. With respect to the abordon debate, see Mason 2002. 9. The authors would like to thank D. Micah Hester for helpful discussion. Talisse would like to acknowledge that this essay was wdtten with the generous support of the Center for Ethics and Public Affeirs of the Murphy Institute for Political Economy at Tulane University.