Ryan Conway

5/1/12 Dr. Sanders

American Philosophy Final Paper
Inequality is present throughout our society. It runs rampant through our economy,
legal system, and the whole of our civilization. Although progress has occurred in the last few
centuries, we are far from reaching equality. Utilizing American Pragmatism, as described by
Dewey, James, Locke, and West, I believe we can alleviate many forms of social inequality,
oppression, and discrimination. In the following essay, I will describe a form of legal inequality
and the pragmatic solution to this problem. Many have offered criticism of pragmatism. They
explain that pragmatic philosophers do not address the issues of discrimination and oppression.
I will argue that Pragmatic philosophical discourse, when utilized as a tool, can alleviate these
social injustices.
Throughout our legal system, we can find traces of institutionalized oppression. Many
people do not realize that the formal structures put in place to protect a persons individual
rights actually hide a particularly cunning case of inequality. In other words, rights and laws
have become constraints that hide and reinforce hierarchies based on class, gender, race, and
sexual orientation. Legal reform cannot serve as a complete means for the reconstruction of
society. Our nation requires the informal and communal structure provided in Pragmatic
theory. This informal, pragmatic, and democratic community will provide a pluralistic
perspective that is more accepting of alternative viewpoints and opinions. It is this pluralistic
notion that may alleviate oppressive forces.
As Richard Delgado points out, members of the majority race will generally prefer
informality, minorities [will prefer] formality. Whites will want community. We will want the
safety that comes from structure, rights, and rules. They will want free-flowing, uninhibited,
interpersonal relationships with all the barriers down. We will settle for safety, even if that
means that some of the barriers must remain up.
1
The safety that Delgado believes is ensured
by formal structures of law is not impenetrable. Many forms of discrimination occur regardless
of the laws that were made to protect against it. In fact, these formal structures are utilized to
mask and conceal discrimination in our society. I would like to pause here and distinguish
between what I will call subtle discrimination and blatant or obvious discrimination. Blatant
discrimination is easily recognizable as oppressive or demeaning actions or words used against
a generalized group of people. This can include violent hate crimes, racial slurs, and openly
judging a person based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Subtle discrimination is
more difficult to identify, especially for white heterosexual males who do not typically
experience it. This type of discrimination takes place when a demeaning judgment is made
based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. The person making this judgment is not open
about their reasoning for making such discrimination. It is important to identify this type of
discrimination because the formal laws that have been put in place to protect against such acts
fail to recognize subtle discrimination for what it is.
Although rights discourse appears to protect the individual liberties of all people, formal
laws such as, antidiscrimination laws, and the equal protection clause, only serve as a
camouflage for indirect and subtle racism. Despite admiration for these legal measures as

1
Jurisprudence Classical and Contemporary: From Natural Law to Postmodernism, Richard Delgado Pg. 646
methods for alleviating oppression, empirical evidence, and statistical information on the
subject show, that discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, is still excessively
present in our society. According to Rachel Smolkin, only four women are CEOs of Fortune
500 companies.
2
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dept of Labor Report No.9843 (May 2000)
found that median weekly earnings of female full-time wage and salary workers were76.5
percent of the median for menWhite womens earnings were 18.1 percent higher than black
womens, and 38.8 percent higher than those for Hispanic women.
3
It is clear from the
statistics that an economic disparity exists between men and women in the work place. It is also
clear that a difference in pay for minority women is present. Depending on a persons
interpretation of these statistics, discrimination is taking place based on gender and race, or
(less likely) the nexus between the statistics and discrimination is not apparent whatsoever.
Even with formal or legal protection of rights, discrimination prevails. Dominating members of
our society deny racism and discrimination by asserting that the formal equality laws in place
prevent such acts from occurring. I contend against this claim by asserting that race-neutrality
in the law is not the antidote to racial discrimination in real life.
During the civil rights movement, minorities were confronted with overwhelming and
unrestrained racism. In the face of this unbridled threat, legal reform was a somewhat
successful pragmatic tactic used to combat discrimination. It allowed black people to legally
protect themselves and their individual liberties. Unfortunately, this was not enough to stop

2
Rachel Smolkin, Equality at Work Remains Elusive. Pitt Post-Gazette, June 3 2001, Chapter
Seven Pg. 539
3
Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Highlights of Womens Earnings in 1999 1-2 Chapter 7
Feminist Legal Theory Pg.539
subtle discrimination. The interpretation of these laws as well as the introduction of a subtle
form of racism allowed for this discrimination to flourish once again.
4
Kimberle Crenshaw points
out two differing interpretations of antidiscrimination law. She distinguishes between the
expansive view and the restrictive view. The expansive view treats equality as a result, and
utilizes antidiscrimination law and the courts to advance the goal of the elimination of racial
oppression. On the other hand, the restrictive view treats equality as a process; it places less
emphasis on actual results. According to this view, antidiscrimination law is only in place to
prevent future transgressions in isolated incidents. Instead of addressing the current forms of
past inequality and injustice that are perpetuated in societal policy, the restrictive view is
merely concerned with specific incidents of blatant oppressive actions. The restrictive view
does not acknowledge subtle and indirect form of oppression as societal problems. As is
apparent from these two views on antidiscrimination law, there is not a single self-evident
interpretation of civil rights. Each interpretation is influenced largely from the worldview of the
interpreter. Laws and rights are left to interpretation by a human subject. Their values and
understanding of societys values will be interjected into his/her interpretation. If this
interpreter is a member of the dominating class and even if they do not recognize themselves
as an oppressor, they may interpret laws and rights in a manner that perpetuates inequality.
Deweys pragmatism offers a method of social inquiry that would cultivate the
deliberative community needed to address these social issues. Dewey describes society as a
living organism that is constantly adapting to its environment. Experience is shared among

4
Jurisprudence Classical and Contemporary: From Natural Law to Postmodernism, Kimberele Crenshaw, Race,
Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law Pg. 631
societys members although each person has their own individual and differing perspective. The
actions we take have practical effects on our neighbors. Experience, in its entirety, is an
interconnected web of individual experiences. This is why community is so vital to Deweys
theory. He places emphasis on inner-subjective communication between societys members.
Inner-subjectivity is a mutual understanding of another beings experience. Dewey wants
people to strive for inner-subjectivity; to actually try to understand opposing viewpoints and
the experiences of our neighbors. Inner-subjectivity takes place at the interpersonal level of
interaction; the same place where the injustice of discrimination happens. Interpersonal
communication is imperative in order to achieve inner-subjectivity. In other words, in order to
understand someone, a person must communicate and interact with them. If you want to know
what a person needs, than ask them personally. Dewey states, Associated or joint activity is a
condition of the creation of a community.
5
We must learn the give-and-take of
communication with the purpose of social inquiry. Social Inquiry is what fuels the democratic
state. It is the attempt to immerse oneself in the viewpoints, worldviews, and perspectives of
others with the goal of social progress. Dewey wishes to cultivate a democratic society where
social collaboration and inquiry are necessary components in the decision-making and
interpretation of political, economic, judicial, and legal discourse. Without a social inquiry into
the consequences of our beliefs and ideologies, and the channeling of this inquiry into a form of
action, there is no democracy. People from the majority and the minorities must be in constant
collaboration in order to maintain the publics control of interpreters of the law. With social
cooperation, collaboration, inquiry, and action the members of society have the ability to

5
Dewey The Search for the Great Community, Pg. 151
create a flexible and unified democracy. The pluralistic deliberation that is possible through
Deweys model of social inquiry may cultivate the informal equality that has been assumed
present in our society.
Pragmatic philosopher, Dr. Cornel West, criticizes Deweys pragmatism for not
addressing issues of tragedy. The tragedy West alludes to is the racial discrimination that
occurs in America. Dr. West in his The Evasion of American Pragmatism, wishes to point out
the overly optimistic attitude of pragmatic thought. This excessive optimism may cause us to
overlook crucial issues and problems that occur in reality. He explains that pragmatic thinking
treats all social issues as problems to be solved. In other words, he is warning against the
attitude that, as American Pragmatists, we can solve every problem that arises, even the tragic.
Keeping Wests critique, of pragmatism being overly optimistic in mind, I believe that the model
of pragmatism Dewey purposes could be utilized as a tool to address most social issues. To use
pragmatism as an instrument for social reconstruction is exactly what he offers. Dewey simply
provided a model for the alleviation of particular social issues. Although Dewey and James
seldom addressed the issue of oppression in society, other pragmatic philosophers have. W.E.B
DuBoiss work on racial discrimination has pragmatic undertones. Dr. Cornel West is often
considered a Pragmatist and his work reflects it. Eddie S. Glaude states, In *Dr. Wests+ hands,
pragmatism encounters the underside of American life, it grapples with the tragic dimensions of
our living, it gives attention to the individual assertion and structural limitations, and it asserts
the need for a fuller grasp of the realities of white supremacy (and other forms of oppression)
that inform our self understanding.
6
He also collaborates with people all around the nation, in
an attempt to grasp the multitude of perspectives. The work of Alain Locke emphasizes the use
of pluralism in commutative deliberation as a method of alleviating oppression. Charles
Johnson held a Dewian view on experience shaping our social values and meanings. This view
of experience led Johnson to emphasize the centrality of African Americans to the actual
meaning of democratic community and social justice in the United States.
7
Dr. West himself,
describes Pragmatism as a, future-oriented instrumentalism that tries to deploy thought as a
weapon to enable more effective action.
8
As a future-oriented Instrumentalism, pragmatism
can be utilized as a tool for social reform. Dewey and James share a vision of social
reconstruction. In other words, they wish to use pragmatic philosophy as a means of creating
social change for the benefit of all in the society. This is the pragmatic approach to philosophy;
they are not simply discussing social problems, but are attempting to use and apply
philosophical discourse for the advantage of the civilization. They both desire to create a more
socially unified and intelligent community.
Through the creation of a socially unified and intelligent community, the members of
the community collaborate on social issues. Members of the community that have experienced
discrimination, regardless of the laws put in place to protect against it, may voice their distress.
When addressing the issue of legal rights discourse, members can express their viewpoints on
the subject openly, expecting criticism and opposing perspectives. These viewpoints are to be
taken seriously and critically assessed. In this particular case of inequality, members of the

6
A Shade of Blue, Eddie S. Glaude Pg. 5
7
Eddie S. Glaude, Pg. 4
8
Dr. Cornel West, The Evasion of American Pragmatism Pg. 5
dominating class (White heterosexual males) do not typically acknowledge subtle
discrimination as a real problem. If we utilize pragmatisms social inquiry to expose the
embedded ideologies, in the application of legal rights, it may provide a beneficial strategy of
raising the consciousness of the powerful white males who may be ignorant to their own
oppressive actions. To raise the consciousness of the dominating members of our society we
must expose their personal ideologies and worldviews that cause them to interpret law in a
manner that perpetuates inequality. Once exposed, the ideologies must be taught and
understood as oppressive in nature. A very important characteristic of Pragmatism is the
concept of charity. To be charitable to another persons perspective is to, not only attempt at
understanding it, but to actually search for the value in the alternative viewpoint. With this in
mind, meaningless and stale dogmatic thinking will not halt deliberation. Those dogmatic
perspectives that refuse to accept any alternative point of views will be marginalized, while
those who look for actual results and the alleviation of injustices will become the focal point of
deliberation.
Formal equality laws do not protect members of society from certain forms of
oppression that are not blatant or obvious. In order to protect citizens from oppressive forces
such as these our nation requires an informal equality dissertation. I believe that pragmatism
offers this informal protection from discrimination. Instead of assuming that legal discourse
completely and automatically protects people from oppression, we can pragmatically address
individual cases of discrimination. We can treat oppression as a social crisis that is not easily
solved, but has layers of complexities that are rooted in American history. Glaude describes
Deweys pragmatism as, a form of cultural and social criticism. *Dewey+ held the view that,
philosophy properly understood as a mode of wisdom, ought to aid us in our efforts to
overcome problematic situations and worrisome circumstances.
9
It is this view of pragmatism
that works to alleviate social injustices not typically recognized by all members of society.
Through social inquiry, collaboration, and action we can combat injustice, suffering, tragedy,
and oppression. Using the tools provided by pragmatism & the democratic social inquiry into
the perspective of others, we can reconstruct society in a manner that does not perpetuate
oppression, but strives and works to relieve it.



9
In a Shade of Blue, Eddie S. Glaude pg.7