Review of Public Administration and Management

Developing the Theory of Pragmatic Public Democracy

Joseph Hafer^* Department of Public Administration, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
^*Correspondence: Joseph Hafer, Department of Public Administration, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA, Email:

Received: 05-Dec-2021 Published: 26-Dec-2021, DOI: 10.35248/2315-7844.21.9.317

Perspective

Developing the Theory of Pragmatic Public Management This isn't arranged in any particular sequence. Because of its focus on the problem, pragmatism is especially adapted to absorb the lived experiences of practical public officials. In the world of policy, public administrators are tasked with four responsibilities: making things work. The term "making things work" hides the depth and complexity of this fully formed mature philosophy — one that has the flexibility, depth, and coherence to make sense of public administration. Parts of this publication may be reprinted as long as the source is acknowledged in the following format: Exploring the possibility of embedded pragmatism for dealing with global biodiversity protection in a changing landscape.

How can theories be objective if they aren't true? We make a big deal about objectivity in science and research, but we often mix up two quite different processes in the process. There is theory creation, which is what this book is supposed to be about, and theory testing. The former is based on induction (from the specific to the general, physical evidence to abstract conceptions), and the latter is based on deduction (from the general to the specific).

Pragmatism can be critical of public democracy's flaws while yet praising it as the best form of government that has ever been devised. Pragmatism also suggests a better version of public democracy than any genuine democracy, with more citizen participation than simple voting. When pragmatism appeals to a popular democracy that does not yet exist, it is considered highly idealistic. Rivals of public democracy can challenge pragmatism by condemning it for its failures, casting doubt on the usefulness of increasing citizen participation, and appealing to other perspectives on human nature and social processes. As a result, pragmatism has had to seek out and use strong anthropological and sociological theories.

In two main ways, pragmatists like John Dewey and Richard Rorty defended the premise that public democracies are pragmatic ideas in operation. First and foremost, public democracy is a method of social inquiry that has been offered. When educated and communicative citizens ask intelligent questions about their social circumstances and changes in society, they can learn about how their society works and how it might be improved. Democracy has the ability to generate social knowledge. Second, public democracy is an experimental test of the political notion that as a society gets more democratic, citizens gain more control over their living conditions. Citizens who live in a democratic society are more likely to be free.

Although pragmatism as a philosophy stretches back to Charles S. Peirce in the 1870s, it was not until the 1920s and 1930s that it was applied to complex social and political issues. During this time, the United States was split between favouring American unity over democracy and valuing democracy over American unity. The first viewpoint held that America and all Americans are only strong and in control if they are deeply united by a shared culture and set of goals. The second point of view held that Americans are strong and can manage their lives only if they are free to join organised groups that win recognition and rights in battles against other groups and the government. A challenging question addressed pragmatism: does democracy strengthen citizens' authority and control when diversity and plurality are reduced to a minimum, or increased to a maximum? Is plurality a hindrance or a help in achieving the goals of public democracy? Pragmatism chose to support pluralism's advantages, but it had to justify its calculations on the long-term benefits of strengthening democracy's intelligence. Of course, there was still the old and familiar choice of distinct black unity as an alternative to the hyphen.

Black people in America could be brought together by a positive shared bond. Perhaps there is a method to bring black people together as a race, whether biologically, culturally, spiritually, or religiously. The disadvantages of using the term "race" have been painfully clear all along, because using the term "race" simply repeats a key category for racism. Nonetheless, in societal settings when virulent and unyielding racism appears to forever preclude any equality or integration, a critical category such as race might have an objectively compelling reality.