This column is part of a series written by seniors from the pilot senior seminar on American citizenship. The class is led by its students, whose interests and experiences are as diverse as their areas of study. These columns are their lessons.
It’s been a while since we’ve played with water balloons. And it was clear by our classmates’ reactions that it had been a while for them too. Pragmatism and compromise are not child’s play, but it was through a playful water balloon toss that we were able to create an open discourse for engaging some contentious ideas.
Before our class, we asked everyone to give a definition of pragmatism. When the responses were submitted, we were surprised by both our classmates’ interpretations and the official definition.
The first definition provided in the Oxford English Dictionary paints pragmatism as pedantic, officious and overwhelmingly negative. This, combined with class-generated ideas about pragmatism like “leading without principles” or “an escape from considering values,” made pragmatism seem like a dirty word.
While we recognize there is a difference between pragmatism and compromise, we see these two concepts as critically linked. Given the negative connotation of pragmatism, it followed that our class had varying levels of distaste for the word compromise as well.
Often times we wonder why compromise has become devalued and stigmatized. To us, it stems from the underlying notion of a “winner-take-all” society. When thinking in terms of winners and losers, it’s easy to overlook the area in between. Leaving that bit of pragmatic space allows room for improvement in the future; it does not indicate failure or an absence of principles.
After spending a semester last year in Washington, D.C., we saw examples of partisanship blocking the path to effective policy. These moments of fractious debate, unfortunately, are the instances emphasized by the media and champions of partisanship.
However, we were also witnesses to policies created through the use of compromise, mediation and pragmatism. When individuals were able to come together despite philosophical, political and even moral differences, they generated the most constructive solutions.
While no one left the room absolutely happy, the parties were content that their efforts would ensure an effective policy well into the future and knew that later re-evaluation would once again provide policies suited to the needs of the community or country.
We want to celebrate these moments of true collaboration rather than emphasize divisive rhetoric. Only in recognizing the value of compromise can we hope to inspire more pragmatic solutions for our generation.
