Pragmatism has revived but produced no new jurisprudence.

Evidence

The pragmatic movement gave legal realism such intellectual shape and content as it had. Then pragmatism died (or merged into other philosophical movements and lost its separate identity), and legal realism died (or was similarly absorbed and transcended). Lately pragmatism has revived, and the question I address in this Article is whether this revival has produced or is likely to produce a new jurisprudence that will bear the same relation to the new pragmatism as legal realism bore to the old. My answer is no on both counts. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 6

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader pragmatism revival debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s, e.g. Rorty, and to legal realism’s intellectual lineage. — connects to: Although pragmatic jurisprudence embraces a richer set of ideas than can be found in The Nature of the Judicial Process or ‘The Path of the Law,’ one can hardly say that there has been much progress, and perhaps in the nature of pragmatism there cannot be.; The tendencies that many years ago were fruitfully absorbed into legal realism can indeed help in the formulation of a new jurisprudence, but it will be new largely in jettisoning the naive politics and other immaturities and excesses of legal realism. This refurbished, modernized realism will owe little or nothing, however, to the new pragmatism-if indeed there is such a thing, as I doubt.; Pragmatism requires judges to adapt law to social change, not freeze it. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 123

Broader Connections

• The tendencies that many years ago were fruitfully absorbed into legal realism can indeed help in the formulation of a new jurisprudence, but it will be new largely in jettisoning the naive… #corroborates (0.90)
• Pragmatism requires judges to adapt law to social change, not freeze it. #contradicts (0.30) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 123