Language and legitimacy: Is pragmatist political theory fallacious?

Eva Erman and Niklas M？ller have recently criticised a range of political theorists for committing a pragmatistic fallacy, illicitly drawing normative conclusions from politically neutral ideas about language. This paper examines their critique with respect to one of their primary targets: the pragmatist approach to political legitimacy that I proposed in earlier work, which draws on Robert Brandom’s theory of language. I argue that the charge relies on a misrepresentation of the role of pragmatist ideas about language in my analysis of legitimacy. Pragmatism’s significance for thinking about political legitimacy does not lie in the normative conclusions it justifies but in the way it reorients our thinking towards political practice. This raises the deeper question of what we are to expect from a theory of legitimacy. I argue that Erman and M？ller presuppose a widely held but unduly restrictive conception of what a normative theory of legitimacy consists in and that pragmatism can broaden the scope of enquiry: a theory of legitimacy should not focus narrowly on the content and justification of criteria, but more fundamentally aim to explicate the forms of political activity in which such criteria are at stake