American Pragmatism and Post-Holocaust Jewish Theology: The Case of Irving Greenberg

Irving Greenberg (b. 1933), among the most influential American Jewish theologians responding to the Holocaust, consistently describes his theological approach as “postmodern”—emphasising the breakdown of absolutes, fragmentation, and the failure of modern certainties. This article argues that the label is misleading. Through a reading of Greenberg’s foundational concepts—the voluntary covenant, tzelem Elokim, the assumption of power, and tikkun olam—set against the conceptual apparatus of continental postmodernism and classical American pragmatism, we will show that Greenberg’s theological method and normative conclusions align far more closely with the pragmatist tradition of Peirce, James, and Dewey. Where continental postmodernism tends toward deconstruction and the dissolution of normative claims, Greenberg’s thought exhibits characteristic pragmatist motifs: fallibilism without nihilism, pluralism without relativism, and a robust meliorism oriented toward world repair. His dictum that “pluralism is an absolutism that knows its limits” echoes William James’s pluralism rather than Derridean deconstruction, and his post-Holocaust ethic of power directly resists postmodern suspicion of agency. Reading Greenberg through the lens of American pragmatism offers a new perspective on post-Holocaust Jewish theology and clarifies how distinct intellectual traditions shape theological responses to catastrophe.