The realist tradition has its roots in pragmatism. "Pragmatists argue that philosophers and legal theorists miss the point if we spend our time worrying about the internal coherence of systems of abstract principles. They further argue that we misdirect our energy if we seek to establish universal, certain foundations for belief. Rather, pragmatists counsel attention to the actual workings of law in particular settings in social life. Pragmatists suggest we explore the historical and social context in which law operates, instead of formal systems and conceptual neatness. They direct our attention to the messy details of the world around us.

This way of understanding social and legal problems is linked with a normative paradigm: rather than seeking noncontingent bases for our moral and political commitments, pragmatists ask us to choose among different conceptions of law and society by investigating the human consequences of adopting alternative conceptual structures and legal doctrines. Instead of deriving moral or legal rules from a prior premises or metaphysical foundations, pragmatists suggest we make situated judgments based on the values accepted by particular communities. Pragmatists are impatient with rigid rules and frozen concepts; they want results. Frustrated with deductive logic and analytical dissection, they want to know the facts, and, armed with that knowledge, they are ready to accept responsibility for making judgments." [Joseph W. Singer, "Property and Coercion in Federal Indian Law: The Conflict between Critical and Complacent Pragmatism," 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990) 1821, at 1822].