实用主义和群体论学者中,有些人强调“群体”,其他人强调政治“过程”,虽则存在这一重要分歧,但他们运用同样的术语,具有共同的兴趣和目的,并且在哲学研究方法上也是一致的。班特莱、富莱特与杜威都认为利益与共同利益原来并不存在,它们是由于活动而产生的;而群体论者认为从群体中的相互作用,引起某些可以叫作规范或共有态度的反应;而共有态度构成共同利益。在杜威看来,取得团体成员身分会促使人们安分守己和政治上公正;而杜鲁门把重迭的成员身分的影响,尤其是把基于整个社会广泛利益而具有潜在势力的团体的成员身分所表现出来的活力,引证来作为卫护宪法和政体的力量。政治领袖们是不受到他们追随者的重迭成员身分的约束的;相反地,他们之间是有相互容忍的默契的;他们同意不在实践场合作破坏性的竞争,以致损害及于全体。实用主义是传统政治学说的一种辉煌修正,也是它未来发展的一种相当正确的预言,经过群体论的苦心援用,证明它对于说明和描述政治行为具有很大价值。但是群体论简直没有谈到政府的日常事务及政策或“权利”的重大改变,没有说明计划政治,因此它只是对一种政治行为进行了完善描述。 Some of pragmatists and group theorists emphasize “groups,” while others emphasize the “process” of politics, although there are important differences between them. However, they use the same terminology, have common interests and purposes, and are philosophically research methods Is the same. Bentley, Fullerton, and Dewey all thought that the interests and the common interests did not exist, they were caused by the activity; while the groupists believed that the interaction among the groups caused some can be called normative or communal attitude Reaction; and common attitude constitutes a common interest. In Dewey’s view, getting a group member leads people to be self-serving and politically fair; and Truman’s influence of overlapping membership, especially of members of groups with potential interests based on the broad interests of society as a whole, Vitality, citation as a guardian of the constitutional and political power. Political leaders are not bound by the overlapping membership of their followers; on the contrary, they have a tacit understanding of mutual tolerance; they agree not to engage in destructive competition in the field of practice, so as to undermine the whole. Pragmatism is a brilliant revision of the traditional political doctrine and a fairly correct prophecy of its future development. After the painstaking assistance of group theory, it is proved that it is of great value in describing and describing political behavior. However, the theory of group simply did not talk about the daily affairs and policies of the government or major changes in “rights,” and did not explain the politics of planning. Therefore, it simply described a political behavior.