Even with that in mind, though, by the end of the book I was left wondering if writing about Parton was a cover to blame pragmatism for what the McGarvie sees as an undermining of law and individual rights. According to McGarvie, Addams found Parton "saucy and irreverent" and unlike Addams (though McGarvie does not note the difference), Parton endorsed the melting pot ideal and reports that at the time "our whole attitude ... was one of superiority to the poor" (56). While McGarvie does reference the work of philosophers such as Jane Addams, Charles Saunders Peirce (whose name his misspells as Pierce), John Dewey, and William James it would seem he has not read or not understood their work. [Extracted from the article]