<p>Pragmatism has often been maligned among critical scholars. This analysis attempts to rescue pragmatism from the philosophical wastebin to demonstrate that critical criminology and pragmatism are not as opposed as often surmised. This essay reviews the fundamentals of pragmatism before exploring some convergences found between the philosophy and critical criminology broadly conceived—that both perspectives, in addition to sharing branches on the intellectual genealogy, are anti-deterministic, skeptical of the fact-value dichotomy, a concerned with “big picture” problems, and committed to producing knowledge useful for bettering humanity. This essay then concludes by arguing that the aging perspective still offers lessons useful for both burgeoning and established critical criminologists including the perils of being <i>too</i> critical, the limitations of structural analysis, and the need to maintain hope that things can change.</p>