One of the assumptions underlying the debates around translingual vs. SLW approaches is that pragmatism and idealism are at odds with one another. This chapter delves into past scholarship to show how that assumption has been challenged. We first highlight the prevalence of a male-dominated, dualist, “I win” mentality in our fields. Then, we examine past scholarship to “rediscover” the middle ground between the two polarities of pragmatism (often framed as assimilation to linguistic norms) and idealism (often framed as resistance to linguistic norms). In particular, we trace the theme of “critical pragmatism” as reflected in the work of scholars who have employed critical literacy and/or critical EAP approaches, through which students learn the conventions of academic writing while engaging with critical perspectives on those conventions. We conclude with examples from our own pedagogical practice and professional development work, to illustrate how our work in writing studies can be both pragmatic and idealistic when it comes to academic language and linguistic diversity.