Telling a Less Suspicious Story: Notes Toward a Non-Skeptical Approach to Legal/Cultural Analysis

P. Berman
{"title":"Telling a Less Suspicious Story: Notes Toward a Non-Skeptical Approach to Legal/Cultural Analysis","authors":"P. Berman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.273517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the generation of law and society research that emerged with the formation of the Law and Society Association, sociolegal scholars, building on the Legal Realist attack on formalism, told a story primarily about the possibility of social progress through law. Over the past two decades, however, sociolegal scholars have become increasingly disenchanted with the reformist project. These writers, influenced by Michel Foucault and other postmodern theorists, have begun to see law not as an instrument for dispensing justice, but as a constitutive societal force shaping social relations, constructing meaning, and defining categories of behavior. As part of the move to view law as a constitutive force in social relations, many sociolegal scholars have chosen to go even further and emphasize law's role as a pervasive form of social control. Law is seen as inherently implicated in the maintenance of inequality rather than its amelioration. Accordingly, the focus of sociolegal scholarship often involves uncovering how law's coercive power is inscribed in all legal discourse and practice. Such a move reflects, perhaps, the increasing skepticism of postmodern scholarship more generally. This article suggests that sociolegal scholars might benefit from taking a less skeptical approach to the study of law and might instead try to envision law as a useful forum for discourse in a post-postmodern society. In a multicultural country where there are more and more available narratives and no one narrative necessarily holds a privileged position as \"truth\", we need a societal practice such as law that emphasizes multiple perspectives and multiple viewpoints. Accordingly, we can view legal discourse (at least in its ideal state) as a constructive terrain of engagement among diverse populations and therefore a vital part of building a civil society. Such a vision provides a potential answer both to right-leaning communitarians who claim that \"law talk\" is destroying American community and left-wing academics who tend to portray law only as a tool of elites or a form of hegemonic power.","PeriodicalId":90770,"journal":{"name":"Yale journal of law & the humanities","volume":"13 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.273517","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale journal of law & the humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.273517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

In the generation of law and society research that emerged with the formation of the Law and Society Association, sociolegal scholars, building on the Legal Realist attack on formalism, told a story primarily about the possibility of social progress through law. Over the past two decades, however, sociolegal scholars have become increasingly disenchanted with the reformist project. These writers, influenced by Michel Foucault and other postmodern theorists, have begun to see law not as an instrument for dispensing justice, but as a constitutive societal force shaping social relations, constructing meaning, and defining categories of behavior. As part of the move to view law as a constitutive force in social relations, many sociolegal scholars have chosen to go even further and emphasize law's role as a pervasive form of social control. Law is seen as inherently implicated in the maintenance of inequality rather than its amelioration. Accordingly, the focus of sociolegal scholarship often involves uncovering how law's coercive power is inscribed in all legal discourse and practice. Such a move reflects, perhaps, the increasing skepticism of postmodern scholarship more generally. This article suggests that sociolegal scholars might benefit from taking a less skeptical approach to the study of law and might instead try to envision law as a useful forum for discourse in a post-postmodern society. In a multicultural country where there are more and more available narratives and no one narrative necessarily holds a privileged position as "truth", we need a societal practice such as law that emphasizes multiple perspectives and multiple viewpoints. Accordingly, we can view legal discourse (at least in its ideal state) as a constructive terrain of engagement among diverse populations and therefore a vital part of building a civil society. Such a vision provides a potential answer both to right-leaning communitarians who claim that "law talk" is destroying American community and left-wing academics who tend to portray law only as a tool of elites or a form of hegemonic power.
讲述一个不那么可疑的故事:对法律/文化分析的非怀疑方法的注释
在随着法律与社会协会的成立而出现的一代法律与社会研究中,社会法学学者在法律现实主义对形式主义的攻击的基础上,主要讲述了通过法律实现社会进步的可能性。然而,在过去的二十年里,社会法学学者对改革计划越来越不抱幻想。这些作家受到米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)和其他后现代理论家的影响,他们开始将法律视为一种塑造社会关系、构建意义和定义行为类别的结构性社会力量,而不是伸张正义的工具。作为将法律视为社会关系中的一种构成力量的一部分,许多社会法学学者选择更进一步,强调法律作为一种普遍存在的社会控制形式的作用。法律被认为是维持不平等而不是改善不平等的内在因素。因此,社会法学研究的重点往往涉及揭示法律的强制力如何铭刻在所有法律话语和实践中。这样的举动或许反映了人们对后现代学术越来越普遍的怀疑。这篇文章表明,社会法学学者可能会受益于采取较少怀疑的方法来研究法律,而不是试图将法律设想为在后后现代社会中一个有用的话语论坛。在一个多元文化的国家,有越来越多的叙事,没有一种叙事必然具有“真理”的特权地位,我们需要一种强调多角度和多观点的社会实践,如法律。因此,我们可以将法律话语(至少在其理想状态下)视为不同人群参与的建设性领域,因此是建设公民社会的重要组成部分。这种愿景为声称“法律谈话”正在摧毁美国社区的右倾社区主义者和倾向于将法律描述为精英的工具或霸权形式的左翼学者提供了一个潜在的答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信