“Critical Legal Histories Revisited”: A Response

The author responds to comments reappraising “Critical Legal Histories” (CLH) (1984). CLH critiqued “evolutionary functionalism,” the idea that law is a functional response to a typical modernizing process. CLH argued that “society” was partly constituted of legal elements and that law was too indeterminate to have reliably regular functional effects. CLH has been misinterpreted as calling for a return to internal histories of “mandarin” doctrine: all it said was that some doctrinal histories were valuable, without privileging them. This response clarifies that the relations of law to society and social change, and of high‐level official law to everyday local law are distinct issues. CLH is mostly moot today, since social‐legal historians have incorporated its insight that legal concepts are embedded in everyday social practice. But other fields have revived deterministic Whiggish accounts of progressive development and of law functional to it—to which CLH's critique still seems relevant.     

The Idea of “Free Public Reason”

Abstract. In this paper the nature and the role of Rawls's idea of a “free public reason” are examined with an emphasis on the divide between the private and the public spheres, a divide which is the hallmark of a liberal democracy. Criticisms from both the so-called Continental tradition and the Communitarian opponents to liberalism insist on the ineffectiveness of such a conception, on its inability to establish a political consensus on democracy. But it would be a mistake to see a contractarian theory of justice, such as Rawls's justice as fairness, as grounding the social contract in a public use of reason. Such a contract would indeed be susceptible to endless conflicts and renegotiations and would never achieve consensus. Therefore, a distinction must be made between the values of justice that are present in and through the “original” contractual position and the that regulate the public sphere and guarantee its stability.     

Universal Legal Concepts? A Criticism of “General” Legal Theory

Abstract. General theory of law (general jurisprudence, allgemeine Rechtslehre) has often claimed to deal with general or universal concepts, i.e., concepts which are deemed to be common to any legal system whatsoever. At any rate, this is the classic determination of such a field of study as provided by John Austin in the nineteenth century—a determination, however, which deserves careful analysis. In what sense, indeed, can one assert that some legal concepts are common to different legal systems? And, above all, in what sense can one assert that some concepts are common to different languages and cultures? My paper sets out to discuss such questions—although, obviously, they are too complicated to be answered in a single paper. The first section reconstructs the Austinian argument for general jurisprudence by placing it in its historical context. The second section tries to apply to legal concepts some suggestions derived from the contemporary debate on conceptual relativism. The third section, returning to the Austinian problem, comes to the following conclusion: Even if conceptual relativism were true and there were no general or universal legal concepts, this would not invalidate in any way the didactic and scientific value of (general) theory of law.     

“Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox,Program, or Pandora's Box?

This essay was originally presented at the Conference on American and German Traditions of Sociological Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thought organized by the Center for European Legal Policy, Bremen, Federal Republic of Germany, July 10-12, 1986. Subsequent versions were discussed at the Department of Sociology, Northwestern University (February 1987) and the Workshop on Legal Theory at the University of Virginia Law School (March 1987). Comments by participants at these events, members of the Amherst Seminar, Boaventura Santos, Kristin Bumiller, and G. Edward White are gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of the paper appears in Joerges & Trubek, eds., Critical Legal Thought in Germany and America: A German-American Debate (Baden-Baden: NOMOS, 1989).     

“Scared Straight”: Ideology and the media

One of the more widely publicized presentations about crime is “Scared Straight,” a documentary about a program in which juveniles visit inmates in a New Jersey penitentiary. It is the contention of this article that this film and the accompanying media coverage of it convey an ideology message concerning crime and criminals. Crime is presented as a matter of individual choice that has little relationship to any social variables. Criminals are portrayed in a one-dimensional manner as evil, vicious, and barely human. The documentary is a success because these images of crime and criminals conform to existing stereotypes. Based on these distorted images, the film and media coverage “market” a simplistic solution to crime that is compatible with their presentation of the crime problem.