Critical Legal Studies versus Critical Legal Theory: A Comment on Method
- 1 July 1984
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Law & Policy
- Vol. 6 (3) , 257-297
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1984.tb00326.x
Abstract
Over the last decade the Conference on Critical Legal Studies (CCLS) has rekindled an important debate about the study of legal ideologies. The work by scholars within this movement is provocative because it demands that we take seriously the contradictory needs and ideological parameters of liberal legalism. The growing body of work associated with this movement has not, however, included a criticism of the ideological underpinnings of legal methods in general and doctrinal analysis in particular. We begin with the premise that scholarship must include a self‐critical method.In Part I—The Political‐Economic Constraints of Liberal Legal Scholarship—we explore why questions of methods, i. e. of how one asks and answers questions, has not been a central issue within CCLS. In Part II—Reformulation of Method—we present a beginning toward a framework for developing a self‐critical method for understanding legal ideologies.This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Where the Action Is: Critical Legal Studies and EmpiricismStanford Law Review, 1984
- Escaping Liberalism: Easier Said Than DoneHarvard Law Review, 1983
- The Critical Legal Studies MovementHarvard Law Review, 1983
- 'Round and 'Round the Bramble Bush: From Legal Realism to Critical Legal ScholarshipHarvard Law Review, 1982
- Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Histories of American Law SchoolsHarvard Law Review, 1982
- The Post-War Paradigm in American Labor LawThe Yale Law Journal, 1981
- Redirecting Social Studies of LawLaw & Society Review, 1980
- Organizational Contradictions in Public Bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian Theory of OrganizationsThe Sociological Quarterly, 1977
- Specialization and Prestige in the Legal Profession: The Structure of DeferenceAmerican Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1977
- Legal Education: The Consumers' PerspectiveAmerican Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1976