This document provides an overview of postmodern legal theory, which challenges the idea that society has a natural structure and that history evolves towards truth. Postmodernists view liberalism and capitalism as components of "modernity" that are subject to deconstruction to reveal alternatives. They believe law and society are based on subjectivities rather than objective truths. Postmodern legal theory draws from postmodern philosophy and critical legal studies to offer a radical vision that questions traditional understandings of law. Key thinkers discussed include Derrida and their concept of deconstruction applied to language and law.
This document provides an overview of postmodern legal theory, which challenges the idea that society has a natural structure and that history evolves towards truth. Postmodernists view liberalism and capitalism as components of "modernity" that are subject to deconstruction to reveal alternatives. They believe law and society are based on subjectivities rather than objective truths. Postmodern legal theory draws from postmodern philosophy and critical legal studies to offer a radical vision that questions traditional understandings of law. Key thinkers discussed include Derrida and their concept of deconstruction applied to language and law.
This document provides an overview of postmodern legal theory, which challenges the idea that society has a natural structure and that history evolves towards truth. Postmodernists view liberalism and capitalism as components of "modernity" that are subject to deconstruction to reveal alternatives. They believe law and society are based on subjectivities rather than objective truths. Postmodern legal theory draws from postmodern philosophy and critical legal studies to offer a radical vision that questions traditional understandings of law. Key thinkers discussed include Derrida and their concept of deconstruction applied to language and law.
• Postmodern legal theory is the latest radical theory to challenge the liberal orthodoxies that society has a natural structure and that history is simply a process of evolution towards that truth. • Liberalism and capitalism are not the end of the road but are simply the major components of what the postmodernists call 'modernity'. • Modernity's structures, its laws, its literature, its architecture, its art, in fact any of its products, are all subject to 'deconstruction', a process which reveals numerous alternatives. • An inherent aspect of this process is a recognition that society is simply made up of a complex network of subjectivities and contains no objective truths or natural laws upon which it can be grounded. • Developing the radical critique promulgated by the Critical Legal Studies movement in the 1980s, postmodern legal theory offers a profound and disturbing vision of law and society in the 1990s. • Post-modernism challenges the liberal orthodoxy that society has a natural structure, and history is a process of evolution towards that truth. • Liberalism and capitalism are seen as major components of modernity. • Post-modernists characterise modernity as ‘an iron cage of bureaucratisation, centralisation and the infinite manipulation of psyche by the culture industry and the disciplinary machines of power and knowledge'. • They believe that modernity's structures, its laws, its literature, its architecture, its arts or any of its products are subject to deconstruction, a process which reveals a number of alternatives. • They do not believe that society contains any objective truth or natural laws upon which it can be grounded. • The main thrust of post-modern legal theory; is its rejection of the structured, logical and internally consistent picture of society, and law which we find in Hart's theory of law as a union of primary and secondary rules, and in Kelsen's pyramid of norms. • The writings of Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida deserve our attention, although they are not academic lawyers, because of their tremendous impact on legal theory. • Foucault's neo-Marxism shares with post-modernism an emphasis on the 'shifting relationships between self and other'. The 'other' appears to be the individual who is outside the system, who is disadvantaged by it. The 'others' cannot assert that the law is on their side within the current situations since the system alienates them. • Post-modernism recognises that they have an equal claim to consideration since their assertions are no less valid than those who are advantaged by the system or no less valid than even the views of lawyers, judges, or politicians. • The post-modernist concern with the 'other' has definitely helped to give an impetus to the claims of disadvantaged groups like women, blacks, and tribals within law. • However, to what extent and in what manner the law should seek to accommodate their claims is not clearly brought out in post-modernist writings. • In the 1980s, the Postmodernism era, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. • Derrida's deconstruction, though originally applied to language, had a profound influence on legal theory. Language is a complex web of signs and Derrida said, is metaphorical. • Modernism sees the function of language as mainly representational—it depicts the way things are. In other words, language discloses the relationship between the words and the world. • In language, some statements are statements of truth or statements of fact (e.g., this is a chair) and some statements are statements of opinion (e.g., this chair is beautiful). • The post-modernists do not accept the division of language into fact and opinion, but hold that all statements are opinions. This is because language is inherently indeterminate. Even a statement like 'this is a chair', which is apparently a statement of fact, the post-modernists would argue, is a statement of opinion, because there is no true meaning to the concept of chair. • Post-modernists see all statements in law as assertions. In choosing between competing assertions, an individual will favour those which clash least with everything else that he takes to be true. • Individuals agree with the right legal propositions because they fit into the legal system which is presumed to be right. The whole system is based on dominant assertions which must ultimately be built on pure ideology or power. The law and the legal system thus become self- perpetuating hierarchies. • A major criticism against post-modernism in general and deconstruction in particular is that it focuses on the negative, 'the uncertainties and ambiguities of existence'. • Thus, deconstruction, in a strict Derridian sense, seems to be engaging in an endless round of word play, the purpose of which is to reveal various alternative meanings and 'truths', leaving it up to the interpreter to choose on the basis of that individual's own moral convictions. • JM Balkin, who belongs to this stream, states that deconstruction of legal concepts is not radical. He continues: • Deconstruction is not a denial of the legitimacy of rules and principles; it is an affirmation of human possibilities that have been overlooked or forgotten in the privileging of particular legal ideas ... By recalling the elements of human life relegated to a margin in a given social theory, deconstructive readings challenge us to remake the dominant conceptions of our society. • Balkin also poses the question as to why do we want to deconstruct law or legal doctrine? • He answers that this has mainly to do with the pursuit of justice. We might want to demonstrate that the law or some part of it is unjust. The failure of law to adequately deal with some aspect of social life may lead to injustice. • A critical use of deconstruction involves pointing out that something is wrong, and arguing that it could and should be made better. • Balkin asserts that law is always to some extent and to some, degree unjust. The only way of articulating a person's conception of justice is through imperfect laws. Such laws lead to deconstruction and a modified law. This is a continuous process. A CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT • Postmodernism groups 'progressive' versions of history under the label 'Enlightenment'. • Followers of these versions believe that the 'Enlightenment brings "light", and modernity's task is to finish the task that the Enlightenment began. • The progressives, the Lockeans, Benthamites, Millians, Social-Darwinists and most Marxists see the Enlightenment as the unleashing of a great potential for good'. • 'The shackles' of superstition 'that held back political organisation, thought, individual liberty, and production were overthrown' by the Enlightenment. • Followers of modernity mock the postmodern as 'chaotic, catastrophic, nihilistic' and 'the end of good order'. • Postmodernists, on the other hand, characterise modernity as 'an iron cage of bureaucratization, centralisation and infinite manipulation of the psyche by the "culture industry" and the disciplinary regimes of power and knowledge', while portraying postmodernism as 'an exhilarating moment of rapture'. • It defies the system, suspects all totalising thought and homogeneity and opens space for the marginal, the different and the 'other'. • Postmodernism is here presented as the celebration of flux, dispersal, plurality and localism. • The post-Enlightenment concept of progress, of constant modernisation, with its overriding sense of movement towards the truth or 'meta-narratives' is rejected. • In law, modernist theories such as those presented by Hart, Kelsen, Dworkin and Finnis try to portray law as a unified whole, and posit the rule of law as the method of 'neutral, non-subjectivist resolution of value disagreement and social conflict'. • However, in the reality of the postmodern world where such rigid homogeneity is recognised as being imposed arbitrarily, 'the panglossia of statutes, delegated legislation, administrative legislation and adjudication, judicial and quasi-judicial decision-making; the multiform institutions and personnel; and the plural non-formal methods of dispute avoidance and resolution cannot be seen any longer as a coherent, closed ensemble of rules or values' Despite this, modernist theories still attempt to legitimate the idea of a closed, logical legal order. • The lineage of postmodernism in law can be traced back to Legal Realism's Fundamental tenet that law is an instrument of policy, which was amplified by the Critical Legal Studies movement's statement that all law is politics. However, the postmodernist disenchantment with the rationalist desire to make sense of the world is much more wide ranging than either of its predecessors. Its targets are everything from art to science and beyond. Indeed, its skepticism is so profound that it inherently knows no bounds, for here are none, only 'flux, dispersal, plurality and localism' DERRIDA AND DECONSTRUCTION • Derrida's deconstruction, in particular, has been tremendously influential, since law is like literature: • Language is a complex web of signs and, for Derrida, is metaphorical. Metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance, as in he is a lion in battle. Language can never mean literally what it says - language is made up of metaphors and symbolisms. (Hilaire Barnett, Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence, p. 185.) • In the use of language, modernism suggests the belief that language discloses the relationship between the word and the world - the principal function of language is representational - it depicts the way things are. • The proposition depicts reality. 'This is a chair' is a statement of truth. However, even modernists admit that some statements are simply statements of opinion - this chair is beautiful'. • The postmodern approach is that there is no division of language into fact and opinion, all statements are opinions. • The postmodernist would argue that there is no true meaning to the concept of chair - even what appear to be factual statements are open to debate and deconstruction. • The postmodern approach is that there is no division of language into fact and opinion, all statements are opinions. • The postmodernist would argue that there is no true meaning to the concept of chair - even what appear to be factual statements are open to debate and deconstruction. • How can this be? How can a challenge be made to the basic proposition that 'this is a chair'? The answer is because language is naturally indeterminate. • 'There is nothing outside the text' - that is the postmodernist message - language has to be examined to see what it reveals about the person using it or the class of persons using it. • Deconstruction, in a strict Derridian sense, seems to be engaging in an endless round of word play, the purpose of which is to reveal various alternative meanings and 'truths', leaving it up to the interpreter to choose on the basis of that individual's own moral convictions. • Balkin on Deconstruction makes the following statement: • The deconstruction of legal concepts, or of the social vision that informs them, is not nihilistic. • Deconstruction is not a call for us to forget moral certainty, but to remember aspects of human life that were pushed into the background by the necessities of the dominant legal conception we call into question. • Deconstruction is not a denial of the legitimacy of rules and principles; it is an affirmation of human possibilities that have been overlooked or forgotten in the privileging of particular legal ideas . . . By recalling the elements of human life relegated to the margin in a given social theory, deconstructive readings challenge us to remake the dominant conceptions of our society. • Deconstruction reveals the law's inadequacies. Often legal language is clearly indeterminate. • Deconstruction helps individuals towards liberation upon realisation that the system or society they are part of has no superior claim than a system or society they might prefer. • Deconstruction may appear anarchical but it does reveal the arbitrary and contingent nature of the legal system, and the broader societal structures. • Balkin recognises the problem 'that deconstructive techniques do not seem to support any particular vision of justice; indeed they appear to preclude the possibility of any stable conception of the just or the good that could provide the basis for political belief or the authority for political action‘. • However, Balkin clearly believes that deconstruction, if it is to have any purpose or value, must be capable of being used to reveal injustice. • Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) • Re-examined the fundamentals of writing and its consequences on philosophy in general; sought to undermine the language of 'presence' or metaphysics in an analytical technique which, beginning as a point of departure from Heidegger's notion of Destruktion, came to be known as Deconstruction. Derrida utilized, like Heidegger, references to Greek philosophical notions associated with the Skeptics and the Presocratics, such as Epoché and Aporia to articulate his notion of implicit circularity between premises and conclusions, origins and manifestations, but — in a manner analogous in certain respects to Gilles Deleuze — presented a radical re- reading of canonical philosophical figures such as Plato, Aristotle and Descartes as themselves being informed by such "destabilizing" notions. • Michel Foucault (1926–1984) • Introduced concepts such as 'discursive regime', or re-invoked those of older philosophers like 'episteme' and 'genealogy' in order to explain the relationship among meaning, power, and social behavior within social orders (see The Order of Things, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality). In direct contradiction to what have been typified as Modernist perspectives on epistemology, Foucault asserted that rational judgment, social practice and what he called 'biopower' are not only inseparable but co-determinant. While Foucault himself was deeply involved in a number of progressive political causes and maintained close personal ties with members of the far-Left, he was also controversial with Leftist thinkers of his day, including those associated with various strains of Marxism, proponents of Left libertarianism (e.g. Noam Chomsky) and Humanism (e.g. Jürgen Habermas), for his rejection of what he deemed to be Enlightenment concepts of freedom, liberation, self-determination and human nature. • Instead, Foucault focused on the ways in which such constructs can foster cultural hegemony, violence and exclusion. In line with his rejection of such 'positive' tenets of Enlightenment-era Humanism, he was active, with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, in the Anti-Psychiatry Movement, considering much of institutionalized psychiatry and, in particular, Freud's concept of repression central to Psychoanalysis (which was still very influential in France during the 1960s and 70s), to be both harmful and misplaced. • Foucault was known for his controversial aphorisms, such as "language is oppression", meaning that language functions in such a way as to render nonsensical, false or silent tendencies that might otherwise threaten or undermine the distributions of power backing a society's conventions — even when such distributions purport to celebrate liberation and expression or value minority groups and perspectives. His writings have had a major influence on the larger body of Postmodern academic literature. FURTHER READING Balkin, J. M., 'Understanding Legal Understanding: The Legal Subject and Problem of Legal Coherence' (1993) 103 Yale Law Journal 105. Boyle, J., 'Is Subjectivity Possible?: The Postmodern Subject in Legal Theory' (1991) 62 University of Colorado Law Review 489. Carty, A. (ed.), Post-Modern Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994). Davies, M., Delimiting the Law: 'Postmodernism' and the Politics of Law (London: Pluto Press, 1996). Doherty T., (ed.), Postn,odernism: A Reader (London: Harvester Wheatsheai', 1993). Douzinas, C., Goodrich P. and Hachamovitch, Y., Politics, Postmodernitv and Critical Legal Studies (London: Routledge, 1994). Frug, M. j., 'A Postmodern Feminist Manifesto (An Unfinished Draft)' (1992) 105 Harvard Law Review 1045. McGowan, J., Postmodernism and its Critics (London: Cornell University Press, 1991). Mootz, F J., 'Is the Rule of Law Possible in a Postmodern World?' (1993) 68 Washington Law Review 249. Patterson, D., 'Postmodernism/Feminism/Law' (1992) 77 Cornell Lott, Review 254. Patterson, D., Postmodernism and Law (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994). Schlag, P., 'Normativity and the Politics of Form' (1991) 139 University o/ Pennsylvania Law Review 801. Silverman, H. J., Derrida and Deconstruction (London: Routledge, 1989). Weed, E., 'Reading at the Limit' (1994) 15 Cardozo Law Review 1671.