Advertisement

Law and Critique

, Volume 1, Issue 1–2, pp 81–98 | Cite as

Postlegality: After education in the law

  • Costas Douzinas
  • Shaun McVeigh
  • Ronnie Warrington
Article

Keywords

Saleable Product Legal Text Legal Discourse Legal Education Structural Opposi 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.-F. Lyotard,The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Norris, “Law, deconstruction and the resistance to theory”,Journal of Law and Society 15 (1988), 166–187.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Derrida, “Some questions and responses”, in N. Fabb et al, eds.,The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature (London: Routledge, 1988), 252–265 at 255. See also “Jacques Derrida in Discussion with Christopher Norris”,Architectural Design 58 (1989), 7–11 at 9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plato,The Laws, Bk VI, 765e.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Lentriccia, “Interview”, in I. Saluzinsky, ed.,Criticism in Society (London: Methuen, 1987), 176–207, at 190.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plato,The Republic, Bk III, 403.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Supra n.7 at Bk VII, 536.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Supra n.7 at Bk VII, 518.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Supra n.5 at Bk II 663 d-e.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Other versions of the history presented here can be found in A. MacIntyre,After Virtue, (London: Duckworth, 1981). For a not dissimilar narrative which can be adapted to the same purposes see N. Simmonds,The Decline of Juridical Reason (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For some useful ‘critical legal’ writings on legal education seeLegal Education Review 1/1 (1989).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.T. Murphy and S. Roberts, “Introduction”,Modern Law Review 50 (1987), 673–687 at 678 note 3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Derrida,Of Grammatology (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See in general the debates between Hart and Dworkin, and Dworkin and Fish (published in J.W.T. Mitchell, ed.,The Politics of Interpretation (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1982), and continued in various places, in particular in theTexas Law Review 62 (1983), devoted to interpretation in law. For ‘competence’ models in criticism, see generally, J. Culler,On Deconstruction (London: Routledge, 1983), and more recentlyFraming the Sign (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). For criticism of these debates see C. Norris,The Contest of Faculties (London: Methuen, 1985), ch.7; and hisPaul De Man (London: Routledge, 1988), ch.5; T. Eagleton,Against the Grain (London: Verso, 1986), ch.4; R. Young, “The Politics of ‘The Politics of Literary Theory”,Oxford Literary Review 10 (1989), 131–157.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Thomson, “Critical Legal Education”,Journal of Law and Society 14 (1987), 183–197 at 184.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Kennedy, “Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy”,Journal of Legal Education 32 (1982), 591–604.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W.T. Murphy and S. Roberts, “Introduction”,Modern Law Review 50 (1987), 673–687 at 686.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Marx and F. Engels,Collected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975), Vol 2, 51.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. Tunkel, “The Selden Society Reaches its Century,”New Law Journal 137 (1988), 1093–1095 at 1095; emphasis added.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plato,The Laws, Bk II, 931c.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, for example, P. Goodrich, “Modalities of Legal Annunciation: An Introductions to Court Room Speech”, in R. Kevelson, ed.,Law and Semiotics II (New York: Plenum, 1989), 143–165.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plato,The Republic, Bk XII, 957.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Johnson, “Teaching Ignorance: L'Ecole des Femmes”,Yale French Studies 63 (1982), 165–182 at 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Derrida,Writing and Difference (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), ch.9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    For relations between psychoanalysis and feminism see J. Rose,Sexuality in the Field of Vision (London: Verso, 1986); J. Gallop,Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter's Seduction (London: MacMillan, 1982). On “difference” seeScreen 28/1 (1987), devoted to “deconstructing ‘difference’”.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See J. Derrida,Glas (Nebraska: Nebraska University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.F. Lyotard,The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 51.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Supra n.28 at 55–60.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Supra n.28 at 61.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Ulmer,Applied Grammatology: Post(e)-Pedagogy Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1985), 164.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Derrida, “Some Questions and Responses”, in N. Fabb et al, eds.,The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature (London: Routledge, 1988), 256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deborah Charles Publication 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Costas Douzinas
    • 1
  • Shaun McVeigh
    • 2
  • Ronnie Warrington
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of LancasterLancaster
  2. 2.Department of LawUniversity of KeeleKeele

Personalised recommendations