the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_15_08constific.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Securities Regulation
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« Understanding Resistance to Redistribution | Main | This is Your Brain on ... the New York Times »

December 19, 2007

The Place of the Humanities in Politics and Law

posted by Frank Pasquale

I just wanted to highlight two very insightful articles on the humanities I should have read earlier. First, here's part of the abstract of Balkin & Levinson's Law and the Humanities: An Uneasy Relationship:

Law's professional orientation pushes legal scholars toward prescriptivism - the demand that scholars cash out their arguments in terms of specific legal interpretations and policy proposals. These tasks push legal scholars toward technocratic forms of discourse that use the social and natural sciences more than the humanities. Whether justly or unjustly, the humanities tend to rise or fall in comparison to other disciplines to the extent that the humanities are able to help lawyers and legal scholars perform these familiar rhetorical tasks of legitimation and prescription.

Laura Kalman has observed a similar tension between advocacy and academic research in the legal academy, and I'm happy to see B&L moving the conversation forward.

Second, here is Harvey Mansfield writing in First Things on How to Understand Politics:

Politics is not an exchange between the bargaining positions of a buyer and a seller in which self-interest is clear and the result is either a sale or not, all without fuss. As it happens, self-interest does not explain even commercial transactions. That we get angry if we feel cheated, or that we succumb to the charm of salesmanship, shows that more than a small measure of ego enters into the behavior of those who pride themselves on calculation.
Self-interest, when paramount, cools you off and calms you down; thumos pumps you up and makes you hot. In politics there is bargaining, as in commerce, but with a much greater degree of self-importance. People go into politics to pick a fight, not to avoid one.

A provocative and passionate take on a subject that many have tried (and failed) to reduce to transactional logics.

Here is Mansfield's conclusion:

My profession needs to open its eyes and admit to its curriculum the help of literature and history. It should be unafraid to risk considering what is ignored by science and may lack the approval of science. The humanities too, whose professors often suffer from a faint heart, need to recover their faith in what is individual and their courage to defend it. Thumos is not merely theoretical. To learn of it will improve your life as well as your thinking.
It is up to you to improve your life by behaving as if it were important, but let me provide a summary of the things that you will know better after reflecting on the nature of thumos: the contrast between anger and gain; the insistence on victory; the function of protectiveness; the stubbornness of partisanship; the role of assertiveness; the ever-presence of one’s own; the task of religion; the result of individuality; the ambition of greatness. Altogether, thumos is one basis for a human science aware of the body but not bound to it, a science with soul and taught by poetry well interpreted.

Though Charles Taylor critiqued the modeling of human sciences on natural sciences over twenty years ago (and interpretive social science is getting a second look), few have applied such ideas as eloquently or entertainingly as Mansfield does in this essay.

Posted by Frank Pasquale at December 19, 2007 12:09 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2946.

Comments

What am I, chopped liver?

;-)

The sad fact is that even most academics don't really know what the humanities are or where they come from, and don't understand that the defining feature of the studia humanitatis, if I may be an essentialist for the moment, is the use of erudition not in the pursuit of metaphysical truth or certainty but in moral guidance for our daily practices. Their model is IM obviously biased opinion indispensable for thinking deeply about Plato's fundamental question: how should I live?

You know that there's little I find as aggravating as scientism, including the annoyingly persistent habit of seeking to model all knowledge modalities on the natural sciences in spite of how poorly such methods may apply for illuminating the desideratum.

Posted by: Daniel Goldberg at December 19, 2007 12:53 AM


Wow, Mr. Pasquale, I find myself disagreeing with basically everything you write. I don't see how humanities are relevant to the law at all (except in isolated circumstances, such as literary theory being relevant to copyright law).

Posted by: khkjh at December 19, 2007 05:23 PM


I think the problem with Goldberg's argument is that the humanities don't even come close to answering, or even helping one to answer, the question of "how do I live?" Theoretical debates in the humanities are basically un-endable. Unlike with science, there is no objective right answer in the humanities, and no criteria that one can use to find the right answer. Thus, people's positions in theoretical debates end up being defined by their own pre-determined notions about amorphous concept like "fairness". But what's fair to one person may be completely unfair to another, and there's no real way to settle this debate.

This is why it's better to tackle those problems that actually do have objective answers. This is why law is so much more influenced by economics than the other disciplines. With economics, we can all at least agree that some variant of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is the goal, and that we will adopt whichever policies are best adapted to meet that goal.

Posted by: kjhkjhkj at December 19, 2007 05:35 PM


"Law's professional orientation pushes legal scholars toward prescriptivism" -- speaking as a practitioner, may I observe that this seems to be pretty much the only thing toward which legal scholars are pushed by law's professionalism. (Present company on this blog excluded, of course...)

As for the existence of "objective right answers" answers in science, kjhkjhkj should read more deeply in historical scholarship about science, e.g. about such basic stuff as the conservation of energy. Much that is solid melts into air, or at least is more problematic than he thinks. As for the notion that economics provides objective answers, the situation is even worse; there's a vast literature on that too, a good place to start being the work of P. Mirowski. In these cases, an antidote to oversimplified thinking is not necessarily humanities, but history.

Posted by: A.J. Sutter at December 19, 2007 07:06 PM


KJH,

I find the humanities indispensable to answering this question, as did the medieval and Renaissance humanists themselves.

The notion of objective right answers in science is a hoary old narrative that philosophers of science like Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Keller have mercilessly undermined for the past 30 years. Science is a human practice like any other field of inquiry, and as such is subject to just the same biases, predispositions, and misconceptions as other human practices. The search for truth and certainty in science has, I would argue, hardly gotten us much further than most other knowledge modalities, as important and useful as scientific discourse as been.

But that's just the point -- science is useful and practical, not because it provides certainty or objective truth, which is nonsense, as far as I am concerned.

Moreover, kjkh commits the naturalistic fallacy which is sadly prevalent in economics discourse. The mere fact that we have attained KH efficiency does not automatically imply that we ought to purse the set of policies that provide such efficiency. In some circumstances, we have moral obligations to act in inefficient ways. Economics purports to explain descriptive propositions -- is this set of policies efficient? To conclude therefrom that the same set of policies is the normatively preferable one is a rank instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

Finally, even scientists themselves, in the wake of the implications of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and complexity theory, have abandoned pretensions to objectivity and truth that you claim science and economics can provide.

Posted by: Daniel Goldberg at December 19, 2007 08:22 PM


kjkh- not only can we (or ought we) agree that "some variant of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is the goal" it's far from clear that KH efficiency is in any way normatively relevant. If you and I are both at a level of +5, and a legal change will send me to +1 but you to +10, why should _I_ or anyone find that at all desirable or worthy of doing? Not only is KH efficiency not something widely agreed on, it is widely (and rightly) rejected.

Posted by: Matt at December 20, 2007 09:37 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Miriam Cherry
Mark Edwards
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Scott Moss
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member