Critical Traditions in Law and Society Research

In Silbey and Sarat’s article, the authors argue that it is possible to be both empirical and critical when conducting and analyzing social research. They discuss the roots of the law and society movement as “an effort not to be deceived;” it served to seek the truth and prevent clinging to any universal belief merely out of tradition. They found that a critical analysis does not exclude the movement from adopting traditions rather than continuing to dig further, and what began as an investigative expedition became what it set out to avoid – the authors write, “[T]he critical bite that comes from challenging a dominant paradigm often gets lost when the new vision becomes accepted and taken for granted, and is no longer at the margins but now functions as its own center” (p. 166). The authors wish for the movement must jettison its complacency, and reclaim its critical edge. To that end, they explain that law and society is constantly changing; in fact, to many people, it can have varied meanings. The law is viewed as the system that sends someone to prison or sentences another to execution; to others, it may be a way to right injustices, and to recompense victims. In order to fully understand law and society, it must be understood that life circumstances create different perspectives among individuals and that it is impossible to know how social life shapes the law, and vice versa. In knowing this, it becomes clear that universal truths cannot be made on law and society, as they are entities constantly changing, in their definitions and interactions.

One particular passage in the conclusion caught my attention. The authors write, “We need to stop trying quite so hard to come to terms with that ineffectiveness and to start studying what legal life is like in the vast interstices of law” (p. 173). This tells the reader that instead of complaining about the failures of the system and attempting to determine what went wrong, it will be more productive and realistic to study the law itself and how it pertains to the people, as interpreted by them, and their use of it in the practical world. This belief smacks of optimism, something seldom seen (and even more seldom published!) in the sociological realm. If these authors believe the solution lies in adopting more practical methods and focus, it seems reminiscent of the original purpose of the law and society movement, which – by the sound of it – could use the interest and rejuvenation.