Macaulay's Law in Everyday Life

Macaulay's article Images of Law in Everyday Life: The Lessons of School, Entertainment, and Spectator Sports investigates three arenas in which people learn about law. In school, students read about textbooks ambiguous in their content, spouting legal jargon (the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches) while using euphemisms to illustrate some of America’s less than lawful and what some would consider immoral actions since its inception, including (but not limited to) the eviction of Native Americans, several hundred years of slavery, Japanese internment during World War II, and other slights. Macaulay shows the contradictory nature of school in teaching law, because it tells what the law is and how America has negotiated breaking it. Entertainment talks of the media and its effect on people’s ideas of law. This includes cop and lawyer shows. The shows talk about law as a tool for justice, but often, lawyers make deals or even defend guilty clients, indicating that the law is bendable to those who know how. Here is another contradictory media outlet for people on what law is. Lastly, Macaulay cites sports. That is, there are rules in sports that are made to ensure a fair game is played. How many times, though, has a sports fan complained that his/her favorite team lost because the referee made a bad call (which is blamed on the referee’s corruption or apparent “blindness,” according to the distraught fan)? The rules are in place to ensure the game is played properly, but when people make the calls that win or lose games, spectators may not care about the rules, as long as their team gets the win. It’s important to note that, as in the other two subjects, sports are described as an arena in which rules are valued but are also seen as bendable or breakable, if they can elicit a preferred outcome.

This article made me think about what people actually value in American society. In Ewick and Sibley, people in the “with the law” category saw the law as a game to be played, in order to beget a desired outcome. While the respondents who were listed with this label seemed not to have too much power in ensuring a favorable outcome, it seems that the three categories above are making believers of Americans and creating more people who are “with the law.” After all, football is a game that people play, and if your team wins because of what might be deemed a bad call, who cares? Your team still won. It’s interesting to note that people who seem to believe in the law don’t care too much about rules and regulations, as long as it suits their needs. Certainly the Macaulay article made me think as such, and I cannot form a good argument for why this is not so. In fact, it seems pretty eerily accurate.