Philosopher views
Social Implications Of Schlag
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- And, Finally, A Reference To Wiffle Ball Bats
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Social Implications Of SchlagThat hero to LD Debaters everywhere, Immanuel Kant, once said something about how we should act in such a way that we would want to be universalized. I can't really remember, but I think it rhymes with "allegorical diptherative." Anyhoo, the old dead German said it for a reason. What we do and say has social implications larger than just you or I doing it. Kant's thought lives on every time your parents sneer at you and say "How would you like it if EVERYBODY did that?" as you litter or curse in front of them. So ol' Immanuel isn't the only person to think so. That can also be applied to the Schlag critique. What would happen if every person in the world obeyed Schlag's instructions not to do, well, anything? Check that for a second: what would happen if ONLY THE PEOPLE SCHLAG ADDRESSES (judges, lawyers) stopped "being normative" for a day, or a week? What would happen? Who would benefit? Who would suffer? On the up side, some very harsh legislation wouldn't pass. On the down side, NO legislation at all would pass. No one would get any of the benefits from positive social change programs. This is particularly applicable to debate: debate cuts the middle person out of the legislative process, allowing the most forward thinking and idealistic "legislation" or advocacy to "pass" via the judges magical ballot. This is something to be considered in answering the link: debate ideas are uniquely different than the kind of legal action Schlag is critiquing. So, who would benefit from the stated alternative of rejection? Well, the poor that depend on job programs and public assistance sure wouldn't. Working people with children (mostly women) that depend on day care programs and the Family Leave Act (the lone good deed done by the Clinton administration) sure wouldn't. Students hoping to go to college would have to look elsewhere for their student loans. People of color could kiss affirmative action goodbye at an even greater rate than it's already disappearing. Gays and lesbians wouldn't get any legislation protecting them from discrimination, nor protecting them from hate crimes. But don't worry: rich, white heterosexual male college professors WOULD DO JUST FINE. And really, isn't that all of us? Oh, wait, sorry, it isn't. In fact, it's just you, Pierre, and the small faction of those like you who enjoy criticizing everything to death rather than building a realistic alternative vision. I'll tell you who benefits from rejection of change. The STATUS QUO benefits from rejection of change, which is by definition the maintenance of the status quo. And who benefits the most from maintenance of the status quo? The powerful, of course. At this point, someone is likely to point out that no social action by government is pretty darn close to anarchy. The problem is, almost no one - only hardcore anarchists, and VERY, VERY few of them (the rich white heterosexual male ones) - advocates that. The reason they don't is that anyone sane realizes the damage it could do. Why, then, would someone like Schlag advocate this? By all accounts, he's a very bright individual. Some of his critics even call him brilliant. Those same critics, though, point out that these arguments are at their core untenable. In one of the best refutations of Schlag that I've seen, David Gray Carlson surmises that his colleague might just be spoiling for a good fight. Carlson refers to Schlag as a modern-day "duelist" - someone who wants to pick a fight that seems almost impossible just to prove what a quick wit he has. There seems to be some merit for that, and it's at the very least food for thought. Plus, there's a lot to be said for reading a card that says: "Even your own author doesn't believe this: he's just bored and wants to amuse himself by arguing about something." I'll conclude this portion by pointing out how similar that would make Schlag to, well, your average competitive debater. And, Finally, A Reference To Wiffle Ball BatsHope I haven't been overly cynical in this essay. I really believe that a lot of the Critical Legal Scholars have good things to say and for people to think about, even if they don't agree with all of the conclusions. The Schlag argument, though, takes things a bit too far for me and I really hope to see it ruthlessly beaten down by all of you. Anyway, I encourage everyone to take a read of Schlag's articles if only for the aforementioned three reasons. Can't beat the position down if you don't Know Your Enemy, as the late and lamented Rage Against the Machine might say. And DEFINITELY check out the uncut form of that Columbia Law Review article by David Gray Carlson answering ol' Pierre. Oh, and I promised I'd spill the second thing I'd do to Schlag if I ever met him. (One caveat: I'm a pacifist. I would not actually do this.) Steve Pointer and I used to sit around fantasizing about going to the University of Colorado with two Wiffle Ball Bats, busting into Schlag's office, and proceeding to beat him about the kidneys with them. When he begged us to stop, we'd shout "Prescriptive discourse is bad! 'Should' statements are bad! Can't tell me to stop! That would be NORMATIVE! I don't wanna be a HUNGRY GHOST, do I? Say chowdah, Frenchy! Chowdah!" West Coast Publishing does not endorse the contests of that last paragraph. Kids, don't try this at home - or on your opponents. BIBLIOGRAPHYDavid Gray Carlson, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, November, 1999. Steve Chilton, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, GROUNDING POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT, 1991, http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/Articles/GPD3.html#SectionV, acquired May 1, 2001. Anthony D'Amato, Judd & Mary Morris Leighton Professor of Law, Northwestern University, "Counterintuitive Consequences of "Plain Meaning," ARIZONA LAW REVIEW, 1991. Richard Delgado, "Reply: Moves," UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, April 1991. Richard Delgado, "Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought," UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, April 1991. Margaret Jane Radin and Frank Michelman, "Symposium: the Critique of Normativity: Commentary: Pragmatist and Poststructuralist Critical Legal Practice," UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, April, 1991. Pierre Schlag, Hiding the Ball, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 1996. Pierre Schlag, LAYING DOWN THE LAW: MYSTICISM, FETISHISM AND THE AMERICAN LEGAL MIND New York: NYU Press, 1996. Pierre Schlag, Anti-Intellectualism, CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, 1995. Pierre Schlag, "Politics of Form," UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, April 1991. Pierre Schlag, Normative and Nowhere to Go, STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 1990. Pierre Schlag, "Contradiction and Denial," MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, May, 1989. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|