Law and Critique

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 91–139 | Cite as

The Hermeneutic of Suspicion in Contemporary American Legal Thought



This article explores the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ that seems to drive contemporary American jurists to interpret their opponents’ arguments to be ideologically motivated wrong answers to legal questions. The first part situates the hermeneutic in the history of the critique of legal reasoning, in public and private law, particularly the critique that claims that ‘no right answer is possible’ to many high-stakes questions of legal interpretation. The second part locates the hermeneutic in the long running processes of juridification, judicialization and constitutionalization that characterize law in modern society. The last part interprets the hermeneutic as ‘projective identification’, in the sense of Freud’s analysis of jealousy, with the jurist solving the problem of role conflict by firmly externalizing the inevitable ideological element in doing justice onto his opponent while preserving the legalist element in doing justice for himself.


Constitutionalization Hermeneutic of suspicion Judicialization Juridification Legal theory 



Thanks to Justin Desautels-Stein, Richard Fallon, Michael Fischl, Richard Ford, Janet Halley, David Kennedy and Mark Tushnet. Thanks to Aisha Ahmad for research assistance. Errors are mine alone.


  1. Brewer, Scott. 1996. Exemplary reasoning: Semantics, pragmatics, and the rational force of legal argument by analogy. Harvard Law Review 109(5): 923–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chayes, Abram. 1976. The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Review 89: 1281–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coase, R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, Felix. 1935. Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Review 35(6): 809–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, Walter Wheeler. 1918. Privileges of labor in the struggle for life. The Yale Law Journal 27: 779–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, John. 1924. Logical method and law. The Philosophical Review 33(6): 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donzelot, Jacques. 1984. L’invention du social: essai sur le déclin des passions politiques. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, Ronald. 1982. Law as interpretation. Critical Inquiry 9(1): 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, L.B., and M. Galanter. 2001. Law: Overview. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. Neil J. Smelser, and Paul B. Baltes, 8538–8544. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ely, John H. 1973. The wages of crying wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade. The Yale Law Journal 82(5): 920–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feinman, Jay. 2004. Un-making law: The classical revival in the common law. Seattle University Law Review 28(1): 1–59.Google Scholar
  15. Fischl, Richard Michael. 2007. Rethinking the tripartite division of American work law. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 28: 163–216.Google Scholar
  16. Freud, Sigmund. 1922. Certain neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and homosexuality. In Sexuality and the psychology of love, ed. Sigmund Freud, and Philip Rieff. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Geny, Francois. 1899. Méthode d'interprétation et sources en droit privé positif. Paris: A. Chevalier-Marescq & cie.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, John. 2012. Introduction: Pragmatism and private law. Harvard Law Review 125(7): 1640–1663.Google Scholar
  19. Grey, Thomas. 1983. Langdell’s orthodoxy. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 45: 1–53.Google Scholar
  20. Grey, Thomas C. 1997. Do we have an unwritten constitution. In A constitutional law anthology, 2nd ed, ed. Michael J. Glennon, Donald E. Lively, Phoebe A. Haddon, Dorothy E. Roberts, and Russell L. Weaver, 78–81. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Hand, Learned. 1958. The bill of rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1944. The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Hohfeld, Wesley N. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal 23(1): 16–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1897. Privilege, malice, and intent. Harvard Law Review 8: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jhering, Rudolph. von. 1913. Law as a means to an end (trans: Isaac Husik) Boston: The Boston Book Company.Google Scholar
  26. Joerges, Christian. 2012. Conflicts‐law constitutionalism: Ambitions and problems. ZenTra Working Paper in Transnational Studies 10: SSRN: or  10.2139/ssrn.2182092.
  27. Kagan, Robert. 2001. Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kelsen, Hans. 1942. Law and peace in international relations: The Oliver Wendell Holmes lectures, 1940–1941. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy, David. 1987. The move to institutions. Cardozo Law Review 8(5): 841–985.Google Scholar
  30. Kennedy, David. 1994. The international style in postwar law and policy. Utah Law Review 1: 7–104.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, David. 2004. The dark sides of virtue: Reassessing international humanitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, Duncan M. 1969. Civil disabilities and the First Amendment. The Yale Law Journal 78(5): 842–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy, Duncan M. 1986. Freedom and constraint in adjudication: A critical phenomenology. Journal of Legal Education 36(4): 518–562.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, Duncan M. 1991. A semiotics of legal argument. Syracuse Law Review 42: 75.Google Scholar
  35. Kennedy, Duncan M. 1997. A critique of adjudication. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2000. From the will theory to the principle of private autonomy: Lon Fuller’s ‘consideration and form’. Columbia Law Review 100(1): 94–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2004. The disenchantment of logically formal legal rationality, or Max Weber’s sociology in the genealogy of the contemporary mode of western legal thought. Hastings Law Journal 55: 1031–1076.Google Scholar
  38. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2006a. The rise and fall of classical legal thought 1850–1940. Washington, DC: Beard Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2006b. Three globalizations of law and legal thought: 1850–2000. In The new law and economic development: A critical appraisal, ed. David M. Trubek, and Alvaro Santos, 19–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2010. Savigny’s family/patrimony distinction and its place in the global genealogy of classical legal thought. American Journal of Comparative Law 58: 811–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2011. A transnational genealogy of proportionality in private law. In Foundations of European private law, ed. Roger Brownsword, 185. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Kennedy, Duncan M. 2012. Political ideology and comparative law. In The Cambridge companion to comparative law, ed. Mauro Bussani, and Ugo Mattei, 35–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klare, Karl. 1978. Judicial deradicalization of the Wagner act and the origins of modern legal coconsciousness, 1937–1941. Minnesota Law Review 62(3): 265–340.Google Scholar
  44. Kumm, Mathias. 2006. Who is afraid of the total constitution? Constitutional rights as principles and constitutionalization of private law. German Law Journal 7: 341–369.Google Scholar
  45. Lasch, Christopher. 1977. Haven in a heartless world. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Llewellyn, Karl N. 1930a. Toward a realistic jurisprudence: The next step. Columbia Law Review 30(4): 431–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Llewellyn, Karl N. 1930b. The bramble bush: On our law and its study. New York: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Mattei, Ugo. 2002. A theory of imperial law: A study on U.S. hegemony and the Latin resistance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal studies 10(1): 383–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moyn, Samuel. 2010. The last utopia: Human rights in history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nagel, Thomas. 2013. Ronald Dworkin: The moral quest. The New York Review of Books 60(18). Accessed 6 Mar 2014.
  51. O’Connor, James. 1973. The fiscal crisis of the state. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  52. Peller, Gary. 1985. The metaphysics of American law. California Law Review 73(4): 1151–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
  54. Posner, Richard. 1972. A theory of negligence. The Journal of Legal Studies 1: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Posner, Richard. 1997. Bad faith: Review of Duncan Kennedy, A critique of adjudication (fin de siecle). New Republic 34:11–13.Google Scholar
  56. Posner, Richard. 1998. The problematics of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review 111(7): 1637–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Posner, Richard. 2008. How judges think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pound, Roscoe. 1922. An introduction to the philosophy of law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rawle, William. 1825. A view of the constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia: H.C. Carey & I. Lea.Google Scholar
  60. Reich, Charles A. 1964. The new property. The Yale Law Journal 73: 733–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ricoeur, Paul. 1970. Freud and philosophy: An essay on interpretation (trans: Denis Savage) New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Savigny, Friedrich Karl von. 1867. System of the modern Roman law (trans: William Holloway) Madras: J. Higginbotham.Google Scholar
  63. Scalia, Antonin, and Amy Gutmann (eds.). 1997. A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Singer, Joseph W. 1982. The legal rights debate in analytical jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld. Wisconsin Law Review 1982(6): 975–1060.Google Scholar
  65. Story, Joseph. 1858 [1833]. Commentaries on the constitution of the United States, vol. 1, sections 373–397 (3rd ed.), 254–281. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  66. Teles, Steven M. 2007. The rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Teubner, Gunther (ed.). 1987. Juridification of social spheres: A comparative analysis in the areas of labor, corporate, antitrust and social welfare law. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  68. Teubner, Gunther. 1988. Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society. Berlin, NY: W. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  69. Teubner, Gunther. 2004. Societal constitutionalism: Alternatives to state-centered constitutional theory? In Transnational governance and constitutionalism, ed. Christian Joerges, Inger-Johanne Sand, and Gunther Teubner, 3–28. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Weber, Max. 1921–22 (1978). Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  71. Weber, Max. 1954. Max Weber on law in economy and society, ed. Max Rheinstein (trans: Edward Shils and Max Rheinstein) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wieacker, Franz. 1995. A history of private law in Europe with particular reference to Germany (trans: John Weir) Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  73. Willrich, Michael. 2003. City of courts: Socializing justice in progressive era Chicago. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar


  1. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381U.S.479 (1965).Google Scholar
  2. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Duncan Kennedy 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Law SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations