The New Realism and Lawlessness in Kaleidoscope

  • Roberta Kevelson

Abstract

When Harold Laski writes on the topic of Mr. Justice Holmes he draws upon nearly a lifetime of correspondence between them, a correspondence in which they critically shared and compared some of the leading and the emergent ideas of their time, including the theory of signs and the pragmatic philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. It is from the writings of the patriarchs of pragmatism -- Peirce, James, Dewey -- that Holmes drew his major insights for the movement in Legal Realism of which he is the acclaimed founder, I claim. The Legal Realism which directly followed Holmes, mainly through the work of Garland, Frank, Llewellyn and others of that period, was not a unified movement; rather, it shared certain tenets which, in spite of the diversity of views among its spokesmen, can be thought of as a cohesive “school” or movement in American law.

Keywords

Manifold Refraction Defend Metaphor Lester 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 5.
    See Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964: 119.Google Scholar
  2. 8.
    See R. Kevelson, Charles S. Peirce’s Method of Methods, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    See John P. Briggs and F. David Peat, (eds.) Looking Glass Universe: The Emerging Science of Wholeness, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 14.
    The first symposium on Law and Semiotics was held at Indiana University, 1983, as part of the annual meeting of the Semiotic Society of America.Google Scholar
  5. 15.
    Overviews of the development of law and semiotics can be found in R. Kevelson, Introduction to Vol. I, Semiotics and Law, New York: Plenum, 1988, and in R. Benson, “Semiotics, Modernism and the Law,” Semiotica, in press.Google Scholar
  6. 16.
    See R. M. Linger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    See L. Goldberg and E. Levenson, Lawless Judges,introduced by Morris Cohen, New York: Rand School Press, 1935. “If our judges do not uphold our Constitutional guarantee of rights to all people it can only be understood as their willful disregard of the law,” at page viii.Google Scholar
  8. 21.
    See David Nelken, “Critical Criminal Law” in Journal of Law and Society 14 1 1987: 105–118. See also Mark Kelman, “The Origins of Crime and Criminal Violence” in David Kairys (ed.) The Politics of Law, New York: Pantheon, 1982: 214–229.Google Scholar
  9. 22.
    See, for example, S. Halleck, Psychiatry and the Dilemmas of Crime, New York: Harper and Row, on crime as adaptive value, 1967: 35–133.Google Scholar
  10. 24.
    Llewellyn, above, at pages 71–72, presses for an inductive rather than a deductive model for legal reasoning, since induction permits a predictive law to develop.Google Scholar
  11. See also Max Fisch, “Justice Holmes, the Prediction Theory of Law and Pragmatism,” Journal of Philosophy, 39 12 1942: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 25.
    See Peter Goodrich, Reading the Law, Oxford: Blackwells, 1986:13, 14, on unverifiable presuppositions held by legal actors.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberta Kevelson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Penn StateUSA
  2. 2.Center for Semiotic Research in Law, Government and EconomicsUSA

Personalised recommendations