Inventing Law in Local Settings: Rethinking Popular Legal Culture

In Yngvesson's article she raises the point of the amount of power we hand to the people we allow to practice as judges, lawyers, and lawmakers. The people in control of this power are essentially the people who, on a daily basis, declare what is right and what is wrong. She mentions the words "official" and "popular," as in, these people often collectively make the popular opinions into official laws.

This concept reminded me of a class I took with Travis Vande Berg last semester. In his class we discussed the rise of evangelists to power in America. We examined how they had slowly grown in power through a rise in activity targeted towards local politics. They have used the American system to gradually place all of their values into codified laws. They certainly haven't entirely succeeded, but with things like Proposition 8 passing in California, they certainly aren't fading away anytime soon.

Law and Inequality: Race, Gender ...and, of Course, Class

Seron and Munger's article addresses the inequality found in our legal system, especially between classes. However, rather than passing any sort of judgment on this, they instead treat it as a simple fact. A fact that they hope researchers will take into account, lest their research be tainted by idealism or not entirely informed views.

An idea I found very interesting within this article was on page 205, where they begin talking about the idea of more and more international law and business in the modern world, and what this means to class. They raise the idea that in this context an entire culture can be perceived as a class, thereby raising the status of some and lowering the status of others. They don't say much more about this idea, but it seems that this could have enormous implications that I'm sure have already been looked into, but I would be curious to read more about.

Critical Traditions in Law & Society Research

As made apparent by the title of this post I read the Silbey and Sarat article of the same title. The article discusses a criticism of the law & society field in general. It claims that some members of the field have lost their critical eye, and they instead take on a more traditional view of their field. The concern here is that, according to the authors, law & society is an ever-changing area that cannot ever be allowed to stray from a critical viewpoint.

One point made by the authors stood out to me. That came on page 170, where they state that in American society we have a view of law as arising from an external neutral source. In my experience I would have to disagree with this statement. I understand that my experiences have largely taken place in Ithaca for the past 3 1/2 years, an area with its own political climate, and these experiences have also been during the past 8 years under the incredibly criticized Bush regime. But, as I said, it is my experience that many Americans raise a lot of questions over any law passed that they have any reservations about. There is certainly a large sum of the American people that simply believes that all laws are for the best, but I don't believe that it is enough of a majority for the authors to make this statement.