Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1671718
 


 



The Vanity of Dogmatizing


Marc O. DeGirolami


St. John's University - School of Law

September 3, 2010

Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, 2010-2011
St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-193

Abstract:     
This essay considers Brian Tamanaha’s “Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide,” a book which takes aim at one of the most deep-rooted jurisprudential dichotomies of the last century: the concepts of legal formalism and legal realism. The book aims “to free us from the formalist-realist stranglehold,” an exercise that, it is claimed, will allow “us [to] recover a sound understanding of judging.”

After summarizing the historical features of the book, this essay explores Tamanaha’s interesting critical reconstruction, one which attempts to explain why the formalist/realist dichotomy achieved such salience in the face of copious contrary historical evidence. In the context of assessing the author’s critique, the essay expresses some reservations about Tamanaha’s appeal to “balanced realism.” In specific, the essay argues that a book that purports to debunk certain conceptual categories should not return to the same dry conceptual well after purporting to drain it.

This recursive move suggests that even after all the historical smudge-marks have been identified and retouched, the best that can be done is resignation to a kind of murky via media somewhere between formalism and realism’s grosser excesses. The essay offers two interpretations of Tamanaha’s backslide to “balanced realism,” which it calls the metaphysical and the historicist interpretations.

What might all of this mean for legal scholarship? The question is too large to be pursued in any detail here, but the essay concludes by speculating about how adopting the metaphysical and historicist modes in legal theory might influence one facet of constitutional theory: originalist and living constitutionalist theories of interpretation. It is tentatively suggested that in light of the sorts of systematic academic distortions that Tamanaha so adeptly documents in the area of jurisprudence, the historicist mode, though rarely pursued by legal theorists, offers a more promising future for this debate in constitutional theory as well as for the formalist/realist question itself.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Keywords: Legal Theory, Constitutional Law, American Legal History

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 5, 2010 ; Last revised: November 16, 2010

Suggested Citation

DeGirolami, Marc O., The Vanity of Dogmatizing (September 3, 2010). Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 27, 2010-2011; St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-193. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1671718

Contact Information

Marc O. DeGirolami (Contact Author)
St. John's University - School of Law ( email )
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 833
Downloads: 150
Download Rank: 117,950

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.219 seconds