We are starting a new format for the New Legal Realism Conversations,which have been posted as part of the NLR Project webpage since 2009. We feature commentary from current contributors and highlights of important legal realist scholarship — from past to present. This is not intended to be a conventional blog, but is part of a larger project (see our webpage for more information).
Join Stewart Macaulay, Elizabeth Mertz, and new contributors, for conversations about law, society, and all that jazz!
Below you will find an archive of some of our past topics:
2009-2010 POSTS:
- Leading Economists Criticize Rational Choice Models
- Why Law Needs Empirical Anthropology
- Stewart Macaulay’s Jazz Picks
- Legal Research Funded by Big Oil?
———————————————————————————-
LEADING ECONOMISTS CRITICIZE RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY & BLIND DEPENDENCE ON MATHEMATICS
In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of leading economists have criticized the current state of economics as a discipline, arguing that a fascination with mathematical modeling and a naive faith in the ubiquity of rational action led economists to miss warning signs. Because the U.S. legal academy is poised on the brink of a turn to social science, it may be an apt time for us to reflect on these lessons.
Letter from Professor Geoffrey M. Hodgson and other leading economists: http://www.feed-charity.org/user/image/queen2009b.pdf
The Great Mortification: Economists’ Responses to the Crisis of 2007–(and counting), Philip Mirowski: “Lesson 1: This Is What Happens When You Banish History and Philosophy …. the task is to recount these events as a sequence of otherwise avoidable tragedies, the first of which must be conceded to have been the exile of history and philosophy from any place within the contemporary economic orthodoxy. After a brief flirtation in the 1960s and 1970s, the grandees of the profession took it upon themselves to express their disdain and scorn for the types of self-reflection practiced by “methodologists” and historians of economics and to go out of their way to prevent those so inclined from occupying any tenured foothold in reputable economics departments. It was perhaps no coincidence that history and philosophy were the areas where one found the greatest concentrations of skeptics concerning the shape and substance of the postwar American economic orthodoxy.” [One might add other social sciences as well...]” ….
“Lesson 3: Rationality Doesn’t Begin to Scratch the Surface
One of the greatest ironies of the disputation was that a fair cadre of neoclassical economists had conceived of an enthusiasm for “behavioral economics” early in the new millennium, by which they meant minor emendations to conventional microeconomics informed through putative recourse to the findings of psychologists. It should be noted they almost never once regarded economists as suitable grist for their behavioral mills.”
ttp://www.iasc-culture.org/publications_article_2010_Summer_mirowski.php
AND the PETITION signed by many leading scholars: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/revitalizing_economics/?e
———————————————————————————-
WHY LAW NEEDS EMPIRICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Excerpt adapted from Editor’s Introduction to PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 32:1 (2009)
One of the larger gaps in translation between law and social science today can be found in the U.S. legal academy’s (general lack of) receptivity to the knowledge available on legal topics from the field of anthropology. And yet, in today’s increasingly connected world, anthropology provides a perspective not found in other social sciences in the United States (apart, perhaps, from qualitative sociology as it ventures outside of the United States). There is arguably a preference in US policy making circles for quantitative research based in economics and political science; this research can be very useful for some purposes, but it does not focus on translating between U.S. and other cultures’ perspectives. Ironically, this preference is paired with a great deal of rhetoric about the need to adjust to a global world in which transnational norms and economic ties are becoming ever more important. Yet the scholarly fields with the most experience in interpreting across such global arenas do not seem to translate well in the corridors of power. To what degree this is an insoluble problem–or a problem at all–seems to be a point on which well-respected anthropologists disagree. Some might argue that there is simply no point in trying, because U.S. legal and political frameworks are simply incapable of incorporating any fundamentally different perspectives. But for those (whether inside or outside of anthropology) who are interested in formulating policies that take account of the needs and perspectives of the world outside of the United States, anthropology has a great deal to offer in comparison to the other US social sciences.
Take, for example, anthropological research demonstrating the paradoxical consequences of some Western intervention purportedly designed to empower and help people struggling with poverty across the globe. Such interventions on the part of organizations like NGOs and international financial institutions (the World Bank, the IMF) often wind up further undermining disempowered people at the local level–and among the social sciences, it has been anthropology that has led the way in documenting and analyzing this process. (See, for example, recent special issues of PoLAR devoted to the question of NGOs.)
More generally, an informed engagement with anthropological research can help correct a tendency on the part of Western legal scholars and politicians to understand global dilemmas through Western-centric paradigms. There have been some efforts in recent years to move beyond narrow “rational actor” models in the forms of economics being absorbed by US legal and political elites. However, this is a very elementary step by comparison with methods long available through the field of anthropology. And, of course, these anthropological methods are subject to constant, vigorous internal critiques–perhaps, however, to the point where they seem entirely discredited to audiences in other fields (unaware of the fact that these same critiques would discredit still further the interview, survey, experimental, and other techniques used by the remaining social sciences).
Somewhere between informed critique, on the one hand, and a reasoned assessment of the relative benefits of inevitably partial and flawed sources of information, on the other hand, may lie a place where anthropology can make peace with its own fierce self-criticism, and emerge to make a more vigorous contribution to public and “scientific” discourses in these times. Anthropological studies such as those published by PoLAR, the American Anthropologist, and the American Ethnologist, contain insights that would not be obtainable from techniques designed to yield only quantitative results. This is not to dismiss quantitative research per se, which also has a place in research on large-scale societies and international phenomena. However, qualitative anthropological insights reflect as sound an “empirical” base as those emerging from studies from other fields that employ different sorts of methodologies. Indeed, for those seeking to understand non-Western paradigms, they provide a better empirical foothold.
Elizabeth Mertz
STEWART MACAULAY’S JAZZ PICKS …. MAY 2009
Music that I’m listening to now: For some time, I’ve been telling people to listen to the singer Karrin Allyson. Her most recent CD is “Imagina: Songs of Brasil.” My friends who speak Portuguese say that she is remarkably good for an American. When she sings in English on this disk, she has tried to get better translations than some that were used when the songs first came to this country. As always, she has terrific musicians with her on the CD.
I discovered Allyson a few years ago when I bought Marian McPartland & Friends: “85 Candles — Live in New York.” (This was a celebration of McPartland’s 85th birthday with just about everyone active in jazz who was available). Allyson performs on only one of the twenty- two tracks, but I so liked it that I started buying her CDs. Allyson sings McPartland’s song, “Twilight World,” which has lyrics by Johnny Mercer. Then I found Allyson’s CD, “Daydream.” (Concord CCD 4773-2) She sings the Ellington-Strayhorn title tune very well, but she does wonderfully in a very different style in Duke’s “I Ain’t Got Nothin’ But the Blues.” You also get two bossa novas, and “Like Someone in Love.” Adding to my enjoyment, she has Gary Burton (vibes) and Randy Brecker (flugelhorn) on some of the tracks. After hearing “Imagina,” I bought one of her 1999 CDs, “From Paris to Rio.” While there is plenty of jazz on this one, it has a European/Brazilian feel to it that I like.
What about Duke Ellington, you would ask if you know me. I discovered a remake of a concert album that was originally recorded in October of 1971, that I’ve played over and over. This is late Ellington. Billy Strayhorn and Johnny Hodges are dead, and Jimmy Hamilton has left the band. But Duke is still writing new music as well as playing new arrangements of “C Jam Blues,” “Cottontail,” “In a Mellotone” and “I’ve Got it Bad, and That Ain’t Good.” I very much like some of the new stuff: “Soul Soothing Beach” from the “Brava Togo Suite” is wonderful big band writing. “La Plus Belle Africaine” is percussive and lets you hear a lot of piano and bass. Finally, Norris Turney’s tribute to Johnny Hodges, the man he replaced, captures Hodges without being a trite imitation — this is “Checkered Hat,” named after the hat that Hodges often wore. The album is called “The English Concert.” The remastered version is BGO #CD451. It may be hard to find; it was released in England and imported here.
We had many visitors to my house last weekend. Several of them, after discovering my “tiny” collection of Ellington CDs, asked what should they buy to get into Ellington. This is a very hard question to answer because there are so many ways to go. If you want a fairly broad sample of Ellington, I’d turn to “The Great Paris Concert.” It was originally issued by Atlantic in 1973, but it was reissued on Collectables in 2005 (COL-CD-7818). You get many older tunes from the early days of the band and you get two of his longer works — “Suite Thursday” and “Tone Parallel to Harlem.” More importantly, the band was really on for the concerts that produced these recordings. Another approach would be to buy “Jazz Party in Stereo” (Sony Columbia) if you can find it. (It is worth tracking down a used copy). It is from 1959, and it has little that is famous. However, you get as guests Dizzy Gillespie and Jimmy Rushing. Gillespie plays the trumpet part in Billy Strayhorn’s “U.M.M.G.” That stands for “Upper Manhattan Medical Group,” and it is dedicated to Dr. Arthur Logan, Ellington’s doctor. You get both Gillespie and Rushing on “Hello Little Girl,” a blues that just roars. Irving Townsend, Columbia’s jazz producer, ended his album notes with “in a small voice, an opinion!” Then, he wrote in small type: “This is the most exciting album of jazz I’ve ever heard.” You don’t have to rate it that highly to accept that it is very very good. Of course, you really can’t go wrong if you buy any of the many “Duke Ellington’s Greatest Hits” CDs.
If you want to ease into Ellington with something that you are very likely to enjoy, you could try two CDs that are now available. The first is “The Complete Ellington Indigos.” The band plays some Ellington songs and some by other composers such as “Where or When,” “Tenderly,” and “Willow Weep for Me.” Shorty Baker’s trumpet on “Mood Indigo” is worth the price of the CD, particularly if you’ve ever danced to a big band. This is on Jazz Beat 527. A shorter version was originally issued on Columbia in 1957. The other is “Duke Elllington: Retrospection — The Piano Sessions.” It is on Lonehill Jazz LHJ10369. Most of the CD has Ellington playing with a trio. Some of the songs are classic Ellington; others are wonderful things that you probably haven’t heard.
Legal Research Funded by Big Oil?
Stewart Macaulay
