Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)

After laying out a conventional account of the formalism vs. realism debates, this Article argues that formalism and realism are at once impossible and entrenched. To say they are impossible is to say that they are not as represented — that they cannot deliver their promised goods. To say that they...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: P. Shlag
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: North-West Institute of Management, Branch of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) 2025-01-01
Series:Теоретическая и прикладная юриспруденция
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.taljournal.ru/jour/article/view/473
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841536692618526720
author P. Shlag
author_facet P. Shlag
author_sort P. Shlag
collection DOAJ
description After laying out a conventional account of the formalism vs. realism debates, this Article argues that formalism and realism are at once impossible and entrenched. To say they are impossible is to say that they are not as represented — that they cannot deliver their promised goods. To say that they are entrenched is to say that these forms of thought are sedimented as thought and practice throughout law’s empire. We live thus amidst the ruins of formalism and realism. The disputes between these two great determinations of American law continue today, but usually in more localized or circumscribed forms. We see versions of the disputes, for instance, in the stylized disagreements over the desired form of judicial doctrines (rules vs. standards); or the best rendition of key political values like equality (formal vs. substantive); or the proper mode of judicial interpretation (textual vs. purposive). Here too, the arguments that comprise the localized variants of the dispute remain inconclusive. The Article concludes by mapping “the logics of collapse” — specifically, some critical moves that undermine the rhetorical and intellectual force of the formalism vs. realism disputes and their localized variants. The aims here are several. First, the ability to deploy the critical moves helps with analysis. The critical moves help show how the arguments are constructed in the first place and how they are rhetorically and intellectually compromised. Second, and relatedly, the critical moves allow us to avoid being taken in by the formalism vs. realism arguments and their localized variants. Third, the aim is to show how our formalist and realist argumentation has already been surpassed by a legal “logic” that undermines the cogency of that argumentation.
format Article
id doaj-art-407c1f16b1a74e7b864239085832ab38
institution Kabale University
issn 3034-2813
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher North-West Institute of Management, Branch of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
record_format Article
series Теоретическая и прикладная юриспруденция
spelling doaj-art-407c1f16b1a74e7b864239085832ab382025-01-14T11:56:24ZengNorth-West Institute of Management, Branch of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)Теоретическая и прикладная юриспруденция3034-28132025-01-0104185510.22394/3034-2813-2024-4-18-55254Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)P. Shlag0Университет КолорадоAfter laying out a conventional account of the formalism vs. realism debates, this Article argues that formalism and realism are at once impossible and entrenched. To say they are impossible is to say that they are not as represented — that they cannot deliver their promised goods. To say that they are entrenched is to say that these forms of thought are sedimented as thought and practice throughout law’s empire. We live thus amidst the ruins of formalism and realism. The disputes between these two great determinations of American law continue today, but usually in more localized or circumscribed forms. We see versions of the disputes, for instance, in the stylized disagreements over the desired form of judicial doctrines (rules vs. standards); or the best rendition of key political values like equality (formal vs. substantive); or the proper mode of judicial interpretation (textual vs. purposive). Here too, the arguments that comprise the localized variants of the dispute remain inconclusive. The Article concludes by mapping “the logics of collapse” — specifically, some critical moves that undermine the rhetorical and intellectual force of the formalism vs. realism disputes and their localized variants. The aims here are several. First, the ability to deploy the critical moves helps with analysis. The critical moves help show how the arguments are constructed in the first place and how they are rhetorically and intellectually compromised. Second, and relatedly, the critical moves allow us to avoid being taken in by the formalism vs. realism arguments and their localized variants. Third, the aim is to show how our formalist and realist argumentation has already been surpassed by a legal “logic” that undermines the cogency of that argumentation.https://www.taljournal.ru/jour/article/view/473legal formalismlegal realismp. schlag
spellingShingle P. Shlag
Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
Теоретическая и прикладная юриспруденция
legal formalism
legal realism
p. schlag
title Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
title_full Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
title_fullStr Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
title_full_unstemmed Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
title_short Formalism and Realism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
title_sort formalism and realism in ruins mapping the logics of collapse
topic legal formalism
legal realism
p. schlag
url https://www.taljournal.ru/jour/article/view/473
work_keys_str_mv AT pshlag formalismandrealisminruinsmappingthelogicsofcollapse