In All Judges Are Political—Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law (2010), Keith Bybee considers the hypocrisy of modern law—that is, the widespread view that judges are both principled and partisan—by drawing an analogy with courtesy. Both law and courtesy contain and manage the diverse and potentially divisive interests that would, were they not contained, disrupt social life. In this essay I extend this argument by considering whether the relationship between law and courtesy is more than merely analogical. I suggest that both systems are aspects of larger historical developments out of which emerged the modern subject and the modern state, creating a social world made up of apparently bounded individuals and institutions. As such, law and courtesy do more than conceal and contain interests and subjectivity; they produce the unruly, partisan subjects they are designed to manage.

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Murray Edelman's The Symbolic Uses of Politics (1964) and provides the occasion for us to reflect on his contributions and the influence of his work in law and society scholarship. Measuring its impact is no easy or straightforward task, in part because reading a book that was written that long ago is an exercise in translation. Over the course of four decades, terms of art are invented, intellectual styles change, and paradigms shift.

In his presidential address, Frank Munger (2001) asks us to consider a reconciliation between inquiry and activism. Although Munger uses the broader and more inclusive term “social inquiry” as his counterpoint to activism, I would like to focus on a particular type of inquiry, one that has deep roots in the Law and Society Association (LSA) and one that is most opposed to activism: social science inquiry. In short, I would argue that tensions that historically have kept the projects of inquiry and activism separate emerge out of a particular brand of inquiry known as empiricism and, among other things, its commitment to value freedom.

In 1974, Marc Galanter published a paper entitled “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change” in which he analyzed the limits of a legal system, such as that of the United States, to achieve redistributive outcomes. He traced the limits to features of the U.S. legal system's “basic architecture.” The specific features to which he referred were a series of structural dualisms or institutional contradictions that permitted symbolic claims to universalism, public authority, and equality to coexist with particularism, private power, and inequality.

The authors outline a sociology of narrative—an analysis of the role of narrative in various social contexts, including academic sociolegal scholarship. Narratives are social acts that depend for their production and cognition on norms of performance and content that specify when, what, how, and why stories are told. Because narratives are situationally produced and interpreted, they have no necessary political or epistemological valence but depend on the particular context and organization of their production for their political effect. The analysis specifies the variable conditions that produce hegemonic tales—stories that reproduce existing relations of power and inequity—and subversive stories—narratives that challenge the taken-for-granted hegemony by making visible and explicit the connections between particular lives and social organization.

In his presidential address to the Law and Society Association, Joel Handler describes recent changes in the character of social protest and the scholarship that seeks to understand these resistant practices. In his description, Handler depicts a world in which all that was once collective and effectual is now fragmented and futile. Not that long ago, he suggests, we had real (ideological/class-based) social movements and vital communities that were documented by scholars in optimistic stories of resistance and protest. But time passed and we became postmodernized: destabilized and uncertain, ironic and listless. Where once we challenged oppression and power en masse to the flourish of trumpets, now we are just so many flatulent individuals.