Teaching Law

I teach law as a liberal arts discipline on the undergraduate level.  This means I'm not terribly interested in dry civil procedure rules or Famous Dates In Constitutional History. My special area of research interest is Law and Sexuality.  I'm more interested in how law affects your personal life. Here's your first lesson in reality: Law has little to do with the portico on the right that rests so magnificently above the U.S. Supreme Court. Law is not about Justice.

What is Law?

"Law" refers to the ordering of society, i.e., the binding customs or practices of a community (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). 

The essential quality of Law is order, now popularly referred to as "security."  This is demonstrated by the etymology of the word, from the Greek word for bed, lechos. This probably refers to items lying in order (Latin lectus, Old High German ligen, Old English licgan, Old English licgan, English lie).  In other words, it is a system of order. 

The Law's essential quality of order is both useful and problematic.  Law replaces anarchy with a "more just" order, which controls transgression of social norms, resolves disputes, and manages social change.  "More just" does not equal Justice, however, and too often the law's interpretation of Justice means "Just Us." 

By definition, Law is a restriction of freedom.  Its rigid order creates injustice to the extent it tends to favor tradition at the expense of changing notions of fairness, and to be controlled by the powerful. The Law is primarily defined by this tension between freedom and security.  

In the U.S., Law is popularly viewed with reverence because it is considered  powerful and just.  Paradoxically, it is disdained by many because it is perceived as weak and unjust. 

In truth, Law is not inherently just or unjust.  It is a creature of the society that creates it.  Law can be the law of Solomon or the law of Hitler. Therefore, the study of Law is inseparable from the study of society.

Mere Political Brawling?

To those of us who grew up on the idea of the Rule of Law against the backdrop of a waving US flag, and a stern voiceover about "Truth, Justice and the American Way," the idea that law is an extension of culture and politics is unseemly.  That idea is not very far from saying that law is merely politics in another guise.   And that is an idea I would like you to consider. 

Yet, at the same time, we do not know how to give up law without going back to anarchy.  So we're stuck with law - with its strange tensions between justice, order, freedom, power, and politics.  Perhaps we'd better understand what the uses and dangers of this tool really are, instead of regarding it as a combination of hero and panacea.  Frankly, despite its problems, I much prefer law to mob rule.

Western academics have long studied these issues through the humanities and social sciences.  In 1964, the Law and Society Association, an international association of interdisciplinary scholars of which I am a proud member, was established to provide a forum for the study of law in social, political, economic and cultural life.    

Law, Freedom and Sex

It might be difficult to understand what all this has to do with your personal life.  But it's actually simple.  Law provides order and security not only at the voting booth, but also in the personal sphere. We are sexual beings, and from this simple fact comes myriad laws around such matters as marriage, heterosexuality, children, masculinity and femininity, decency, pornography, prostitution, sexual violence, and STDs.  In my view, the issue of the 21st century is what personal lives will look like in 2100, and how they will have been affected by institutions, such as governments, employers, and corporations.  Will governments encourage cloning for organ donation? Will your employer determine your level of medical care based on your status as executive or administrative personnel? Will corporations run government institutions like courts, schools and jails?  These things are all happening now in small ways. Big oaks from little acorns grow.

Institutions affect our lives in many ways, both positive and negative, and in ways unimaginable by our forebears. The system defines even our individuality, limiting our choices to one of several identities, with matching ideology and lifestyle, yet suggesting that each of us is a unique individual with freedom of choice.  What gives people a swelling of individual pride in saying such things as "I'm a red-blooded American male" when there are so many of the same model?  What makes some of them disdain others who do not subscribe to that ideology? What makes them think they are making a totally free choice?  (If you don't believe me, try a Google search for "red-blooded American male"). This pride in individuality that comes from conformity is not limited to men or Americans. I am interested in understanding how and why our freedom of choice, particularly with regard to sexuality, is limited.

Most would agree that "freedom" does not mean absolute freedom, like freedom to kill, but refers to some more delimited definition.  Who is defining our "free choice," and how should it be defined?  If my freedom is offensive to you, which of us has to give in? How does law affect this decision?