Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:00:00.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Knowledge and Ideological Critique: The Significance of Knowing That the “Haves” Come Out Ahead

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Patricia Ewick  and
Susan S. Silbey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 1025 - 1041
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This paper was presented to the conference “Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead?” held at the Institute for Legal Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1-2 May 1998. Adapted from Ewick and Silbey (1998), The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

References

Barrett, Michelle (1980) Women's Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bocock, Robert (1996) “The Cultural Formations of Modern Society,” in Hall, S., Held, D., Hubert, D., & Thompson, K., eds., Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., & O'Barr, William M. (1990) Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger [1984] (1995) The Sociology of Law. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry (1991) Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1995) “Subversive Stories and Hegomonic Tales: Toward a Sociology of Narrative,” 29 Law & Society Rev. 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan S. (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Peter (1992) The Mythology of Modern Law. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, Alan (1985) “The Ideology of Law: Advances and Problems in Recent Applications of the Concept of Ideology to the Analysis of Law,” 19 Law & Society Rev. 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1968) Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scott, James (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan S. (1998) “Ideology, Power, and Justice,” in Garth, B. G. & Sarat, A., eds., Justice and Power in Sociolegal Studies, Vol. 1, Fundamental Issues in Law and Society Research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar