Abstract
Almost a full century separates Lewis’ Alice in Wonderland (1865) and the second, lengthier and more elaborate edition of Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law (1960; first edition published in 1934). And yet, it is possible to argue that the former anticipates and critically addresses many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie and are elemental to the argument of the latter. Both texts, with the illuminating differences that arise from their disparate genre, have as one of their key themes norms and their functioning. Wonderland, as Alice soon finds out, is a world beset by rules of all kinds: from the etiquette rituals of the mad tea-party to the changing setting for the cricket game to the procedural insanity of the trial with which the novel ends. Pure Theory of Law, as Kelsen emphatically stresses, has the grundnorm as the cornerstone upon which the whole theoretical edifice rests. This paper discusses some of the assumptions underlying Kelsen’s argument as an instance of the modern worldview which Lewis satirically scrutinizes. The first section (Sleepy and stupid) discusses Lewis critique of the idea that, to correctly apprehend an object (in the case of Kelsen’s study, law), one has to free it from its alien elements. The second section (Do bats eat cats?) discusses the notion of systemic coherence and its impact on modern ways of thinking about truth, law and society. The third section (Off with their heads!) explores the connections between readings of systems as neutral entities and the perpetuation of political power. The fourth and final section (Important, Unimportant) explains the sense in which a “critical anticipation” is both possible and useful to discuss the philosophical assumptions structuring some positivist arguments. It also discusses the reasons for choosing to focus on Kelsen’s work, rather than on that of Lewis’ contemporary, John Austin, whose The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (published in 1832) remains influential in legal debates today.
Highlights
Almost a full century separates Alice in wonderland (1865) of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson(who will be referred by his pseudonym, Lewis Carroll) and the second, lengthier and more elaborate edition of Hans Kelsen’s Pure theory of law (1960; first edition published in 1934)
The first section («Sleepy and stupid») discusses Lewis’ critique of the idea that, to correctly apprehend an object, one has to free it from its alien elements
En Alicia en el país de las maravillas, las características del personaje principal —una pequeña niña, curiosa sobre el mundo y consciente respecto a las normas— la convierten en, como se mencionó anteriormente, un recurso poderoso para poner de manifiesto los supuestos modernos sobre el derecho y su naturaleza
Summary
Alicia empezaba a estar harta de seguir tanto rato sentada en la orilla, junto a su hermana, sin hacer nada: una o dos veces se había asomado al libro que su hermana estaba leyendo, pero no tenía ilustraciones ni diálogos, «¿y de qué sirve un libro —pensó Alicia— si no tiene ilustraciones ni diálogos?». La clara división entre el debería y el es, un supuesto clave para la teoría del derecho de Kelsen, no cruza por la mente de Alicia cuando la niña es confrontada con la realidad de los hechos que se impone. Más o menos como la hermana de Alicia, el teórico del derecho acá tiene que tomar una decisión para ser ajeno al mundo externo y enfocarse exclusivamente en el texto sobre la página. Kelsen está interesado en tratar el derecho desde un punto de vista científico (moderno); una empresa espinosa que solo puede ser bien entendida si se estudia su objeto en su pureza ideal, es decir, sin estar contaminado por cualquier cosa que no sea derecho. EN EL PAÍS DE LAS Pero, cualesquiera que hayan sido sus intenciones como individuo, la MARAVILLAS cuestión sigue siendo que esta búsqueda por aislar su objeto, por alejarlo IMPORTANT, del inescapable desorden de la vida, es el precio a pagar para garantizar UNIMPORTANT: la naturaleza científica de su trabajo
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
