Introducing critical jurisprudence

Abstract

The ‘centre of legal gravity lies . . . in society itself’ Introduction Before I go any further I must explain what I mean by ‘critical jurisprudence’. Historically, jurisprudence has been dominated by two main schools of thought: natural law theory and legal positivism. For many the debate between them continues to define modern jurisprudence. According to Scott J. Shapiro: ‘For the past four decades Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate.’ Most introductory texts to jurisprudence divide jurisprudence into three categories: natural law theory, legal positivism and sociologically influenced theories of law. While this latter unwieldy label covers a broad church of approaches, from American legal realism to feminism or Marxism, they do share one key trait: they define themselves to contradistinction to natural law theory and legal positivism. Their intellectual raison d’etre is to critique and challenge the assumption of natural law theory and legal positivism, hence my labelling of it as critical jurisprudence. Because it is such a broad church certain groups would not call themselves, and should not be called, ‘critical’. I hope that, as I engage with the varying schools of ‘critical’ jurisprudence the differences between them will become clear. But toward the end of more clarity, I will start with Lon L. Fuller’s influential story of the Speluncean Explorers.