Philosophical Review

Legalism by Judith N. ShklarReview by: H. A. BedauThe Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 129-130Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2182977 .

Accessed: 26/03/2014 00:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Philosophical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:12:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

sort, plus being acquainted with him. To complete the equation one would have to be able to say what things are the "right" things. Dr. Chatterjee has a good deal to say about this.

The principal defect of this book is that too much is discussed too hurriedly. Multitudes of philosophers are presented, briefly discussed, and politely ignored, at the rate of one philosopher every four pages. The treatment of controversial ideas and arguments is often even less protracted. In spite of its defects, however, the book is of some value. Dr. Chatterjee is a lucid writer, and her conception of our knowledge of other selves is provocative. Students and laymen might well find the rapid pace of the book stimulating and the wide range of its content informative. In this respect, Dr. Chatterjee may rival Will Durant. KEITH LEHRER

University of Rochester

LEGALISM. By JUDITH N. SHKLAR. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, i964. PP. 246, ix. $5.95.

Legalism is "the political ideology of lawyers" (pp. 5, 8). Its social outlook is "epitomized in courts" (p. 2); according to legalism all political conflict should be thought of in terms of a lawsuit (p. I36). Since its main thrust is toward the virtues of orderliness (p. I7), it is essentially conservative in outlook, "a defense of the status quo" (p. I 35) . Legalists are opposed to the politics of bargaining no less than to politics by other means (p. I33), to anarchism as well as communism (p. 2o). Right conduct, if legalism is to be believed, consists in "follow- ing rules" (pp. 87, I04), rules which are "there," every bit as much as Plato's Forms were "there" (p. io). It is indifferent whether these rules are arbitrary positive laws or eternal rational norms; hence both the legal positivist (e.g., H. L. A. Hart) and the natural lawyer (e.g., Lon L. Fuller) are legalists (pp. i2, I23). Above all, legalism adopts "the policy of justice" (pp. 8, I3, I9, I09 f.); indeed, legalism "is justice" (p. I20). It would elevate justice, although it is only "a policy among other policies," into the sole political virtue no matter what the consequences (p. i22). The result is a disaster: every political fact and institution is distorted, every actual social problem aggravated, every workable remedy discredited.

Mrs. Shklar brings considerable scholarship and style to her task, which is "not only to understand legalism but also to suggest other ways of thinking about law" (p. 3) and "to stir up controversy by a clear confrontation of incompatible positions" (p. viii). On occasion,

129

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:12:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

she does this by judging without first explaining, presumably because the reader is supposed to have a textbook acquaintance with the subject-for example, Kelsen's positivistic theory of law (pp. 40-41).

Here and there she explicitly asserts theses negatived by legalism: law and morals (to which she devotes Part I of the book) are not isolated "blocks" but are on a "continuum" (pp. 3, 62); there is and will continue to be a "diversity" or "plurality" of values in our society, despite the presumption of legalists to the contrary (pp. 5, 63, 86); politics (which is discussed in Part II) is an activity not morally or intellectually inferior to the work of the law courts (p. I43). But on behalf of these alternatives she expends very little effort to explain and justify them to the reader. How much worthwhile controversy Mrs. Shklar is able to stir up depends on whether her readers are willing to think out her own alternatives more assiduously than she has. Her criticisms and her own viewpoint-"barebones liberalism" (p. 5)-she admits are not those of a lawyer but of an "outsider" (p. vii). I think it will be agreed that they are not, even on the most latitudinarian construction, those of a philosopher, either.

Legalism, presumably because it is an "ideology," exists in a limbo inaccessible to philosophical criticism. And the same immunity carries over to Mrs. Shklar's account. Legalism has no standard literary sources or acknowledged spokesmen; at least, Mrs. Shklar cites none. Professors Fuller and Hart, who are occasionally used as examples of legalist thought, are likely to feel they have been mis- understood and caricatured; but then nothing essential to legalism (or to Mrs. Shklar's analysis) hinges on whether such writers have been correctly understood. Nor is legalism a theory. For all its deplorable consequences, it apparently depends on no articulate presuppositions or premises, and consists of no theses or hypotheses. The passages quoted or paraphrased above, which fairly indicate what the book says legalism is, show that it is no theory. Legalists, being ideologues, are not at the mercy of logical analysis. In these respects, then, legalism is like "essentialism," "historicism," "realism," "liberalism," "con- servatism," "verbalism," "moralismin," and "one-worldism," all of which are used by Mrs. Shklar to elucidate legalism itself. This may be only an incident of her style, but the skeptical reader may be excused if he wonders whether legalism is to be taken any differently or more seriously than these other -isms-every one a surrogate for thought and an obstacle to clarity.

H. A. BEDAU

Tufts University

130

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:12:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions