Edited By Andrzej Bator, Zbigniew Pulka and Jan Burzyński
Post-analytical philosophy of law departs from the traditional view which considers philosophical cognition merely as a sense-making and optimizing activity. It also questions the apparently universal and objective character of the theorems put forward by existing analytical philosophy. Just like every scientific trend whose name is supplemented with the "post" prefix, it does not break with its past, but rather seeks to critically revisit its established achievements. The main goal of post-analytical philosophy is no longer to impose a conceptual structure upon chaos in the realm of legal and political phenomena. Rather, it seeks to deconstruct the analytical, both philosophical and legal, narrative to expose it as a collection of schemes which oversimplify – if not mystify – the legal and political reality. This kind of diagnosis paves the way towards the construction of a positive program of post-analytical philosophy of law, which the focus of this book.
Legal Culture as Praxis: Towards Interactionalism
1 Legal Culture as Praxis – Why?1
Legal culture understood as praxis exposes the category of causative activity of jurists in institutional practice.2 For what reasons is it advisable to consider legal culture as praxis? To answer this question, I would like to point out three phenomena: organized irresponsibility, anonymity of action, and culture of impunity. They are not the only ones that may serve as a basis to show the potential costs of excluding causation and moral responsibility from activity, but they suffice in illustrating the angle of argumentation in favor of treating legal culture as praxis.
Let us start by invoking the play Ubu and the Truth Commission by Jane Taylor and William Kentridge in cooperation with a puppet theater.3 It focuses on the character of Ubu, a greedy king from Alfred Jarra’s Ubu Roi ou les Polonais transferred to the time of transformation in the Republic of South Africa. Ubu, who in literature serves as the model of abuse of power, is a representative of Afrikaners who have been just removed from power. As a police officer, he is presented to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In order to avoid being punished, he first considers destroying the documents and photographs which can put the blame on him, calling upon the syndrome of stress, and blaming his faults on someone else. Finally, Ubu justifies his action in front of the Commission with his duty and states: “These things were done by those...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.