1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 15, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 15, 2019

The Every Day Work of Studying the Law in Everyday Life

Abstract

Susan Silbey began her academic training in political science and in the course of her studies became a sociologist of law, the last two decades as a member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's anthropology department and management school. The disciplinary transformations ground, in part, her attention to the ways in which the everyday life of scholarship has led her to study the everyday life of the law. In this article, she describes her scholarly life through seven chapters of relatively distinct challenges and themes. Across the arc of her life, she identifies the recurrent influence of both serendipity and theoretical inference acting within the immediate constraints of family and personal capacity. Reading across descriptions of her work on regulatory enforcement, dispute negotiation and mediation, and popular legal culture and consciousness, she points to the necessity of reconciling on-the-ground vicissitudes of doing legal work with the theories and narratives social scientists construct to make sense of institutions and history. She muses on theoretical attempts to align the particular and the general, the micro and macro forces working in legal cultures, and concludes by celebrating the ubiquity of social ordering whose own momentum both seduces and frustrates social scientists.

Keyword(s): autobiography, law in everyday life, legal consciousness, legal culture, micro–macro links, regulatory enforcement and compliance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113326
2019-10-13
2024-12-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/15/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113326.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113326&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Amherst Semin 1988. Introduction to the Special Issue on Law and Ideology. Law Soc. Rev. 22:629–39
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bittner E. 1965. The concept of organization. Soc. Res. 32:239–55
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bittner E. 1967. The police on skid-row: a study of peace keeping. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32:699–715
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bittner E. 1973. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society Chevy Chase, MD: Natl. Inst. Mental Health, Cent. Stud. Crime Delinq.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bittner E. 1974. Florence Nightingale in pursuit of Willie Sutton: a theory of the police. Potential Reform Crim. Justice 25:17–44
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bittner E. 1990. Aspects of Police Work Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bittner E, Silbey SS. 1982. The availability of law. Law Policy 4:4399–434
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bobbio N. 1965. Law and force. Monist 49:3321–41
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. 1984. The productivity puzzle. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Women in Science MW Steinkamp, ML Maehr 217–58 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins HM, Pinch T. 2012. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Commaille J, Lacour S. 2018. Legal consciousness studies as a laboratory of a renewed system of knowledge about law. Droit Soc 100:559–70
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cratsley JC. 1978. Community courts: offering alternative dispute resolution within the judicial system. Vt. Law Rev. 3:1–69
     [Google Scholar]
  13. de Sousa Santos B. 1989. Room for manoeuver: Paradox, program, or Pandora's box?. Law Soc. Inq. 14:1149–64
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Durkheim E. 1982. What is a social fact?. The Rules of Sociological Method S Lukes,, transl. WD Halls, pp. 50–59 London: Palgrave
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 2003. The structure of legality: the cultural contradictions of social institutions. Legality Community: On the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick RA Kagan, M Krygier, K Winston 149–66 New York: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox Keller E. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Frohlich X. 2012. Accounting for taste: regulating food labeling in the “affluent society,” 1945–1995. Enterprise Soc 13:4744–61
     [Google Scholar]
  19. García-Villegas M. 2003. Symbolic power without symbolic violence? Critical comments on legal consciousness studies in USA. Droit Soc 2003:53137–63
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gilligan C. 1993. In a Different Voice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday S, Schmidt P. 2009. Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hawkins KO, Thomas JJM. 1984. Enforcing Regulation Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad. Pub.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heimer CA. 1999. Competing institutions: law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care. Law Soc. Rev. 33:117–66
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hilgartner S. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoebel EA, Llewellyn K. 1943. The Cheyenne Way Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Knorr-Cetina K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lamont M. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the World of Academic Judgement Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Macaulay S. 1984. Law and the behavioral sciences: Is there any there there. Law Policy 6:2149–87
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Packer HL. 1964. Two models of the criminal process. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 113:11–68
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Packer HL. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sarat A, Silbey S. 1988. The pull of the policy audience. Law Policy 10:2–397–166
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Silbey SS 1980–1981. Case processing: consumer protection in an Attorney General's Office. Law Soc. Rev. 15:3–4849–81
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Silbey SS. 1985. Ideals and practices in the study of law. Leg. Stud. Forum 9:7–22
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Silbey SS. 1989. A sociological interpretation of the relationship between law and society. Law and the Ordering of Our Life Together RJ Neuhaus 1–27 Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Silbey SS. 1991. Un jeu d'enfant: une analyse culturelle de la conscience juridique des adolescents américains [Child's play: a cultural analysis of American adolescents' legal consciousness]. Droit Soc 19:243–57 an edited version is available in English )
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Silbey SS. 1992. Making a place for cultural analyses of law. Law Soc. Inq. 17:139–48
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Silbey SS. 1994. Patrick Davis: “To bring out the best…To undo a little pain. When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators 6 DM Kolb 61–103 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Silbey SS. 2003. Legal culture and consciousness. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences NJ Smelser, PB Baltes 8623–29 Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Silbey SS. 2005. After legal consciousness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:323–68
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Silbey SS. 2006. Talk of law: contested and conventional legality. DePaul Law Rev 56:2639–59
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Silbey SS, Ewick P. 2003. The architecture of authority: the place of law in the space of science. The Place of Law A Sarat, L Douglas, M Umphrey 77–108 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Silbey S, Sarat A. 1987. Critical traditions in law and society research. Law Soc. Rev. 21:1165–74
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Silbey S, Sarat A. 1989. Dispute processing in law and legal scholarship: from institutional critique to the reconstruction of the juridical subject. Denver Univ. Law Rev. 66:437–98
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Trubek DM, Esser J. 1989. “Critical empiricism” in American legal studies: Paradox, program, or Pandora's box?. Law Soc. Inq. 14:13–52
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Trubek DM, Grossman JB, Felstiner WL, Kritzer HM, Sarat A 1983. Civil litigation research project Final Rep., Disput. Process. Res. Cent., Univ. Wis.-Madison Law School Madison, WI:
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Zuckerman H, Cole JR. 1975. Women in American science. Minerva 13:182–102
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Zuckerman HED, Cole JR, Bruer JT 1991. The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community New York: W.W. Norton
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113326
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error