Back
to top
Jurisprudence: need help understanding the quote that forms the basis of the question
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
HI, can anyone help me figure out what this quote is actually saying? i understand the positions and stuff but i don't really get what the quote is asking me to do and i'm really scared i'm going to mess up my answer by not doing what it wanted me to. Ive read the context of it in the article its taken from and that didn't really help either..
the quote
‘In relating law to the most abstract forms of interaction, formalism presents an uncompromising version of law’s internal coherence and of the consequent possibility of distinguishing the juridical from the political.’
i'm meant to compare this to a marxist fem or post modern view point and say which is more convincing this second part i am pretty solid on but we didn't even cover formalism in lectures and i'm scared i might not be understanding the quote correctly. my best guess at what it wants me to do is
i understand the separating judicial from the political but i don't really understand the internal coherence part and what point its making if it means its able to operate without influence from outside factors how do i differentiate this from politics? if the outside factor influencing it was say oppression of women wouldnt this be a political point?
If anyone could help me in understanding the quote so i can smash this essay it would be greatly appreciated
the quote
‘In relating law to the most abstract forms of interaction, formalism presents an uncompromising version of law’s internal coherence and of the consequent possibility of distinguishing the juridical from the political.’
i'm meant to compare this to a marxist fem or post modern view point and say which is more convincing this second part i am pretty solid on but we didn't even cover formalism in lectures and i'm scared i might not be understanding the quote correctly. my best guess at what it wants me to do is
i understand the separating judicial from the political but i don't really understand the internal coherence part and what point its making if it means its able to operate without influence from outside factors how do i differentiate this from politics? if the outside factor influencing it was say oppression of women wouldnt this be a political point?
If anyone could help me in understanding the quote so i can smash this essay it would be greatly appreciated
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by benson123)
HI, can anyone help me figure out what this quote is actually saying? i understand the positions and stuff but i don't really get what the quote is asking me to do and i'm really scared i'm going to mess up my answer by not doing what it wanted me to. Ive read the context of it in the article its taken from and that didn't really help either..
the quote
‘In relating law to the most abstract forms of interaction, formalism presents an uncompromising version of law’s internal coherence and of the consequent possibility of distinguishing the juridical from the political.’
i'm meant to compare this to a marxist fem or post modern view point and say which is more convincing this second part i am pretty solid on but we didn't even cover formalism in lectures and i'm scared i might not be understanding the quote correctly. my best guess at what it wants me to do is
internal coherence = makes sense without any other context but itself? do i compared this to say marxism needing class context?
the second part separating the judicial from the political - not sure what this is asking me to do i also really do not understand the first half of the quote about abstract forms of interaction.
If anyone could help me in understanding the quote so i can smash this essay it would be greatly appreciated
HI, can anyone help me figure out what this quote is actually saying? i understand the positions and stuff but i don't really get what the quote is asking me to do and i'm really scared i'm going to mess up my answer by not doing what it wanted me to. Ive read the context of it in the article its taken from and that didn't really help either..
the quote
‘In relating law to the most abstract forms of interaction, formalism presents an uncompromising version of law’s internal coherence and of the consequent possibility of distinguishing the juridical from the political.’
i'm meant to compare this to a marxist fem or post modern view point and say which is more convincing this second part i am pretty solid on but we didn't even cover formalism in lectures and i'm scared i might not be understanding the quote correctly. my best guess at what it wants me to do is
internal coherence = makes sense without any other context but itself? do i compared this to say marxism needing class context?
the second part separating the judicial from the political - not sure what this is asking me to do i also really do not understand the first half of the quote about abstract forms of interaction.
If anyone could help me in understanding the quote so i can smash this essay it would be greatly appreciated
Marxism -- you could use the Warwick school of thought to argue civil and criminal remedies exist only to allow the wealthy ruling elite to retain their riches.
I doubt this essay was set without any guidance or supporting materials. Read your textbook and the lecture slides.
0
reply
(Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
Fem -- you could say the abstract form of legal protection given to women does not correspond to reality.
Marxism -- you could use the Warwick school of thought to argue civil and criminal remedies exist only to allow the wealthy ruling elite to retain their riches.
I doubt this essay was set without any guidance or supporting materials. Read your textbook and the lecture slides.
Fem -- you could say the abstract form of legal protection given to women does not correspond to reality.
Marxism -- you could use the Warwick school of thought to argue civil and criminal remedies exist only to allow the wealthy ruling elite to retain their riches.
I doubt this essay was set without any guidance or supporting materials. Read your textbook and the lecture slides.
Thanks for the suggestions. Just to clarify slightly I understand the critical studies viewpoints and the positions they take as we covered these extensively as you suggest. What I am confused on is the position the quote itself is taking that I am supposed to compare these two. We didn't cover formalism itself as a topic but from what I understand it's a mix of positivist and natural law view points. But yeah what I need help on understanding is what position the quote is actually taking i understand the separating the judicial from the political E.G for marxism capitalism what i don't really understand is the first part
does internally coherent mean its rational and logical and without the influence of outside factors? if i'm on the right track im struggling to think who i separate this point from political influences? nearly all the points i think of end up being addressed to the second half of the question.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Have your say on 2021 assessmentOfqual and DfE want students' thoughts
- Applying to uni? Chat to others here
- Struggling with lockdown uni work
- Win a year of Headspace
- Housemate's BF just wont leave