The great alliance: history, reason, and will in modern law/A grande alianca: historia, razao e vontade no direito moderno.
| Autor | Barrozo, Paulo |
I Introduction
Modern revolutions remind observers of social and political phenomena that power ultimately rests with political masses. The stability of legal and political orders over time indeed depends on a sufficient level of consent on the part of the governed. Absent support by the will of the governed, mechanisms that operate to obstruct destabilizing collective action on their part are destined to ultimately fail. A gifted historian, David Hume, had this in mind when he wrote:
Nothing appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. (1) However, the relationship between the will of the political masses, on the one hand, and established legal order, on the other, is not unidirectional. Since Hume's time, the complexities of modern society have grown exponentially, and legal ideas and institutions occupy a central and still-expanding role in the formation and operation of mass opinion in such societies. (2) Put simply, law plays a significant role in providing the content, the incentives, and the fora for popular will formation and in the end carries out its mandates with relative autonomy. And it does all that in several complementary ways. This article analyzes how modern law plays this role at the level of the principles and presuppositions that characterize the popular will of modern political masses.
A warning to the reader: the argument of this article moves several notches up the ladder of theoretical abstraction, seeking to offer both a phenomenological account of the structure of modern legal thought and experience and a normative vista from which it can be criticized and changed. The risk of operating at this level of abstraction is well known--that is, that the argument may be inaccurate in its descriptions and irrelevant in its normative views. The possible reward of gaining clarity without sacrificing complexity is worth the risk, though.
It is helpful to provide some important definitions before proceeding. In this article, "will" means popular will. In legal doctrine and thought, it is expressed as deference to democracy, to the elected branches of government, to public opinion, to evolving cultural standards, to trends in legislative production, to social movements, to current common knowledge, and so on. "History" stands for historical events as they inform the law (such as war as justification for extreme measures), historical tradition (such as legal precedents or, more broadly, legal-political-moral traditions), and historical meaning (such as the original meaning of the constitution). In legal doctrine and thought, history appears as a form of argument that appeals to the past as a basis for legal regulation of the present and the future. "Reason" includes instrumental reason (concern with consequences, expediency, cost-benefit analysis), cognitive reason (science, expertise), and idealist reason (revelation of the true meaning and the legitimate forms of social manifestation of values such as freedom, equality, justice, and dignity). In legal doctrine and thought, reason appears as a form of argument that appeals to the faculty of reason to chart broad directions of development for the law.
The first transnational political masses belong to the nineteenth century. They were the first to see social and economic problems as essentially universal political issues. (3) Urban and rural workers on both sides of the Atlantic embraced class identities, adopted diagnoses of their predicament, and developed a new confidence in their ability to solve the puzzle of its causes. This newly discovered class-consciousness was anchored in a sense of shared destiny and a refusal to explain away economic immiseration, political oppression, and social subjection as natural phenomena. The nineteenth-century masses interpreted these instantiations of personal and collective vulnerability as products of human will, which they could galvanize, own, transform, and ultimately exercise in favor of the downtrodden. Workers and intellectuals who aligned with them believed that destiny was in their hands and history on their side.
Following their entrance onto the world stage, these political masses denounced and often violently challenged the Restoration and post-Restoration constitutional settlements of western nation-states and subnational political units. Simultaneously, economic, military, and social crises everywhere compounded and developed into political crises, further weakening the perception of the stability of social orders in the eyes of the populace as well as of the ruling elites. In that context, ruling elites could not help but feel as though they were standing on the precipice of chaos, a predicament for which they blamed an unbridled and uncultivated popular will. To the waves of democratic expansion, social unrest, political revolutions, economic debacle, geopolitical uncertainty, and war, important intellectual elites of the Victorian Age responded with a deep and sweeping new approach to law: a "Great Alliance" between historicism, (4) rationalism, (5) and popular will. This alliance turned out to serve as a highly adaptive, resilient, and attractive settlement process in the form of an intellectually and legally authoritative cognitive- normative-practical project. This article lays open the nature of this process.
In its most general terms, the nineteenth-century rapprochement of legal rationalism and historicism started in the first half of the nineteenth century and assumed features attractive simultaneously to common prudential understandings and to high jurisprudence. (6) During that time, rationalism became increasingly committed to inherited legal frameworks and values as manifestations of reason's cunning operation in the world. As a consequence, improvised, highly contextual, constitutional arrangements became enshrined as ontologically essential. Moving from the opposite camp, historicism appealed to the rationalization of legal reasoning to conceptually tame, systematize, and bestow endurance and adaptability on historically contingent materials, leading in the first moment to a formalist jurisprudence of concepts and later to all sorts of social stasis processes. However, even more consequential was that the will of the masses acceded to the ratio-historicist rapprochement. In short, the masses bought into ideals of constitutional veneration. To miss this last piece of the sociological and philosophical puzzle of modern law is to be condemned to see only a distorted and partial image of its making.
The Great Alliance in law between reason, history, and the political will of the masses in the nineteenth century has ever since provided the conceptual and ideological conditions for the many ups and downs in the history of legal positivism, pragmatism, and reflective equilibrium idealism.
The Great Alliance encompasses apologetic as well as critical legal thought. In our days, advocates of positivism as sapless philosophy of language and metajurisprudence, of positivistic decisionism as an existential or political strategy to achieve choice closure, of reflective equilibrium rationalizations of public and private law, of groundless and directionless cost-benefit analysis, of performative critique, and of kinetic experimentalism all play in the Great Alliance sandbox.
That all these traditions of legal thought declared war against classical legal thought--as the first generation of Great Alliance jurisprudence is now known (7)--should not distract us. The hard reality is that, under the Great Alliance, legal rationalism now survives as punctuated reformism, as consequentialism, and as a norm of performative critical discourse; and legal historicism survives as traditionalism, xenophobia, and precautionary prudence. This is, furthermore, the circumstance for both the traditional and the new left and right of the legal-- ideological spectrum; both share an impulse toward underreflective adaptability and theoretical self-referentiality.
More concretely, the influence of the Great Alliance is found everywhere. First, it is found in intellectual and political projects in and through law, where standing structural components of public life are justified as having passed the test of historical institutional evolution by carrying an intrinsic rational core. Second (and here the influence flows in the opposite ideological direction), it is found in the demystifying effect that various versions of positivism and pragmatism once exerted upon enchanted depictions of the nature of law, therefore preparing the terrain for a view of standing social arrangements as expressions of evolutionary accommodations that ought to be respected at their core and experimented with at their margins. Third, it is found in the confined and ideologically scripted institutionalized and noninstitutionalized ways in which the will of the masses comes onto the stage of history. Fourth, the influence of the Great Alliance is found in the way theories of social justice (speaking from the vantage point of impartiality) and constitutional theories of law's integrity (charting the development of the doctrines of a living constitution) freshen up and repackage standing structural components of public life as outcomes produced both rationally and historically. Fifth, the Great Alliance influences how the legal ideals of freedom, (8)...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
