SOCIOLOGY 989LAW AND SOCIOLEGAL STUDIES

Autumn 2005Tuesday 4:00-7:00

Social Science 6304

Professor Mark Suchman Office: Social Science 3450Phone: 262-6261 Office Hours: W 10:00-2:00suchman@ssc.wisc.edu or by appointment

COURSE SUMMARY: This seminar offers an intensive introduction to the central themes of sociolegalscholarship, structured around a careful reading of the 30 works that were most frequently cited in theLaw & Society Review between 1990 and 1995. The course material is aimed primarily at graduatestudents who have some prior familiarity with the sociology of law (at the level, for example, ofSociology 641). Through shared and individual readings, coupled with weekly discussions and e-maildialogues, the course provides an opportunity for students to refine and extend their thinking on a seriesof important and controversial topics in the contemporary Law and Society literature.

STRUCTURE: The seminar is divided into two parts. During Weeks 2-11, each session centers on twoto four core readings from the Law and Society "canon," coupled with supporting readings from relatedliterature. The topics for these weeks are:

Week 1. Organizational Session

Week 2. Law in Social Theory I: Marx, Durkheim and WeberWeek 3. Law in Social Theory II: Foucault, Bourdieu, Habermas & Co.

Week 4. Central Themes I: Social Psychology of Deviance and ComplianceWeek 5. Central Themes II: How Much Law? Legal and Non-Legal Social ControlWeek 6. Central Themes III: Legal PluralismWeek 7. Central Themes IV: Disputing

Week 8. Legal Consciousness I: Legality in Everyday LifeWeek 9. Legal Consciousness II: Authority, Subordination and Resistance

The second half of the course is less predetermined. Starting in Week 12, the seminar will turn to a seriesof “special topics,” mostly selected and planned by class members themselves. We will determine thespecific focus of these weeks as the seminar progresses, but possible topics include:

Law in Social Theory: Feminist TheoryFiltering Institutions: CourtsFiltering Institutions: The Legal ProfessionFiltering Institutions: Law and OrganizationsIdeology, Legitimacy, and the Rule of LawThe Critique (and Defense) of RightsNorms and RulesLanguage and SilenceCrime and Punishment

Privacy and SurveillanceIntellectual PropertyLaw and Cultural IdentityLaw and the EconomyLaw and InequalityLaw and PoliticsLaw and Popular CultureLaw and GlobalizationWhence and Whither Law and Society?

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 2

COURSE FORMAT: Pedagogically, the seminar is dedicated to the proposition that knowledge is acollective product. This theme undergirds several aspects of the course:

! Readings and Précises: Each week, all seminar participants will be responsible for a limited numberof shared "core" readings -- and for one "individualized" reading. During the week, participantswill prepare and exchange précises of their individualized readings and will review the précisessubmitted by others. Thus, although no one will have read all the material on any given topic,everyone will possess a common base (the core reading), a personal expertise (the individualizedreading), and a broad overview (the collected précises). Précises will be due by 5:00 p.m. onSunday.

! Discussion questions: To form a foundation for each week's in-class discussion, all seminarparticipants will be responsible for posing (by e-mail) at least 3 questions regarding either thecore reading(s) or fellow students' individualized readings. Questions will be due by 5:00 p.m.on Monday.

! Session Organizing: For weeks 12 through 15 of the semester, seminar participants will take turnsorganizing class sessions around various topic of interest. Organizers will not be expected tocontribute a précis during “their” week; however, they will have three broader responsibilities:

1. Reading list: Organizers will be responsible for selecting 2-3 core readings and approximately10 supporting readings on the week's topic. The combined length of the core readingsshould total between 50 and 75 pages, with supporting readings adding approximately 30additional pages per student. Reading lists for all student-organized sessions will be dueby classtime on November 1.

2. Review essay: Organizers will be expected to submit a 7-10 page review essay, identifyingand discussing the central themes and perspectives surrounding their week’s topic, withparticular emphasis on the readings that they have selected. These essays will be due onNovember 8, and upon receipt, they will be distributed to the rest of the class asbackground readings. Review essays can be co-authored, if two students shareorganizing responsibility for a particular week.

3. Discussion Questions: Organizers will be responsible for formulating 5 to 10 discussionquestions, to help frame the classroom conversation. These questions will be due by 5:00p.m. on the Sunday before the discussion.

! Session participation: All seminar participants will be expected to play an active role in weekly classmeetings. Sessions will center around discussion of the various readings -- and of the topic as awhole -- with an eye toward arriving at some sort of collective synthesis. After a fewintroductory comments, the instructor will serve primarily as a discussion facilitator (and, ofcourse, as a discussion participant). Ultimately, the quality of the discussion is up to you!

COURSE REQUIREMENTS: All students are expected to fulfill the reading, dialogue, organizing andparticipation obligations described above. In addition, students who wish to receive "seminar credit"must complete a 10-15 page seminar paper by Friday, December 16. Grading will be based on reviewessays, seminar papers and overall seminar "citizenship" -- i.e., active discussion participation and timelysubmission of précises, dialogue comments, reading lists, and review essays. In computing final grades,review essays, seminar papers, and citizenship will each receive approximately equal weight.

NO-PAPER OPTION: Students may enroll on a Satisfactory/No-Credit basis, without writing a reviewessay or seminar paper. To receive a passing grade under this option, the student must (a) submit at least12 solid précises and sets of discussion questions, (b) fulfill his or her full share of session-organizingresponsibilities, and (c) participate in at least 75% of the class sessions over the course of the semester.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 3

Précises

A précis is a brief summary of a reading selection. In general, a précis should be no more than three orfour paragraphs (approximately 200-300 words) in length, and it should be primarily descriptive incharacter. These are not intended to be complex creative endeavors. The main objective is simply to givethe reader some sense of what the selection is about, in a way that will allow him/her to grasp itsrelationship to other materials in the syllabus. In constructing your précises, please employ the followingtemplate:

1. Citation: Indicate the full citation for the reading.

2. Abstract: If the reading contains an abstract, reproduce it verbatim. If it does not have an abstract, buthas a good summary in the introduction or conclusion, you may wish to reproduce part of thatsummary, with a clear statement as to where it comes from.

3. Description: Summarize the reading's main argument in your own words, and situate it in the contextof other course material. If the reading is empirical, your description should also briefly describethe methodology and central findings.

4. Evaluation: In a few sentences, briefly indicate your own "thumb-nail" evaluation of the reading. Didyou find it useful? Clear? Convincing? What do you consider to be its major strengths orweaknesses?

5. Rating: Rate the article on a scale from one to five. Note that ratings should be based on the scholarlycaliber of the article, not on whether you agree with the author. Issues of substantive agreementor disagreement are better addressed in your thumb-nail evaluation (see above), or in yourclassroom comments.

* = Bad. Definitely should be dropped from syllabus.** = Weak. Other pieces probably handle the same topic much better.*** = Fair. Competent and reasonably useful, but not particularly memorable.**** = Good. A very solid treatment of the subject matter, with several memorable points.***** = Excellent. A highly significant work; something others might want to read for

themselves.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 4

Review Essays

A review essay provides an overview of the body of scholarship reflected in a week’s readings. It is notsimply an annotated bibliography or a collection of précises. Rather, a good review essay builds acoherent conceptual framework that allows the reader to make sense of the topic as a whole.

This usually involves some combination of chronology and typology: Chronological reviews explain thehistorical development of a body of literature, identifying how each work builds on (or disputes) what hasgone before. Typological reviews subdivide a body of literature into conceptual perspectives or camps,identifying lines of theoretical divergence and/or convergence, and discussing the degree to which theseinterfaces have produced active efforts at debate and/or synthesis. Obviously, the two approaches can becombined, as when a basically typological review includes a chronological discussion of each camp, orwhen a basically chronological review describes the shifting lines of debate in each time period.

In essence, review essays are like the “literature review” section of a research article. For useful models,you may want to look at pieces in the Annual Review of Sociology, or in the review section of Law andSocial Inquiry.

Seminar Papers

The seminar paper assignment has no formal topic. You may write about any facet of sociolegalscholarship that captures your interest, provided that your subject bears a reasonably close relationship tothe course material. (When in doubt, ask!) The paper can be either theoretical or empirical or both, andit can be related to other work that you are conducting outside of the course.

Nonetheless, this is a paper for Sociology 989: Although a seminar paper can address topics beyond thescope of the course, it must be well-integrated with issues and materials from the Sociology 989 syllabus. It is perfectly acceptable for you to use this paper as an opportunity to reconsider, say, your master'sthesis through a sociolegal lens; but "reconsider" is the key word, here. The seminar paper must speakdirectly to issues from the course materials, throughout. Papers that appear to have been written beforethe author encountered Sociology 989 will be frowned upon.

Seminar papers should make an original contribution of some sort, beyond simply reviewing previousliterature. Generally, seminar papers should identify a “problem” of theoretical, empirical, or practicalinterest and should then seek to resolve that problem through creative use of course readings andsupplementary research.

In choosing a paper topic, you may want to take advantage of the work that you will have already done asa session organizer. If your review essay (and the ensuing discussion) identifies a topic that you wouldlike to pursue further, you can use the seminar paper to begin this pursuit. A seminar paper could, forexample, weigh in on a theoretical debate, report an empirical investigation, or delineate a novel researchdesign. If you adopt any of these strategies, you should feel free to incorporate your review essay intoyour seminar paper “by reference.” Of course, you may need to add additional material to cover literatureomitted from your initial essay, or to explain the specific interconnection between your seminar paper andthe broader literature, but you need not restate your earlier review in toto .

***

If you encounter difficulties with any of these assignments, do not hesitate to discuss your situation withme, either by e-mail or during my office hours.

5

SYLLABUSSOCIOLOGY 989: Law and Sociolegal Studies

Autumn 2005, Tuesday 4:00-7:00; Social Science 6304

Week 1 (September 6) -- Organizational Session

Week 2 (September 13) -- Law in Social Theory I: Marx, Durkheim and Weber

2.1 Roger Cotterrell (2004), “Law in Social Theory and Social Theory in the Study of Law,” pp. 15-29 in Austin Sarat (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

2.2 Marx, Karl (1978 [1846]), "The Relation of State and Law to Property," [excerpt from TheGerman Ideology], pp. 186-188 in R. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition,New York and London: W.W. Norton and Co.

2.3 Marx, Karl (1996 [1842]), "Proceedings of the Sixth Rhenish Parliament: Debates on the Law onThefts of Wood" [excerpt], pp. 128-139 in J. Treviño (ed.), The Sociology of Law:Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: St. Martin's Press.

2.4 Marx, Karl (1869), “Report of the General Council on the Right of Inheritance.” Online from theMarxists.org Internet Archive:[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/iwma/inheritance-report.htm]

2.5 Durkheim, Emile (1996 [??]), “The Evolution of Punishment,” pp. 275-286 in J. Treviño (ed.),The Sociology of Law: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York: St. Martin'sPress.

2.6 Durkheim, Emile (1933 [1893]), The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.[pp. 63-69, 105-115, 127-132].

2.7 Durkheim, Emile. (1974 [1906]), “The Determination of Moral Facts.” pp. 35-62 in Sociologyand Philosophy, D.F. Pocock (trans.). New York: The Free Press. [excerpt, pp. 37-38]

2.8* Weber, Max (1954 [??]), "Selections" in M ax Rheinstein (ed.), Max Weber on Law in Economyand Society. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. [excerpt at pp. 185-194 in S.Macaulay, L. Friedman & J. Stookey, eds. (1995), Law & Society: Readings on theSocial Study of Law. New York, NY: Norton.]

2.9* Weber, Max (1978 [??]), “The Emergence and Creation of Legal Norms,” pp. 753-784 inEconomy and Society, G. Roth & C. Wittich (eds.), Berkeley: U of California Press.[excerpt: pp. 753-765, 775-776]

Additional Readings

Marx:2.10 Hunt, Alan (1976), "Law, State and Class Struggle," Marxism Today, 178-187.2.11 Cain, Maureen (1982), "The Main Themes of M arx' and Engels' Sociology of Law," pp. 63-73 in

P. Beirne & R. Quinney, eds., Marxism and Law. New York: John W iley & Sons.-- and --

Redhead, Steve (1982), "Marxist Theory, the Rule of Law and Socialism," pp. 328-342 in P.Beirne & R. Quinney, eds., Marxism and Law. New York: John W iley & Sons.

2.12 Stephen Spitzer, “Marxist Perspectives in the Sociology of Law.” Annual Review of Sociology9:103-24 (1983).

2.13 Stone, Alan (1985), "The Place of Law in the Marxian Structure-Superstructure," Law & SocietyReview 19:39-67.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 6

Durkheim:2.14 Hunt, Alan (1978), The Sociology Movement in Law. London: Macmillan Press ["Emile

Durkheim – Towards a Sociology of Law," pp. 60-92.]2.15 Lukes, Steven and Andrew Schull (1983), Durkheim and the Law. New York: St. Martin's Press.

["Introduction," pp. 1-32.]

Weber:2.16 Rheinstein, Max (1954), Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. M.

Rheinstein.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. ["Introduction," pp. xxv-lxxii.]2.17 Trubek, David (1972), "Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism," 1972 Wisconsin Law

Review 720-53.2.18 Hunt, Alan (1978), The Sociology Movement in Law. London: Macmillan Press ["Max Weber's

Sociology of Law," pp. 93-133.]2.19 Ewing, Sally (1987), "Formal Justice and the Spirit of Capitalism: Max Weber's Sociology of

Law," 21 Law & Society Review 487-512.

Supplemental Readings

2.20 Weber, Max (1978 [??]), “The Economy and Social Norms,” pp. 311-315, 331-337 in Econom y and Society, G. Roth & C.Wittich (eds.), Berkeley: University of California Press.

2.21 Weber, Max (1978 [??]), “The Types of Legitimate Domination,” pp. 212-227 and "Domination and Legitimacy," pp.941-943, 952-954 in Econom y and Society, G. Roth & C. Wittich (eds.), Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 7

Week 3 (September 20) -- Law in Social Theory II: Foucault, Bourdieu, Habermas & Co.

3.1* Foucault, Michel (1977), "Panopticism" pp. 195-228 in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of thePrison. New York: Pantheon Books. [excerpt, pp. 195-217, 221-224.]

3.2 Foucault, M ichel (1991 [1979]), "On Governmentality" Ideology & Consciousness 6:5-21. Reprinted in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (eds.), the Foucault Effect : Studies inGovernmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

3.3 Bourdieu, Pierre (1987), "The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field,"Hastings Law Journal 38(5):814-853. [see also the translator's introduction by R.Terdiman, at pp. 805-813]

3.4 Habermas, Jurgen (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory ofLaw and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press [Chapter 3.2, "Moral Norms and LegalNorms: On the Complementary Relation between Natural Law and Positive Law" andChapter 3.3 "A Discourse-Theoretic Justification of Basic Rights: The DiscoursePrinciple, the Legal Form, and the Democratic Principle," pp.104-131.]

Additional Readings

Foucault:3.5 Digeser, Peter, “The Fourth Face of Power,” The Journal ofPolitics 54(4):977-1007.3.6 Simon, Jonathan (1992), "In Another Kind of Wood: Michel Foucault and Sociolegal Studies"

Law & Social Inquiry 17(1):49-56.3.7 Hunt, Alan (1993), Explorations on Law and Society: Toward a Constitutive Theory of Law.

New York: Routledge. ["Chapter 12: Foucault's Expulsion of Law: Toward a Retrieval,"pp. 267-300.]

Bourdieu:3.8 Dezalay, Yves and Bryant G. Garth (1995), "Merchants of Law as Moral Entrepreneurs:

Constructing International Justice from Competition for Transnational BusinessDisputes," Law and Society Review 29(1):27-64.

3.9 Dezalay, Yves and Bryant G. Garth (1996). Dealing in Virtue: International CommercialArbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.

3.10 Wacquant, Loïc (2002), “The Sociological Life of Pierre Bourdieu.” International Sociology17(4): 549-556.

Habermas:3.11 Rehg, William (1996), "Translators Introduction," pp. ix-xxxiv in J. Habermas, Between Facts

and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge:MIT Press.

3.12 Salter, Michael (1997), "Habermas' New Contribution to Legal Scholarship," Journal of Law andSociety 24(2):285-305.

3.13 Deflem, Mathieu (1998), "The Boundaries of Abortion Law: Systems Theory from Parsons toLuhmann and Habermas," Social Forces 76(3):775-818

Luhmann & Teubner:3.14 Teubner, Gunther (1983), "Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law," Law and

Society Review 17(2):239-285.3.15 Luhmann, Niklas (1985), "The Self-Reproduction of Law and Its Limits" pp. 111-127 in G.

Teubner (ed.), Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State. Berlin :De Gruyter. 3.16 Luhmann, Niklas (1987), "The Unity of the Legal System," pp. 12-35 in G. Teubner (ed.),

Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society. Berlin:De Gruyter.3.17 Teubner, Gunther (1993), "Chapter 2: The New Self-Referentiality" and "Chapter 3: Law -- A

Hypercycle?" pp. 13-46 in Law as an Autopoietic System. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 8

Others:3.18 Unger, Roberto M. (1976), Law in Modern Society, Toward a Criticism of Social Theory. New

York: The Free Press. ["The Disintegration of the Rule of Law in Post-liberal Society,"pp. 192-242.]

3.19 Scheppele, Kim Lane (1994), "Legal Theory and Social Theory," Annual Review of Sociology20:383-406.

3.20 Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (1995), "Three Metaphors for a New Conception of Law: TheFrontier, The Baroque, and the South," Law and Society Review 29(4):559-585.

Supplemental Readings

3.21* Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), "Modes of Domination," pp. 183-197 in Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press.

3.22* Foucault, Michel (1980), Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon. [especia lly pp. 78-108.]3.23 Luhmann, Niklas (1985), A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Routledge.3.24 Habermas, Jurgen (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.

Cambridge: MIT Press.3.25 Habermas, Jurgen. “Some Questions Concerning the Theory of Power: Foucault Again” In Kelly, Michael (Ed.) Critique

and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: The M IT Press.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 9

Week 4 (September 27) -- Central Themes I: The Social Psychology of Deviance and Compliance

4.1* Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (1982), Judgment under Uncertainty:Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ["Preface," pp. xi-xiii;"Introduction: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," pp. 3-20]

-- or --Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and

Biases,” Science 185:1124-1131.

4.2* Braithwaite, John (1989), Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. ["A Preliminary Sketch of the Theory," pp. 12-15; "The Family Model of the CriminalProcess: Reintegrative Shaming," pp. 54-68; "Summary of the Theory," pp. 98-107]

4.3* Tyler, Tom R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. [Excerptand notes at pp. 474-498 in S. Macaulay, L. Friedman & J. Stookey, eds. (1995), Law &Society: Readings on the Social Study of Law. New York, NY: Norton.]

4.4 Tyler, Tom (2004), "Procedural Justice," pp. 435-452 in Austin Sarat (ed.), Blackwell Companionto Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

4.5* Grasmick, Harold G. and Robert J. Bursik, Jr. (1990), "Conscience, Significant Others, andRational Choice: Extending the Deterrence Model," Law & Society Review, 24(3):837-862.

-- or --Excerpt and notes at pp. 461-464 in S. Macaulay, L. Friedman & J. Stookey, eds. (1995), Law &

Society: Readings on the Social Study of Law. New York, NY: Norton.

Additional Readings

General:4.6 Griffiths, John (1995), “Normative and Rational Choice Accounts of Human Social Behavior,”

European Journal of Law and Economics 2:285-299.4.7 Suchman, Mark C. (1997), "On Beyond Interest: Rational, Normative and Cognitive Perspectives

in the Social Scientific Study of Law," Wisconsin Law Review 1977:475-501.4.8 May, Peter J. (2004), "Compliance Motivations: Affirmative and Negative Bases."

Law & Society Review 38(1):41-68.

Decision biases:4.9* Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (1982), Judgment under Uncertainty:

Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ["On the Study of StatisticalIntuitions," pp. 493-508]

4.10 Shafir, Eldar and Robyn A. LeBoeuf (2002), “Rationality,” Annual Review of Psychology53:491-517.

4.11 Gilovich, Thomas, Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman, eds. (2002), Heuristics and Biases : thePsychology of Intuitive Judgement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.[Introduction and any chapter].

Deterrence:4.12 Wilson, James Q., and Richard J. Herrnstein (1985), Crime and Human Nature. New York:

Simon & Schuster. ["A Theory of Criminal Behavior," pp. 41-66]4.13 Nagin, Daniel S. (1998), “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-first

Century,” in M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 23:1-42.4.14 McCarthy, Bill (2002), "New Economics of Sociological Criminology " Annual Review of

Sociology 28:417-442.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 10

Restorative Justice:4.15* Braithwaite, John (1989), Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

["The Dominant Theoretical Traditions: Labeling, Subcultural, Control, Opportunity andLearning Theories," pp. 16-43; "Facts a Theory of Crime Ought to Fit," pp. 44-53.]

4.16* Braithwaite, John (1989), Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. ["Why and How Does Shaming W ork?," pp. 69-83; "Social Conditions Conducive toReintegrative Shaming," pp. 84-97.]

4.17* Braithwaite, John (1989), Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. ["Testing the Theory," pp. 108-124]

4.18 Makkai, Thomas and John Braithwaite(1994), “Reintegrative Shaming and RegulatoryCompliance,” Criminology 32:361-385.

4.19 Braithwaite, John (2000), “Survey Article: Repentance Rituals and Restorative Justice,” Journalof Political Philosophy 8(1):115-131.

4.20 Morris, Allison (2002), “Critiquing the Critics: A Brief Response to Critics of RestorativeJustice,” British Journal of Criminology 42(3):596-615.

4.21 Yeager, Peter Cleary (2004), "Law versus Justice: From Adversarialism to Communitarianism,"Law & Social Inquiry 29(4):891-915.

Procedural Justice:4.22* Tyler, Tom R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. ["Design

of the Chicago Study," pp. 8-15; "Measuring Legitimacy and Compliance," pp. 40-56;"Does Legitimacy Contribute Independently to Compliance?" pp. 57-68]

4.23* Tyler, Tom R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. ["PartThree: Citizens' Concerns When Dealing with Legal Authorities," pp. 71-112]

4.24 Tyler, Tom R., and Steven L. Blader, (2003), “The Group Engagement Model: ProceduralJustice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior,” Personality and Social PsychologyReview 7:349-361.

4.25 MacCoun, Robert J. (2005), "Voice, Control, and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword ofProcedural Fairness" Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 1:171-201. [Preprintavailable via web syllabus]

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 11

Week 5 (October 4) -- Central Themes II: How Much Law? Legal and Non-Legal Social Control

5.1 Macaulay, Stewart (1963), "Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study,"American Sociological Review 28(1):55-67.

5.2* Black, Donald (1976), The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press. ["Introduction," pp. 1-10; "Social Control," pp. 105-121 (skim); "Anarchy," pp. 123-137]

5.3 Ellickson, Robert C. (1991), Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. ["Introduction," pp. 1-11; "A Hypothesis of Welfare-Maximizing Norms," pp. 167-183]

5.4* Galanter, Marc (1983), "Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know(and Think We Know) about Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society," UCLALaw Rev. 31:4-71.

Additional Reading

Black:5.14 Black, Donald (1973), “The Mobilization of Law,” Journal of Legal Studies 2(1):125-149.5.5* Black, Donald (1976), The Behavior of Law. ["Stratification," pp. 11-36]5.6* Black, Donald (1976), The Behavior of Law. ["Morphology," pp. 38-59]5.7* Black, Donald (1976), The Behavior of Law. ["Culture," pp. 63-83]5.8* Black, Donald (1976), The Behavior of Law. ["Organization," pp.86-103]5.9 Symposium (2002), "A Continuities Symposium on Donald Black's The Behavior of Law,"

Contemporary Sociology 31(6):641-674. [Short essays by Allan V. Horwitz, M. P.Baumgartner, Thomas J. Bernard, Karen A. Cerulo, Randall Collins, Mark Cooney,James Tucker, Jonathan H. Turner, and Donald Black]

Ellickson:5.10 Ellickson, Robert C. (1986), "Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in

Shasta County," Stanford Law Review 38:623-687.5.11 Ellickson, Robert C. (1998), "Social Norms, Social Meaning, and the Economic Analysis of Law:

Law and Economics Discovers Social Norms," Journal of Legal Studies 27: 537-552.5.12 Ellickson, Robert C. (2001), “The Market for Social Norms,” Am. Law & Econ, Rev. 3(1):1-49.

Litigiousness:5.13 Kagan, Robert A. (2001), Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. ["Adversarial Legalism: Contours, Consequences, Causes," pp.3-58 (skim pp. 18-33)]

5.14 Burke, Thomas F. (2002), “Understanding the Litigation Debate,” pp. 171-204 in Lawyers,Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle Over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

5.15 Kritzer, Herbert M. (2004). "American Adversarialism: Reviewing Robert A. Kagan's AdversarialLegalism: American Way of Law." Law & Society Review 38(2):349-383.

Other:5.16 Schwartz, Richard (1954), "Social Factors in the Development of Legal Control: A Case Study of

Two Israeli Settlements," Yale Law Journal 63:471-491.5.17* Auerbach, Jerold S. (1983), Justice Without Law, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

["Introduction," pp. 3-17; "Conclusion," pp. 138-147]5.18 Miller, Richard E. and Austin Sarat (1980), “Grievances, Claims and Disputes: Assessing the

Adversary Culture,” Law and Society Review 15:525-??5.19 Hendley, Kathryn (2004), "Business Litigation in the Transition: A Portrait of Debt Collection in

Russia," Law and Society Review 38(2):305-348.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 12

Week 6 (October 11) -- Central Themes III: Legal Pluralism

6.1 Moore, Sally Falk (1973), "Law & Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as anAppropriate Subject of Study," Law & Society Rev. 7:719-746. [esp. 719-723, 742-745]

6.2* Merry, Sally E. (1988), "Legal Pluralism," Law & Society Rev. 22:869-896.

6.3 von Benda-Beckmann, Franz (1988), "Comment on M erry," Law & Society Rev. 22:897-902.

Additional Readings

Theoretical Debates:.6.4 Galanter, Marc (1981), "Justice in M any Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law,"

Journal of Legal Pluralism 19:1-47.6.5 Griffiths, John (1986), "What Is Legal Pluralism?" Journal of Legal Pluralism 24:1-55.6.6 Benda-Beckman, Franz von (1997), “Citizens, Strangers, and Indigenous Peoples: Conceptual

Politics and Legal Pluralism,” Law and Anthropology 9:1-42.6.7 Teubner, Gunther (1997), “‘Global Bukowina’: Legal Pluralism in the World Society,” in G.

Teubner (ed.), Global Law Without a State. Hampshire, UK: Dartmouth Publishing.6.8 Chiba, Masaji (1998), “Other Phases of Legal Pluralism in the Contemporary World,” Ratio Juris

11(3):228-245.6.9 Woodman, Gordon R. (1998) "Ideological Combat and Social Observations: Recent Debate about

Legal Pluralism," Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 42:21-59.6.10 Roberts, Simon (1998), “Against Legal Pluralism” Journal Legal Pluralism 42:95-1066.11 Dupret, Baudouin, Maurits Berger and Laila al-Zwaini (1999), “Introduction” in Dupret, Berger

& al-Zwaini, eds., Legal Pluralism in the Arab World. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law.6.12 Tamanha, Brian Z. (2000), “A Non-Essentialist Version of Legal Pluralism,” Journal of Law and

Society 27 (2):296-321.6.13 Passavant, Paul A.. and Jodi Dean (2001), "Laws and Societies," Constellations 8:376-89.6.14 Melissaris, Emmanuel (2004), “The More the Merrier? A New Take on Legal Pluralism,” Social

& Legal Studies 13(1):57-79.

Empirical Research:6.15 Engel, David M. (1980), "Legal Pluralism in an American Community : Perspectives on a Civil

Trial Court," American Bar Foundation Research Journal 5(3):425-454.6.16 Greenhouse, Carol J. (1982), "Nature is to Culture as Praying Is to Suing: Legal Pluralism in an

American Suburb," Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 20:7-??.6.17 Shamir, Ronen (1996), “Suspended in Space: Bedouins under the Law of Israel,” Law & Society

Review 30:231-254.6.18 Gomez, Laura (2000), “Race, Colonialism, and Criminal Law: Mexicans and the American Crim-

inal Justice System in Territorial New M exico,” Law & Society Rev. 34(4):1129-1204.6.19 Sezgin, Yuksel (2004), “A Political Account for Legal Confrontation between State and Society:

The Case of Israeli Legal Pluralism,” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 32:197-233.

Supplemental Readings

6.20 Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (1987), "Law: A Map of Misreading: Toward a Postmodern Conception of Law," 14 J. ofLaw & Society 279.

6.21 Matsuda, Mari J. (1988), "Law and Culture in the District Court of Honolulu, 1844-1845: A Case Study of the Rise ofLegal Consciousness," American Journal of Legal History 32:16-??.

6.22 Merry, Sally E. (1991), "Law and Colonialism," 25 Law & Society Rev. 889.6.23 Merry, Sally E. (1992), "Anthropology, Law, and Transnational Processes," Annual Review of Anthropology 21:357-{??}6.24 Tamanaha Brian Z.(1993), “The Folly of the Social Scientific Concept of Legal Pluralism” Journal Law & Society

20:192-217.6.25 Fuller, Chris (1994), “Legal Anthropology: Legal Pluralism and Legal Thought” Anthropology Today, 10(3):9-12.6.26 Tyler, Tom R. (2000), “Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities,” Law

& Social Inquiry 25(4):983-1020.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 13

Week 7 (October 18) -- Central Themes IV: Disputing

7.1* Felstiner, William F., Richard L. Abel, and Austin Sarat (1980-81), "The Emergence of Disputes:Naming, Blaming, Claiming...," Law & Society Rev. 15:631-654.

7.2* Mather, Lynn, and Barbara Yngvesson (1980-81), "Language, Audience and the Transformationof Disputes," Law & Society Rev. 15:775-821.

7.3* Engel, David M. (1984), "The Oven Bird's Song: Insiders, Outsiders, and Personal Injuries in anAmerican Community," Law & Society Rev. 18:551-582.

Additional Reading

Dispute Processing:7.4 Yngvesson, Barbara and Lynn Mather (1983), "Courts, Moots, and the Disputing Process," pp.

51-83 in Boyum & Mather, eds., Empirical Theories about Courts. New York: Longman.7.5 Erlanger, Howard, Elizabeth Chambliss, and Marygold Melli (1987), "Participation and

Flexibility in Informal Processes: Cautions from the Divorce Context," LSR 21:585-604.7.6 Sibley, Susan and Austin Sarat. (1989). "Dispute Processing in Law and Legal Scholarship:

From Institutional Critique to the Reconstruction of the Juridical Subject," DenverUniversity Law Review 66:437-498.

7.7 Edelman, Lauren B, Howard S Erlanger, and John Lande. (1993). "Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace." Law & Society Rev. 27:497-534.

7.8 Albiston, Catherine (1999), “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losingby Winning,” Law & Society Review 33(4):869-912.

7.9 Hoffmann, Elizabeth A. (2003), “Legal Consciousness and Dispute Resolution: Different Dispu-ting Behavior at Two Similar Taxicab Companies,” Law & Social Inquiry 28(3):691-716.

The Economics of Disputes:7.10 Mnookin Robert H. and Lewis Kornhauser, (1979), “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The

Case of Divorce,” Yale Law Journal 88:950-997.7.11 Priest, George and Benjamin Klein (1984) “The Selection of Disputes for Litigation,” Journal of

Legal Studies 13:1-55.7.12 Cooter, Robert and Daniel Rubinfeld (1989), "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their

Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature 27:1067-1097.

Litigation Dockets:7.13 Kagan, Robert A., Cartright, Bliss., Friedman, Lawrence M., and Stanton Wheeler (1977), "The

Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970", Stanford Law Review 30:121-??.7.14 Munger, Frank (1988), "Law, Change, and Litigation: A Critical Examination of an Empirical

Research Tradition", Law and Society Review 22:57-102.7.15 Friedman, Lawrence M. (1989), "Litigation and Society", Annual Review of Sociology 15:17-29.7.16 Siegelman, Peter and John J. Donohue III (1990), "Studying the Iceberg from its Tip: A Compari-

son of Published and Unpublished Employment Discrimination Cases," LSR 24:1133-70.7.17 Galanter, Marc (1990), “Case Congregations and Their Careers,” Law & Society Rev. 24:37-95.7.18 Epp, Charles R . (1990), “Connecting Litigation Levels and Legal Mobilization: Explaining Inter-

state Variation in Employment Civil Rights Litigation.” Law & Soc'y Rev. 24:145-164.7.19 Clark, David S. (1990), “Civil Litigation Trends in Europe and Latin America Since 1945: The

Advantage of Intracountry Comparisons,” Law & Society Review 24(2):549-570.7.20 Dunworth, Terence and Joel Rogers (1996), "Corporations in Court: Big Business Litigation in

U.S. Federal Courts, 1971-1991", Law and Social Inquiry 21:497-592.

Supplemental Readings

7.21 Baruch Bush, Robert A. (1989) "Defining Quality in Dispute Resolution: Taxonomies and Anti-Taxonomies of QualityArguments" Denver University Law Review 66(3):335-380.

7.21 Mather, Lynn (1990), “Dispute Processing and a Longitudinal Approach to Trial Courts,” Law & Soc'y Rev. 24:357-370.7.22 Kritzer, Herbert M. (1991), Let's M ake a Deal: Understanding the Negotiation Process in Ordinary Litigation. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin Press.7.23 Kenworthy, Lane, Stewart Macaulay, and Joel Rogers (1996), "`The More Things Change...': Business Litigation and

Governance in the American Automobile Industry", Law and Social Inquiry 21:631-678.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 14

Week 8 (October 25) -- Legal Consciousness I: Legality in Everyday Life

8.1* Merry, Sally Engle (1990), Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness AmongWorking-Class Americans. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. [Chapter 1 (pp. 1-20) andChapter 3 (pp. 37-63).]

8.2 Ewick, Patricia, and Susan S. Silbey (1998). The Common Place of Law. Chicago: Univ. ofChicago Press. [Chapter 2 (pp. 15-32) and Chapter 3 (pp. 33-53).]

8.3 Silbey, Susan S. (2001), “Legal Culture and Consciousness,” pi. 8623-8629 in InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Additional Reading

Theoretical Developm ents:8.4 Engel, David M. (1998), “How Does Law Matter in the Constitution of Legal Consciousness?”

pp.109-144 in B.G. Garth & A. Sarat eds., How Does Law Matter? Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.

8.5 Marshall, Anna-M aria and Scott Barclay (2003), "In Their Own Words: How Ordinary PeopleConstruct the Legal World," Law and Social Inquiry 28(3):617-628.

8.6 Ewick, Patricia (2004), "Consciousness and Ideology," pp. 80-95 in Austin Sarat (ed.), BlackwellCompanion to Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

8.7 Silbey, Susan S. (2005), "After Legal Consciousness," Annual Review of Law and Social Science1:323-368.

Consciousness, Class and Community:8.8 Baumgartner, M. P. 1985. “Law and the Middle Class.” Law and Human Behavior. 9:3-24.8.9 Miyazawa, Setsuo 1987. “Taking Kawashima Seriously: A Review of Japanese Research on

Japanese Legal Consciousness and Disputing Behavior.” Law and Society Review. 21(2):219-241.

8.10 Hirsch, Susan F. (1992) "Subjects in Spite of Themselves: Legal Consciousness Among theWorking-Class New Englanders" Law & Social Inquiry 17(4):839-858.

8.11 Levine, Kay and Virginia Mellema (2001), “Strategizing the Street: How Law M atters in theLives of Women in the Street-Level Drug Economy” Law and Social Inquiry 26:169-??.

Merry:8.12 Merry, Sally Engle 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among

Working-Class Americans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Chapter 7: “LegalExperience and Legal Consciousness.”]

8.13 Merry, Sally Engle 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness amongWorking-Class Americans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Chapter 4: “TheSocial Context of Problems,” and Chapter 5: “Problems and Cases.”]

Ewick and Silbey:8.14 Ewick, Patricia and Susan S. Silbey 1998. The Common Place of Law. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. [Chapter 4: “Before the Law.”]8.15 Ewick, Patricia and Susan S. Silbey 1998. The Common Place of Law. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. [Chapter 5: “With the Law.”]8.16 Ewick, Patricia and Susan S. Silbey 1998. The Common Place of Law. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. [Chapter 6: “Against the Law.”]

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 15

Week 9 (November 1) -- Legal Consciousness II: Authority, Subordination and Resistance

9.1* White, Lucie E. (1990), "Subordination, Rhetorical Survival Skills, and Sunday Shoes: Notes onthe Hearing of Mrs. G.," Buffalo Law Review 38:1-58.

9.2 Ewick, Patricia and Susan Silbey (2003), "Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance toLegal Authority," American Journal of Sociology 108(6):1328–72.

Additional Reading

Gender:9.3* Bumiller, Kristen (1988), The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. [pp. 13-19; "Law and Ideology," pp. 23-39;"Conclusion: Voices Excluded from the Law," pp. 109-117.]

-- or --Bumiller, Kristin (1986), “Victims in the Shadow of the Law,” Signs:Journal of Women in

Culture and Society 12(3):421-439.9.4 Gerhard, Ute (1993), “Women’s Experiences of Injustice: Some Methodological Problems and

Empirical Findings of Legal Research.” Social and Legal Studies. 2:303-3219.5 Morgan, Phoebe A. (1999), “Risking Relationships: Understanding the Litigation Choices of

Sexually Harassed Women.” Law and Society Review 33:67-??9.6 Quinn, Beth A. (2000), "The Paradox of Complaining: Law, Humor, and Harassment in the

Everyday Work World," Law and Social Inquiry 25(4):1151-1185.9.7 Nielsen, Laura Beth (2000), "Situating Legal Consciousness: Experiences and Attitudes of

Ordinary Citizens about Law and Street Harassment," Law and Society Review34(4):1055-1091.

9.8 Marshall, Anna-Maria (2003), "Injustice Frames, Legality, and the Everyday Construction ofSexual Harassment," Law and Social Inquiry 28(3):659-689.

Poverty:9.9 White, Lucie. (1987-88) "Mobilizations on the Margins of Litigation," 16 NYU Rev. of Law &

Social Change 535.9.10 Sarat, Austin (1990) "The Law is All Over: Power, Resistance and the Legal Consciousness of

the Welfare Poor," Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 2:343-379.9.11 White, Lucie (1990) "Goldberg v. Kelly On the Paradox of Lawyering for the Poor," 56 Brooklyn

Law Review 861-887.9.12 Brodkin, Evelyn Z. (1993) "The Making of an Enemy: How Welfare Policies Construct the

Poor." Law & Social Inquiry 18(4):647-670.

Other Others:9.13 Engel, David M. (1993) "Origin Myths: Narratives of Authority, Resistance, Disability and the

Law," Law & Society Rev. 27(4):785-826.9.14 Tucker, James (1993), "Everyday Forms of Employee Resistance," Sociological Forum 8:25-45.9.15 Bower, Lisa C. (1994) "Queer Acts and the Politics of 'Direct Address': Rethinking Law, Culture,

and Community," Law & Society Review 28(5):1009-1033.9.16 McCann, Michael W and Tracey M arch (1995), "Law and Everyday Forms of Resistance: A

Socio-Political Assessment," Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 15(1):207-236.9.17 Engel, David M. and Munger, Frank W. (1996), "Rights, Rememberance, and the Reconcilitation

of Difference," Law and Society Review 30(1):7-53.9.18 Hull, Kathleen E. (2003), "The Cultural Power of Law and the Cultural Enactment of Legality:

The Case of Same-Sex Marriage," Law and Social Inquiry 28(3):629-657.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 16

Week 10 (Novem ber 8) -- Crime and Punishment (courtesy of Adam Jacobs)

10.1 Garland, David (1990). Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press. [Chapter 8, “The Rationalization of Punishment: WeberianThemes and Modern Penality,” 177-192]

10.2 Nadelmann, Ethan (1993). Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal LawEnforcement. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. [Chapter 8, “The Transformationof U.S. International Law Enforcement,” 463-477]

10.3 Reuter, Peter (1983). Disorganized Crime: The Economics of the Visible Hand. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. [Chapter 7: “Dispute Settlement: The Mafia and Social Control,” 151-173]

10.4 Jenness, Valerie (2004). “Explaining Criminalization: From Demography and Status Politics toGlobalization and Modernization” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 147-71.

Additional Reading

Strain Theory:10.5 Merton, Robert (1938). “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3:672-82.10.6 Agnew, Robert. (1985). “A revised strain theory of delinquency.” Social Forces. 64(1), 151-167.

Control Theory:10.7 Wilson, James Q. and George E. Kelling (1982). “Broken Windows: The Police and

Neighborhood Safety,” Atlantic Monthly, March 1982.10.8 Geis, Gilbert (2000). “On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: A

critique.” Theoretical Criminology 4: 35-53.10.9 Hirschi, Travis and Michael Gottfredson (2000). “In defense of self-control.” Theoretical

Criminology 4: 55-69.

Learning/Labeling Theory:10.10 Becker, Howard (1953). “Becoming a Marijuana User.” American Journal of Sociology 59:235-

42.

Structural/Critical Theories:10.11 Bourgeois, Phillipe (1996). “In Search of Masculinity: Violence, Respect, and Sexuality Among

Puerto Rican Crack Dealers in East Harlem.” British Journal of Criminology 36:3:412-427.

10.12 Young, Jock (1999). “Cannibalism and Bulimia: Patterns of Social Control in Late Modernity”Theoretical Criminology 3: 387-407

10.13 Wacquant, Loic (2002). “From Slavery to Mass Incarceration: Rethinking the ‘race question’ inthe U.S.” New Left Review 13: ??-?? [ http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR24703.shtml]

Crime, Work and the Life Course:10.14 Schwartz, Richard D. and Jerome H. Skolnick, (1962). "Two studies of legal stigma." Social

Problems, 10, 133-13810.15 Uggen, Christopher (2000). “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A

Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review65:529-46..

10.16 Sampson, Robert and John Laub (2003), “Life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime amongDelinquent Boys Followed to Age 70.” Criminology 41. [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/sampson/2003.6_Crim.pdf]

10.17 Pager, Devah (2003). “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology,108(5): 937-75.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 17

Symbolic Law:10.18 Gusfield, Joseph (1967). “Moral Passage: The Symbolic Process in Public Designations of

Deviance.” Social Problems 15:175-188

Death Penalty: 10.19 Sarat, Austin (2001). When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 4, “Capital Trials and the OrdinaryWorld of State Killing,” 87-125]

-- or -- Sarat, Austin (2001). When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 8, “State Killing in Popular Culture:Responsibility and Representation in Dead Man W alking, Last Dance and The GreenMile,” 209-245

Crime and American History:10.20 Friedman, Lawrence. Crime and Punishment in American History. [“The Contemporary

Criminal Trial,” 383-418]10.21 Friedman, Lawrence. American Law in the 20th Century. [“Crime and Criminal Justice in the

Postwar World,” 205-250]

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 18

Week 11 (November 15) -- Law & Cultural Identity (courtesy of Marina Zaloznaya)

11.1 Scheingold, Stuart A.(1974), The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and PoliticalChange. New Haven: Yale University Press. [“Prologue” pp.3-6; “Legal Rights andPolitical Mobilization” pp. 131-143.]

11.2 Rubio-Marin, Ruth (2003), “Language Rights: Exploring and Competing Rationales”, pp.52-80in W. Kymlicka and A. Patten (ed.) Language Rights and Political Theory. New York:Oxford University Press.

11.3 Calavita, Kitty and Suarez-Navaz, Liliana (2003), “Spanish Immigration Law and theConstruction of Difference: Citizens and ‘Illegals’ on Europe’s Southern Border”, pp.99-129 in Perry, Richard W. and Maurer, Bill (ed.) Governmentality, Law & Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Additional Reading

11.4 Gusfield, Joseph (1967), "Moral Passage: The Symbolic Process in Public Designations ofDeviance," Social Problems 15:175-188.

11.5 Omen, Barbara. (1999), “Group Rights in Post-Apartheid South Africa: The Case of theTraditional Leaders,” Journal of Legal Pluralism 44:73-103.

11.6 Dent, George W. Jr. (1999), “Defense of Traditional Marriage,” Journal of Law and Politics15:581-645.

11.7 Tony, William I. (1999), “Multicultural Jurisprudence and the Culture Defense,” Journal of LegalPluralism 44:127-160.

11.8 Turton, Anthony R. (2000), “Statutory Instruments for the M aintenance of Ethnic Minority

Interests in a M ulti-Cultural Community : The Case of the Afrikaners in South Africa,”Journal of Legal Pluralism 45:137-167.

11.9 Trapani, William (2002), “Re/Cognizing Native American Sovereignty in an Age of ManifestManners,” Journal of Law in Society 3:1-31.

11.10 Hamilton, Marci A. (2002), “Religion, the Rule of Law, and the Good of the Whole: A Viewfrom the Clergy ,” Journal of Law and Politics 18:387-445.

11.11 Nidhi, Gupta (2003), “Women’s Human Rights and the Practice of Dowry in India,” Journal ofLegal Pluralism 48:85-119.

11.12 Coutin, Susan B. (2003), “Illegality, Borderlines and Space of Nonexistence”, pp.171-203 in

Perry, Richard W. and Maurer, Bill (ed.) Governmentality, Law & Identity. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

11.13 Hallaq, Wael B. (2003-2004), “Juristic Authority vs. State Power: The Legal Crisis of ModernIslam,” Journal of Law & Religion 19:243-259.

Week 12 (November 22) -- THANKSGIVING BREAK

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 19

Week 13 (November 29) -- Intellectual Property Law: Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and theRest of Us (courtesy of Liberty Karp)

13.1 Coombe, Rosemary J. (2004), “Commodity Culture, Private Censorship, Branded Environments,and Global Trade Politics: Intellectual Property as a Topic of Law and SocietyResearch,” pp. 369-391 in A. Sarat (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

13.2 Netanel, Neil W. (1996), “Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,” Yale Law Journal106(2):283-387. [Introduction (pp. 285-92), The Democratic Paradigm (pp. 341-64),Conclusion (pp. 385-7).]

13.3 Heller, Michael A. and Rebecca S. Eisenberg (1998), “Can Patents Deter Innovation? TheAnticommons in Biomedical Research,” Science 280:698-701.

13.4 Sulston, John (2002), “Intellectual Property and the Human Genome,” pp. 61-73 in P. Drahos andR. Mayne (ed.), Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access andDevelopment. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.5 Stephenson, David J. (2001), “The Nexus Between Intellectual Property Piracy, InternationalLaw, the Internet, and Cultural Values,” St. Thomas Law Review 14:315-335.

Additional Reading

IP and Culture:13.6 Coombe, Rosemary J. (1991), “Objects of Property and Subjects of Politics: Intellectual Property

Laws and Democratic Dialogue," Texas Law Review 69:1853-80.13.7 Seeger, Anthony (1992), “Ethnomusicology and Music Law," Ethnomusicology 36(3):345-359.13.8 Brown, Michael F. (1998), “Can Culture Be Copyrighted?” Current Anthropology 39:193-222.

IP and Knowledge:13.9 Polster, Claire (2000), “The Future of the Liberal University in the Era of the Global Knowledge

Grab," Higher Education 39:19-41.13.10 Stallman, Richard (1990), “W hy Software Should Be Free,” pp. 283-97 in A.D. Moore (ed.),

Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International Dilemmas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

13.11 Chapman, Audrey R. (1998), “A Human Rights Perspective on Intellectual Property , ScientificProgress, and Access to the Benefits of Science,” pp. 128-62 in WIPO/UNHCRIntellectual Property and Human Rights, Pub. No. 762(E). Geneva: WIPO. [Online athttp://www.wipo.org/globalissues/events/1998/humanrights/papers/pdf/chapman.pdf]

IP and Globalization:13.12 Suchman, Mark C. (1989), “Invention and Ritual: Notes on the Interrelation of Magic and

Intellectual Property in Preliterate Societies," Columbia Law Review 89:1264-94.13.13 Schuler, Philip (2004), “Biopiracy and Commercialization of Ethnobotanical Knowledge,” pp.

159-181 in J.M . Finger and P. Schuler (ed.), Poor People’s Knowledge: PromotingIntellectual Property in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

IP Rebellion:13.14 Weber, Steven (2004), The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[pp. 1-8, 207-16, 227-31, 243-54]13.15 Lessig, Lawrence (2001), The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.

New York: Random House. [Chapter 14 "Alt. Commons," pp. 240-261]13.16 Klein, Naomi (2000), No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Toronto: Knopf Canada.

[Chapter 12 "Culture Jamming: Ads Under Attack," pp. 278-309]

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 20

Week 14 (December 6) -- Law and Social Inequality (courtesy of Ann Pikus, Julie Shevrin, andHeidi Herschede)

14.1 Seron, Carroll & Frank Munger (1996), “Law and Inequality: Race, Gender…and, of Course,Class,” Annual Review of Sociology 22:187-212.

14.2 Bushway, Shawn D. & Ann Morrison Piehl (2001), “Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factorsand Racial Discrimination in Sentencing,” Law and Society Review 35:733-67.

14.3 Richman, Kimberly D. (2005), “(When) Are Rights W rong? Rights Discourses and Indetermi-nacy in Gay and Lesbian Parents' Custody Cases,” Law & Social Inquiry 30(1):137-176.

Additional Reading

Inequality & Class:14.4 Carlin, Jerome E., Jan Howard, and Sheldon L. Messinger (1966), “Civil Justice and the Poor:

Issues for Sociological Research,” Law & Society Review 1:9-84.14.5 Galanter, Marc (1974), “Why the <Haves' Comes Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal

Change,” Law & Society Review 9:95-160.14.6 Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert A. Kagan, & Lawrence Friedman (1987), “Do the

<Haves' Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970,” Law & Society Review 21:403-445.

14.7 Kinsey, Karyl A. & Loretta J. Stalans (1999), “Which <Haves' Come out Ahead and Why?Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement," Law & SocietyReview 33(4):993-1023.

Inequality & Race:14.8 Hagan, John & Celesta Albonetti (1982), “Race, Class, and the Perception of Criminal Justice in

America,” American Journal of Sociology 88(2):329-355.14.9 Radelet, Michael L. & Glenn L. Pierce (1985), “Race and Prosecutorial Discretion in Homicide

Cases,” Law & Society Review 19(4):587-622.14.10 Alexander, Rudolph & Jacquelyn Gyamerah, (1997), “Differential Punishing of African

Americans and Whites Who Possess Drugs: a Just Policy or a Continuation of the Past?”Journal of Black Studies 28(1):97-111.

14.11 Free, Marvin, D. Jr. (1997), “'The Impact of Federal Sentencing Reforms on African Americans.” Journal of Black Studies 28(2):276-286.

14.12 Steffensmeier, Darrell & Stephen Dermuth (2000), “Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in U.S.Federal Courts: Who is Punished More Harshly?” American Sociological Review 65:705-729.

14.13 Pettit, B. & B. Western (2004), “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and ClassInequality in U.S. Incarceration,” American Sociological Review 69:151-169.

14.14 Burstein, Paul & Mark Evan Edwards (1994), "The Impact of Employment DiscriminationLitigation on Racial Disparity in Earnings: Evidence and Unresolved Issues,” Law &Society Review 28(1):79-112.

Inequality & Gender Orientation:14.15 Bower, Lisa (1994), “Queer Acts and the Politics of <Direct Address': Rethinking Law, Culture,

and Community,” Law and Society Review 28:1009-34.14.16 Phillips, Scott, and Ryken Grattet (2000), “Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning-making, and the

Institutionalism of Hate Crime Law,” Law & Society Review 34:567-606.14.17 Hull, Kathleen E. (2003), “The Cultural Power of the Law and the Cultural Enactment of

Legality: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage,” Law & Social Inquiry 28:629-657.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 21

Week 15 (December 13) -- Law in/and Popular Culture

15.1 Macaulay, Stewart (1987), “Images of Law in Everyday Life: The Lessons of School,Entertainment, and Spectator Sports.” Law and Society Review 21(2):185-218.

15.2 Sherwin, Richard K. (2004), "Law in Popular Culture," pp. 95-112 in Austin Sarat, ed., BlackwellCompanion to Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

15.3 Haltom, William and Michael McCann (2004). Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the

Litigation Crisis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [pp. 1-30 (especially 7-25)and pp. 265-306 (especially 265-281 and 303-306)]

Additional Reading

Cultural Constructions of Legal Institutions:15.4 Friedman, Lawrence (1989) “Law, Lawyers and Popular Culture,” Yale L. J. 98:1579-1606.15.5 Milner, Neal (1989), “The Denigration of Rights and the Persistence of Rights Talk: A Cultural

Portrait,” Law & Social Inquiry 14(4):631-675.15.6 Hayden, Robert M. (1991), “The Cultural Logic of a Political Crisis: Common Sense, Hegemony

and the Great American Liability Insurance Famine of 1986,” Studies in Law, Politicsand Society 11:95-117. [Excerpt at pp. 236-254 in S. Macaulay, L. Friedman & J.Stookey, eds. (1995), Law & Society. New York, NY: Norton.]

15.7 Morrill, Calvin, Christine Yalda, Madelaine Adelman, Michael Musheno, and Cindy Bejarano(2000), “Telling Tales in School: Youth Culture and Conflict Narratives “ Law & SocietyReview 34(3):521-565.

15.8 Sherwin, Richard K. (2000), “When Law Goes Pop : the Vanishing Line Between Law andPopular Culture,” Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [pp. 3-13, and 235-254.]

15.9 Silbey, Jessica M. (2002), “What We Do When We Do Law and Popular Culture?” Law & SocialInquiry 27(1):139-168. [A review essay on Sherwin (2000)]

15.10 Galanter, Marc (2005). Lowering the Bar: Lawyer Jokes and Legal Culture. Madison, W I:University of Wisconsin Press. [pp. 3-21, and pp. 249-260.]

Cultural Constructions of Criminal Justice:15.11 Barak, Gregg (1994), "Between the Waves: Mass Mediated Themes of Crime and Justice," Social

Justice 21:133-147.15.12 Sasson, Theodore (1995), "African American Conspiracy Theories and the Social Construction of

Crime," Sociological Inquiry 65(3/4):265-285.15.13 Lawrence, Regina G. (1996), "Accidents, Icons and Indexing:The Dynamics of News Coverage

of Police Use of Force," Political Communication 13:437-454.15.14 Ferrell, Jeff (1999), “Cultural Criminology,” Annual Review of Sociology 25:395-418.15.15 Calavita, Kitty (2001), “Blue Jeans, Rape, and the "De-constitutive" Power of Law,” Law &

Society Review 35(1):89-117.15.16 Robinson, Paul H., John M. Darley, and Kevin Carlsmith (2001), "The Ex Ante Function of the

Criminal Law" Law and Society Review 35:165-189.

Legal Fictions:15.17 Chase, Anthony (1986), “Lawyers and Popular Culture: A Review of Mass Media Portrayals of

American Attorneys,” American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1986:281-300.15.18 Gillers, Stephen (1989), “Taking L.A. Law More Seriously,” Yale Law Journal 98:1607-1623.15.19 Joseph, Paul and Sharon Carlin (1992), “The Law of the Federation: Images of Law, Lawyers and

the Legal System in ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation,'” Univ. of Toledo L. Rev. 24:43-85.15.20 Greenfield, Steve & Guy Osborn (1995). “Where Cultures Collide: The Characterisation of Law

and Lawyers in Film,” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 23:107-??. 15.21 Sarat, Austin (2000), “Imagining the Law of the Father: Loss, Dread, and Mourning in The Sweet

Hereafter,” Law & Society Review 34:3-46.15.22 Friedman, Lawrence and Issacher Rosen-Zvi (2001), “Law and Popular Culture: Illegal Fictions:

Mystery Novels and the Popular Image of Law,” UCLA Law Review 48:1411-1430.

SOCIOLOGY 989, Autumn 2005 22

National Legal Cultures:15.23 Bierbrauer, Günter (1994). “Toward an Understanding of Legal Culture: Variations in

Individualism and Collectivism between Kurds, Lebanese, and German.” Law & SocietyReview 28(2):243-264.

15.24 Gibson, James L. and Gregory A. Calderia. (1996). “The Legal Cultures of Europe.” Law &Society Review 30(1):55-85.

15.25 Garland, David (2000), “The Culture of High Crime Societies,” British Journal of Criminology40:347-375

15.26 David Nelken (2004), “Comparing Legal Cultures” Pp. 113-128 in Austin Sarat, ed., BlackwellCompanion to Law & Society. London: Blackwell.

Supplemental Readings

15.27 Swidler, Ann (1986), “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review.15.7 Scheingold , Stuart A . (1991). The Politics of Street Crime: Criminal Process and Cultural Obsession. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.15.28 Redhead, S. (1995). Unpopular Cultures: the Birth of Law and Popular Culture. Manchester, UK: Manchester University

Press.15.14 Scheingold , Stuart A ., ed. (1997). Politics, Crime Control, and Culture. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate /Dartmouth. 15.29 Yovel, Jonathan (2001), “Invisible Precedents: on the Many Lives of Legal Stories Through Law and Popular Culture,”

Emory Law Journal 50(4):1265-1295.15.30 Kamir, Orit (2005), “Why ‘Law-and-Film’ and What Does it Actually Mean? A Perspective,” Continuum: Journal of

Media & Cultural Studies 19(2):255-278.