Ir para o menu de navegação principal Ir para o conteúdo principal Ir para o rodapé
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Artigos

v. 1 n. 2 (2014): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito

Pensando o direito: pensando o direito em movimento

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v1i2.41
Enviado
julho 31, 2014
Publicado
2014-07-31

Resumo

Este artigo defende que uma maneira de se “pensar o direito” é pensar no “direito em movimento”. Meu argumento é que uma perspectiva do “direito em movimento” incorpora quatro elementos fundamentais ou ‘multiplicidades’ que são: (1) metodologias múltiplas; (2) perspectivas múltiplas; (3) vocalidades múltiplas; e (4) mídias múltiplas, incluindo objetos. Essas ideias não são originais e por isso não posso reivindicar crédito por elas, como fica evidente pelo número de colegas inspirados que articularam perspectivas para cada uma dessas multiplicidades. No entanto, a tentativa de colocar todas essas perspectivas num esquema abrangente, com a inclusão dessas quatro multiplicidades num mesmo projeto, mostra que a perspectiva do direito em movimento pode trazer novos frutos. Para tanto, este artigo combina a análise de algumas pesquisas dentro do movimento direito e sociedade que exemplificam tais tendências com a minha própria pesquisa sobre a litigância de direitos civis no trabalho para discutir a necessidade de uma perspectiva múltipla para nossos “futuros múltiplos.” 

Referências

  1. Berrey, E. (2011). Why Diversity Became Orthodox in Higher Education, and How It Changed the Meaning of Race on Campus. Critical Sociology, in press.
  2. Berrey, E.; Hoffman, S. G. & Nielsen, L. B. (2012). Situated Justice: A Contextual Analysis of Fairness and Inequality in Employment Discrimination Litigation. Law & Society Review, 46, 1-36.
  3. Blumer, H. (1962). Society as Symbolic Interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes (pp. 179-192). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  4. Bumiller, K. (1987). Victims in the Shadow of the Law: A Critique of the Model of Legal Protection. Journal of Women and Culture in Society, 12, 421-534.
  5. Curran, B. A. (1977). The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of a National Survey. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
  6. Edelman, L. B.; Krieger, L. H.; Eliason, S. R.; Albiston, C.; & Mellema, V. (2008). Judicial deference to institutionalized employment practices. Paper presented at the Discoveries of the Discrimination Research Group Conference. Stanford Law School.
  7. Engel, D. M. & Munger, F. W. (2003). Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Ewick, P. & Silbey, S. (1992). Conformity, Contestation, and Resistance: An Account of Legal Consciousness. New England Law Review, 26, 731-749.
  9. Ewick, P. & Silbey, S. (1998). The Common Place of Law: Stories From Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Felstiner, W.; Abel, R. & Sarat, A. (1980). The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, and Claiming. Law and Society Review, 15, 631-655.
  11. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  12. Fiske, S. T. (2005). What We Know about the Problem of the Century: Lessons from Social Science to the Law, and Back. In L. B. Nielsen & R. L. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities (pp. 59-74). Dordrecht: Springer.
  13. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law and Society Review, 9, 95-160.
  14. Galanter, M. (1983). Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society. UCLA Law Review 31, 31-71.
  15. Gómez, L. E. (2012). Looking for Race in All the Wrong Places. Law and Society Review, 46, 221-245.
  16. Grossman, J. B.; Kritzer, H. M.; & Macaulay, S. (1999). Do the "haves" still come out ahead? Law and Society Review, 33, 803-810.
  17. Hagan, J. & Rymond-Richmond, W. (2009). Darfur and the Crime of Genocide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Halliday, T. C. (2006). The Politics of Lawyers: An Emerging Agenda. Law and Social Inquiry, 24, 1007-1011.
  19. Haltom, W. & McCann, M. (1999). Hegemonic Tales and Everyday News: How Newspapers Cover Civil Litigation. Unpublished manuscript, on file with authors.
  20. Haltom, W. & McCann, M. (2004). Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Hirsh, C. (2008). Settling for less? The organizational determinants of discrimination-charge outcomes. Law and Society Review, 42, 239-274.
  22. Kritzer, H. M. & Silbey, S. (2003). In Litigation Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  23. Luker, K. (1985). Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  24. Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study. American Sociological Review, 28, 55-67.
  25. Major, B., Gramzow, R. H.; McCoy, S. K.; Levin, S.; Schmader, T. & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving Personal Discriminaiton: The Role of Group States and Legitimizing Ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269-282.
  26. Major, B. & Kaiser, C. (2005). Perceiving and Claiming Discrimination. In L. B. Nielsen and R. L. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities. Dordrecht: Springer.
  27. McDonnell, T. E. (2010). Cultural Objects as Objects: Urban Space and the Interpretation of AIDS Campaigns in Acra, Ghana. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1800-1852.
  28. Merry, S. E. (1990). Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness Among Working-Class Americans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  29. Newman, J. O. (1985). Rethinking fairness: Perspectives on the litigation process. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1643-1659.
  30. Nielsen, L. B. (2000). Situating Legal Consciousness: Experiences and Attitudes of Ordinary Citizens about Law and Street Harassment. Law and Society Review, 34, 201-236.
  31. Nielsen, L. B. (2010). Mixed Methods in Empirical Legal Studies Research. In H. Kritzer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
  32. Nielsen, L. B.; Nelson, R. L.; & Lancaster, R. (2010). Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 175-201.
  33. Obasogie, O. K. (2013). Blinded by Sight: Seeing Race Through the Eyes of the Blind. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  34. Oberman, M. (2013). Two Truths and a Lie: In re John Z and Other Stories at the Intersection of Teen Sexuality and the Law. Law and Social Inquiry, 38, 364-402.
  35. Riles, A. (2006). Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  36. Robinson, P. H. & Darley, J. M. (1997). The utility of desert. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 453-499.
  37. Sarat, A. (1990). The Law is All Over: Power, Resistance, and the Legal Consciousness of the Welfare Poor. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities, 3, 343-379.
  38. Sarat, A. & Felstiner W. (1995). Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power and Meaning in the Legal Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
  39. Sarat, A. & Scheingold, S. (1998). Cause Lawyering and the Reproduction of Professional Authority: An Introduction. In A. Sarat and S. Scheingold (Eds.), Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities. New York: Oxford University Press.
  40. Sarat, A. & Scheingold, S. (2001). Cause Lawyering and the State in a Global Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. Sarat, A. & Scheingold, S. (1997). Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities. New York: Oxford University Press.
  42. Southworth, A. (1999). Lawyers and the “Myth of Rights” in Civil Rights and Poverty Practice. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 8, 469-511.
  43. Southworth, A. (2000). Review essay: The Rights Revolution and Support Structures for Rights Advocacy. Law and Society Review, 34, 1203-1219.
  44. Teles, S. M. (2010). The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.