Law’s Embrace
| Date | 01 September 2002 |
| Author | David Nelken |
| Published date | 01 September 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/096466390201100308 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
LAW’SEMBRACE
DAVID NELKEN
University of Macerata, Italy and Cardiff Law School, UK
INTRODUCTION
TWENTY-FIVE years on, students still read Ban´kowski and
Mungham’s Images of Law (the London Institute of Advanced Legal
Studies actually holds its copy in its short loan collection, reserved for
heavily used books). It would not be difficult to dismiss the book by saying
that its arguments are largely limited to its time and place despite (or because
of) its attempt to transcend them so as to ‘seize the time’. On the other hand
it could be replied that it is one of those books that succeeds in surviving its
time precisely by being so representative of it.
Zenon and I were fellow teachers of legal theory in Edinburgh when the
book first appeared; we have remained friends and I have continued to read
his work with interest. In his later writings he no longer advocates all that he
did then (Mungham has also calmed down). But it would be more remark-
able and less honourable if he did. A lot has happened since then and the
world has changed. So I shall not attempt anything like a comprehensive
analysis of whether the specific propositions in Images of Law have stood
the test of time; this would be to take the book both too seriously and not
seriously enough. Instead I shall deal briefly with just two of the (inter-
related) issues the book raised and examine their possible relevance in today’s
rather different circumstances. The first question has to do with the extent
to which bringing in the lawyers necessarily dulls our ability to reach for
better forms of social organization; the second with how far this problem is
common to all types of legal culture.
BREAKING IMAGES
Assuming (a big assumption) that we are looking to create the good society,
are law (and lawyers and judges) part of the solution or are they part of the
problem? According to Images of Law, law was certainly part of the problem.
By insisting on their capacity to identify and satisfy ‘legal needs’ legal
professionals, even, or especially, ‘lawyers for the poor’, blocked alternative
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES 0964 6639 (200209) 11:3 Copyright © 2002
SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi,
Vol. 11(3), 405–412; 027071
To continue reading
Request your trial