Dancing With Strangers: Young Legal Scholars and Their Disciplinary Predicament
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51204/IVRS_25105AKeywords:
Legal Phantasm, Interdisciplinarity, Legal Knowledge, Epistemic Perspectives, Legal ScholarshipAbstract
In a world where academia's mantra increasingly demands interdisciplinary engagement, legal scholarship faces a choice: uphold its traditional boundaries or embrace disciplinary confluence. This paper explores how legal knowledge maintains its identity while adapting to contemporary academic discourse. It does so through the metaphorical address of a young legal scholar, proposing two crucial epistemic perspectives: the “legal phantasm” – a lawyer's distinct cognitive toolkit for constructing and applying law, and the “spirit of interdisciplinarity” – an attitude fostering creative engagement beyond normative boundaries. By distinguishing between knowledge of law and knowledge about law, the paper argues for a nuanced approach to scholarly engagement. Using the metaphor of dancing with disciplinary strangers, it explores how legal scholars might maintain professional rigour while pursuing intellectual innovation. It argues for epistemologically conscious inquiry that recognises both the necessity of boundaries and the value of their careful transgression. The paper calls for methodological awareness rather than mere interdisciplinary hype, suggesting that meaningful scholarship requires understanding not just whether to dance, but how.
References
Auer, Marietta. 2018. Zur Erkenntnisziel der Rechtstheorie. Philosophische Grundlagen multidisziplinärer Rechtswissenschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Auer, Marietta. 2024. A Genealogy of Private Law Epistemologies. 3-24 in Methodology in Private Law Theory. Between New Private Law and Rechtsdogmatik, edited by Thilo Kuntz and Paul B. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balkin, Jack M. 3/1996. Interdisciplinarity as Colonization. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 949-970.
Boulanger, Christian. 2019. Die Soziologie juristischer Wissensproduktion. 193-205 in Interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung: Eine Einführung in die geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Befassung mit dem Recht und seiner Praxis, edited by Christian Boulanger, Julika Rosenstock and Tobias Singelnstein. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Burazin, Luka, Relac, Svan. 6/2022. Shvaćanje pravne znanosti u suvremenoj udžbeničkoj literaturi iz pozitivnopravnih predmeta na Pravnom fakultetu Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 72: 1357-1399.
Bromme, Rainer. 2000. Beyond One's Own Perspective: The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity. 115-133 in Practising Interdisciplinarity, edited by Nico Stehr and Peter Weingart. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dubber, Markus Dirk. 6/2005. The Promise of German Criminal Law: A Science of Crime and Punishment. German Law Journal 7: 1049-1071.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Guastini, Riccardo. 2014. La sintassi del diritto. 2nd ed. Torino: G. Giappichelli Editore.
Hart, H. L. A. 2012. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1787. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 2nd ed. Berlin: Henricus - Edition Deutsche Klassik GmbH.
Kelsen, Hans. 1911. Über Grenzen zwischen juristischer und soziologischer Methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Verlag.
Kelsen, Hans. 1/1914. Eine Grundlegung der Rechtssoziologie. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 39: 839-876.
Kelsen, Hans. [1960] 2020. Reine Rechtslehre. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Klein Thompson, Julie. 2000. A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science. 3-24 in Practising Interdisciplinarity, edited by Nico Stehr and Peter Weingart. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Luhmann, Niklas. 2004. Law as a Social System. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1889. Götzen-Dämmerung oder Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophirt. Leipzig: C. G. Naumann.
Novak, Aleš. 2022. Interpretativni pluralizem. 275-304 in Pravne panoge in metodologija razlage prava, edited by Aleš Novak and Marijan Pavčnik. Ljubljana: Lexpera GV Založba.
Novak, Aleš. 2/2024. Legal Realism Bound. Eudaimonia – Journal for Legal, Political and Social Theory and Philosophy 8: 90-113.
Peczenik, Aleksander. 3/2000. Scientia Iuris: An Unsolved Philosophical Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3: 273-302.
Pitamic, Leonid. 1917. Denkökonomische Voraussetzungen der Rechtswissenschaft. Österreichisches Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 3: 339-367.
Polanyi, Michael. 2022. Razsežnost tihe vednosti. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Potacs, Michael. 2/1994. Rechtsdogmatik als empirische Wissenschaft. Rechtstheorie 25: 191-211.
Schauer, Frederick. 2009. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Siems, Mathias M. 2009. The Taxonomy of Interdisciplinary Legal Research: Finding the Way Out of the Desert. Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 10: 5-17.
Somek, Alexander. 2021. Knowing What the Law Is: Legal Theory in a New Key. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Stark, Alexander. 2019. Interdisziplinarität der Rechtsdogmatik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Supiot, Alain. 2007. Homo Juridicus: On the Anthropological Function of the Law. London, New York: Verso.
Taekema, Sanne, van Klink, Bart. 2011. On the Border: Limits and Possibilities of Interdisciplinary Research. 7-32 in Law and Method. Interdisciplinary Research into Law, edited by Bart van Klink and Sanne Taekema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Wissenschaftsrat. 2020. Wissenschaft im Spannungsfeld von Disziplinarität und Interdisziplinarität: Positionspapier. Köln. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2020/8694-20.html (last visited 28 February, 2025).
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Žižek, Slavoj. 2006. The Parallax View. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
