Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theory

Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theory

Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theory

Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theorys

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [1844]

Leckey, Robert. 2008. Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs

Intentions :
In this book, the author pursues three major claims. «The first is that the domains of law I discuss [family law and administrative law] now constitute contextual subjects. [...] The second is that relational theory obscures crucial debates by hiding its normative commitment behind the relational inquiry and the contextual method. [...] The third is that the contextual method that produces those legal subjects I have noted - arguably relational theory’s major contribution to theoretical debates - reaches more widely than the appropriate application of relational theory’s normative commitment.» (pp.27-28)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Données documentaires diverses

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 are dedicated to family law. The author argues that between 1950 and 1975, family law «[...] produced a thick legal subject, one embedded - to an extend asphyxiating for some - in social relations and religious traditions. In contrast to relational theory’s exhortations, family law showed itself to be markedly acontextual in methodology. A couple of statuses structured the field dichotomously: married/unmarried and legitimate/unlegitimate. [...] Once a subject had been inscribed on the map produced by the governing statuses, details about that subject’s life were unnecessary. [...] The law, particularly Quebec’s civil law, focused more on a universal iconic ideal of Married Woman than on particular married women.» (pp.248-249) The author then shows that «[c]ontemporary family law is characterized by a contextual methodology and by a normative commitment to deep relationships marked by a greater aspiration of gender equality and diminished attention to relationships’ formal status.» (p.249) The author finally clarifies «[...] the critical importance of spelling out normative positions within relational theory. Adopting contextualism and a weak ’focus on relationships’ are insufficient for addressing difficult disputes.» (p.250)