Literature and Law: Consensus and the Art of Disagreement.

Literary and legal judgments require, formulate, and defend, but also retain an urge to disrupt, a consensus of like-minded people. This essay studies the aesthetic of taste in literature and the jury system in law to show how consensus works, and at what cost. Using Pierre Bourdieu's model of socia...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:University of Toronto Quarterly Vol. 85; no. 2; pp. 1 - 25
Main Author: KERTZER, JON
Format: Essay
Published: University of Toronto Press Spring2016
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=115940893&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 115940893
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00420247
        UTQ
      jtl: University of Toronto Quarterly
      issn: 00420247
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Spring2016
      vid: 85
      iid: 2
      pid: 678
      pub: University of Toronto Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        115940893
        10.3138/utq.85.2.01
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 24
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 642KB
      tig:
        atl: Literature and Law: Consensus and the Art of Disagreement.
      aug:
        au: KERTZER, JON
        affil: Professor (Emeritus), Department of English, University of Calgary
      su:
        Consensus (Social sciences)
        Law & literature
        Aesthetics
        Bourdieu, Pierre, 1930-2002
        Austen, Jane, 1775-1817
        Jury
        O. J. Simpson Trial
      sug:
        subj:
          Consensus (Social sciences)
          Law & literature
          Aesthetics
          Bourdieu, Pierre, 1930-2002
          Austen, Jane, 1775-1817
          Jury
          O. J. Simpson Trial
      keyword:
        Austen
        Bourdieu
        consensus
        jury
        taste
      ab: Literary and legal judgments require, formulate, and defend, but also retain an urge to disrupt, a consensus of like-minded people. This essay studies the aesthetic of taste in literature and the jury system in law to show how consensus works, and at what cost. Using Pierre Bourdieu's model of social "fields" competing for authority, it argues that consensus must be won within a dissensus that it can never quite quell. Concord emerges from discord, which remains unruly. This dynamic energizes theories of taste (Burke, Hume, Scarry), which derive social and moral relevance from the sensory immediacy of art, and the jury system, which theatrically forges agreement out of judicial dispute. Jane Austen provides examples of irony in the service of critical taste; the O.J. Simpson criminal trial illustrates the tribulations of reaching a unanimous verdict, which it displays to a disputatious public.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Essay
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of University of Toronto Quarterly is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: University of Toronto Quarterly
      holder: University of Toronto Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2016
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N