| Sumario: | The article focuses on the relationship between legal methodology and political time, arguing that the methods legal scholars adopt are shaped by the political and economic context in which they work. It highlights the dominant "rationalizing legal analysis" method in U.S. legal education, which emphasizes coherence and preservation of legal traditions, but critiques its limitations in addressing structural conflicts and transformative possibilities. The authors advocate for greater attention to the genealogical method—a critical, historically inflected approach that deconstructs legal norms by revealing their contingent origins and power dynamics—as especially valuable during periods of political instability and fractured hegemony, such as post-2008 financial crisis and recent political upheavals. They caution, however, that in times of breakdown and authoritarian threat, genealogical critique must be balanced with a recognition of the normative and reconstructive potential of legal regimes to avoid undermining social cohesion and legal legitimacy. Ultimately, the article contends that genealogical methods remain essential for understanding and reconstructing legal and economic structures, enabling scholars to navigate between preservation and transformation in varying political moments.
|
|---|