It must be considered that there is a possible paradox in this statement.
So, it is necessary to understand and accept the existence of open categories, 7 definitions that are not perpetual and immutable but adaptable and changeable. It creates a “Procrustean bed,” 6 in which every interpretation/creation of the world must be adapted to be understood as correct.įor the critical theory, these kinds of limits are just a way to create an ideological naturalization of the status quo, presenting the “existence” as the only possible reality. 5 In this case, the definition is presented as the reality itself, and creates a strong normative power over others in their relation with both the definition and the reality. The problem with definitions is the possibility of a “closed category” that could be understood as a complete (and in this sense, eternal) representation of the reality.
However, this does not mean that definitions are useless or impossible. On the contrary, if the critical perspectives have something in common it is the capacity to see the difficulties that can be generated from a univocal definition, 4 specially to understand something so broad and dynamic as the CLT. Nevertheless, this can be hard: to make a “general explanation” of the CLT or to present a particular approach under the assumption that it can incorporate all the CLT, is to make exactly the same mistake that is being criticized. The first impulse when someone raises these arguments is to try to explain “ what is the CLT”. In some cases, behind these reactions it is possible to find misunderstandings about the CLT approach to law and rights, 2 but mostly, there are wrong generalizations of certain forms of critique or the presumption that the thought of a particular critical theorist is a perfect and inclusive representation of the general (and homogenous) CLT. As a member of the group “ Crítica Jurídica Latinoamericana” (Latin-American Critical Legal Thinking or “CriJur”) 1 and as someone who presents himself as a critical legal thinker, I am used to hearing some questions about the Critical Legal Thinking (CLT) as well as objections or responses to certain statements allegedly used by the CLT “in general”.
0 kommentar(er)
