The research essay is a vehicle for you to undertake independent research
and to develop the skills of critical analysis, the development of an argument
and written communication. In some cases you might also be required to use case
research paper is worth 50% of your final mark in Law and Social Theory.
I will provide the reading reference that should be the foundation of your argument and base the assignment to this reading and your research. I need quality paper done on this and avoid using too much American sources and case study and focus on Australian ones. give examples to referenced ideas to back up your statement/main arguement as well as relevant case studies.
the question to the essay is: Show how symbolic interactionism and/or ethnomethodology have been
used to examine the workings of legal institutions.
THIS SHOULD BE YOUR GUIDE.
The power of language: ethnomethodology & symbolic interactionism
Bourdieu’s work draws our attention to law as a realm of symbolic contestation and the
importance of language in constituting its power relations, and it is useful to elaborate on
this theme by examining an older set of traditions in social theory, symbolic interactionism
and ethnomethodology, to see how they have been applying to legal practices and
institutions. This week we will discuss both these strands of social theory, the kinds of
research into legal practice they have generated, as well as focusing on the application of
these perspectives in two case studies: a prominent rape trial and the work of judges.
Gregory M. Matoesian, ‘Language, law and society: policy implications of the
Kennedy Smith rape trial’ (1995) 29 Law & Society Review 669.
Max Travers, ‘Symbolic interactionism and law’, B&T Chapter 11, or Max
Travers, ‘Interpretive sociology and the law’, L&ST Chapter 9.
Discussion questions ( this is just for your own understanding of the essay.)
What do the approaches adopted in ethnomethodology and symbolic
interactionism tell you about the operation of power in legal settings?
Which aspects of legal institutions and practices can be explained more effectively
than other theoretical perspectives if we focus more directly on
their language and symbolic dimensions?
How would it be possible to reconcile a sensitivity to the linguistic and symbolic
aspects of law with a more formalistic a ‘black letter’ approach?