Call for Papers Date: 2009-08-07

This call for papers seeks social scientists with a special interest in political scientists, sociologists and interdisciplinary scholars. This project seeks to assess hip-hop culture’s impact on contemporary American politics and political participation. In addition the project will assess the pedagogical implications of hip hop studies, how and why the culture has revived early twentieth century debates on African American political culture and its impact on the framing of resistant political identities nationally and globally. Additional topics that would be of interest include hip hop culture and rap music’s impact on identity formation with regard to gender (though there have been some book-length studies published in this area recently) and/or race, ethnicity, geography in the era of globalization, as well as hip hop’s function within contemporary African American religion and spirituality. There is also a desire to analyze themes within hip hop political discourse such as discussions of the Southern region and critiques of societal institutions.

Veronica Womack
Georgia College & State University
CBX 018
Milledgeville GA 31061
Email: veronica.womack@gcsu.edu

The Supreme Court of Virginia Historical Commission and the Library of Virginia invite proposals for a needs-and-opportunities symposium on the legal history and culture of Virginia and the United States to be held at the Library of Virginia on Friday and Saturday, 12 and 13 March 2010. The symposium will be the first event in The Law of the Land: Virginia and America, which will feature a major exhibition and other public programs beginning in 2012.

The Program Committee welcomes submissions for individual papers or for session proposals emphasizing needs-and-opportunities and new scholarship that treat large and important topics such as (but not limited to) the origins of American legal culture, the influence of Virginia on American legal culture, the common law, state constitutional law, federalism and state’s rights, courts and jurisprudence, criminal law, commercial law, labor law, environmental law, legal education, law and gender, and the law and slavery, segregation, and race. Attendance is limited to 250.

Please send proposals and a brief CV by e-mail to the Program Committee before 1 May 2009, addressed to brent.tarter@lva.virginia.gov.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. The raid has taken on epic proportions and is just as relevant to today’s racial consciousness as it was when it happened.

As the United States continues to grapple with the craggy fissures of racial equality, we must wonder how we can embrace the lessons of Brown’s raid. How do we remember John Brown? Memory is an important political tool that can help us practice powerful politics of the present.

John Brown was a fiery abolitionist who whipped up a religious fervor everywhere he went. His bright eyes and long beard struck quite the image, foreshadowing his powerful sermons. He was equal parts radical revolutionary as he was fire-and-brimstone evangelical preacher.

Brown was a firebrand, a fanatic, but one of the most important revolutionaries in this country’s history. Today, depending on who recounts his story, Brown tends to falls into one of two categories: freedom fighter or domestic terrorist. These labels only get us so far. Appreciating the middle ground, that of a passionate individual with a seemingly singular focus, determined to make a change offers a much better space for dialogue.

What makes Brown particularly important to U.S. history is that he sparked the revolutionary consciousness of a people. Would slavery have ended on the same trajectory or remained for decades to come without John Brown? Would the civil rights movement have progressed at such an astonishing rate if it weren’t for John Brown? Whatever failings we ascribe to Brown or to these movements, there seems little doubt that Brown’s revolutionary thinking and actions helped move this country forward for the better.

Condemned by many, Brown galvanized the radical thoughts upon which others were afraid to act. He saw a social injustice and wanted to use whatever means necessary to rid the country of slavery. Today, some of us confront social injustice with equivalent fervor, but might we do more? No matter what the issue, we can learn from Brown’s determination and focus.

Today, we must not be afraid to be radical. Extremism does not work and is often counterproductive, sure enough, but being able to spark the spirit of the masses is an important step toward progress. The alternative to extremism is not the status quo, but progressive politics. We must keep change constant. Movements need energy and need galvanizing forces.

One cannot go it alone. We need more than rabble rousing, we need direction and passion. Brown taught us that desperate times call for desperate measures. This does not mean we ought to engage in violence like Brown did, but that we ought to step out of our comfort zones and realize the revolution we want to see. The power for change is in us. It only takes a few tiny steps of organized people to move society.

This theory applies across the political spectrum. Change is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is society’s prerogative. To demand change is different than changing. To forget the lessons of our great leaders, wars, disgraces and successes is to deny the politics of our remembered past. We can choose how to remember and in doing so let us take the good with the bad in order to remake our world into the world we want.

We can demand change or we can change. We can polarize politically or we can unite to move away from the poles. If we remember the passion that ignited this country’s leaders, perhaps we can find a passion that motivates our political choices to better the future. John Brown tried to do it. Don’t we owe it to ourselves to try as well?

- Nick J. Sciullo writes on critical race theory, politics, and public policy. He received his B.A. from the University of Richmond and J.D. from the West Virginia University College of Law. His writing has appeared in the Toledo Blade, Richmond Times Dispatch, Alexandria Packet-Gazette, and Charleston Gazette. He has been published in numerous law reviews, newspapers and newsletters. He lives in Alexandria, Va.

- The views of columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of The Journal.

Secondary law reviews often get a bum rap, but some practioners have argued that secondary law reviews often print articles that are more applicable to the practice of law. There are many fine secondary law reviews and many great students that work on these reviews. Specialized journals create avenues to explore issues that might get passed by in the law review game.

So what’s next? Here are a few areas I’d like to see:

Law and Literature: There are a few journals whose focus is law and society and also a few that spend most of their time on law and literature, but there’s not much. Many professors are incorporating literature into their classes and into their writing. Law and literature gives us a new way to think about writing and a new way to write about the law.  Law and literature reviews would allow inquiry into the law as literature as well as the law in literature. 

Legal History:  There are peer-reviewed journals of legal history, but legal history gets barely a nod in the law review process.  This is suprising considering the tremendous popular interest in legal history.  How many volumes on Brown v. Board‘s historical impact or the actions of the founders as the Constitution came to be?  How many times have students and teachers reviewed the historical changes in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence or considered the impact of World War I and II on the law?  There is a tremendous body of scholarship that be cultivated from the many lawyers, scholars, and students who majored in history (quite a few of us legal types). 

Law and Accountability:  I envision this area including issues of government accountability, corporate accountability, and issues of legal elites and accountability.  Enron, Lehman Brothers, Marc Dann, and more all offer interesting areas of discussion.  Ever since the GAO, became the Government Accountability Office, we’ve seen much discussion about accountability and it’s time the legal academy devoted a journal to this subject.  To be sure much of the accountability issues are discussed in business law reviews, but there is enough out there to warrant the creation of an accountability law review.  The various financial recovery plans and struggling economic times makes this a timely topic.  Until our businesses and legal elites become infallible, there will be room for accountability discussions. 

Law and Colonial Studies: I’m probably one of very few who comes at colonial studies from a legal background, but I’m sure there are others.  This type of law review would discuss issues not only postcolonial jurisprudential theory, but also of the relationship between countries and their former colonies, the legal relationship of the US and Puerto Rico, and much more.  This journal would be equally relevant to theory debates as well as discussions of international law, nationalism, and other what might be termed by some (certainly not me) as “more practical” concerns. 

I’d be interested to hear other thoughts about sbujects that are underrepresented in the law review game.  What subjects matter?  Who’s voices are being marginalized?  What secondary law reviews aren’t living up to their billing?

Email me here.

Zizek is one of the more controversial intellectuals of our time. He’s had a profound impact on cultural theory, sociology, philosophy, criticism, and debate. He never avoids controversy and has a knack for being able to write across disciplines.

Zizek is often misunderstood as a contradictory crazy, for lack of a better phrase. Too often instead of appreciating the totality of his work, critics try to position each writing in conflict in order to find inconsistencies.

This masks the larger importance of Zizek’s writing, namely that his self-admitted goal is to criticize, to question. He is not a provider of answers, he is an enabler of thought. Understanding philosophy and criticism as a way to reinvigorate the subjective is a much more fulfilling path than viewing criticism as an esoteric absurdity.

Zizek opens up space and encourages questioning. These are important ideas that would compliment any discipline.  Maligning Zizek as a radical or dismissing him to the obscurity bin is the wrong approach.  He’s a much easier read than his greatest influence Lacan, or Deleuze, or Baudrillard, or Derrida.  If you haven’t thumbed through some Zizek, perhaps you should. 

I hope that as I continue to write this article that I learn more about my own relationship with the law, as a critic.  Zizek has written important about law and society, terrorism, and political action, but there has not been a thorough examination of these writings from a legal scholar’s standpoint.  I hope that I can produce something that does justice to Zizek and helps broaden our conceptions of legal theory.

This monograph series publishes volumes that address important dimensions of imperial history, from the early modern world into the twentieth century. We invite proposals from political, social, economic and cultural historians, as well as historians of science and political theory. You can find out more about this series at: .

If you would like to discuss an idea for a monograph proposal or an edited collection of essays then please contact Mr. Daire Carr (Junior Commissioning Editor for History).

The citation is:  Nick J. Sciullo, Atlantean Prose and the Search for Democracy, 2 the crit: j. critical legal stud. 130 (2009). 

The paper is available at the crit or on SSRN. 

The asbstract from SSRN is below:

Atlantis, the Lost City, has been a focal point of folklore, archeological inquiry, literary criticism, and mystic interpretation. It has boggled the brilliant, confused scientists, and sparked the interest of children. “Skeptics, archaeologists, geologists, and anthropologists may rant and rave, but the myth of Atlantis endures. In every generation, someone emerges to champion the cause and to embroider the story.” But the significance of Atlantean prose as an avenue through which to best understand critical legal thought has not been explored in depth. To be sure, there have been numerous books, articles, and opinions analyzing Atlantis, but little attention has been given to the legal significance of this type of storytelling. What does it mean to engage myth? How can legal scholars and practitioners learn from and use lessons of antiquity? Where does modern narrative theory fit into traditional legal discourse? I ask the reader to dive into the depths with me and consider what Atlantis can teach us about democracy, critical legal studies, and the rule of law.

The deadline for panel and paper submissions is Friday May 8, 2009. For further information and submission guidelines, please see:
http://users.wpi.edu/~phansen/necbs.