Misunderstanding Positivism

Sebok, Anthony J.

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 93

First Page: 2054

Year: 1995

Bluebook Citation: 93 MICH. L. REV. 2054 (1995)

Author: Anthony J. Sebok: all 34 publications


Abstract

It is important that I point out the limited purposes of this article. I cannot, in the context of the argument I make, prove that positivism will not inevitably collapse into a conservative theory of law. Nor can I prove that positivism is not vulnerable to jurisprudential arguments unrelated to the attempt to link positivism with formalism, legal process, and originalism. I recognize that strong arguments have been made that modem positivism's attempts to divorce itself from classical positivism's command theory of law has opened up more problems than it has solved.

I have certain views on whether that divorce is possible and the form it should take, but this is not the place to raise them. My single goal in this article is to disprove a set of bad arguments against positivism, which, in my opinion, have given it a peculiarly conservative profile and have distracted us from investigating alternative versions.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.