Critique of Legal Ethnophilosophy: The Limits of a Philosophy of Law Domesticated by Jurists

Abstract

The article undertakes a critique of what it calls legal ethnophilosophy: a philosophy of law produced by jurists, aimed above all at mirroring and rationalizing the habitus of the legal field, rather than performing a genuinely critical function. Starting from the tension between jurists’ self-image and the external gaze of the social sciences and philosophy, the text analyzes the ideology of the autonomy of law in light of Bourdieu (field, habitus, the “ideology of the independence of the judicial corps”) and Warat (jurists’ theoretical common sense), showing how legal discourse formulates a domesticated philosophy of law that naturalizes the internal perspective and ceases to function as a critical instance of the conceptual repertoires employed in practice. It then discusses Kelsenian metadogmatics and the paradoxical reception of the Pure Theory of Law by the legal community, in order to clarify the relations between theory and philosophy of law. Drawing on the debate on ethnophilosophy in Kwame Appiah and on the distinction between anthropology and philosophy, the article argues that describing legal categorical regimes is not sufficient to constitute a philosophy of law. Finally, in dialogue with Rorty, it proposes understanding the philosophy of law as a politics of categorical repertoires: a reflexive practice that does not merely record the concepts of legal culture, but subjects them to critical examination, including when such examination threatens the very position of philosophers of law within the field.