Last month, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof published a column arguing that the policies of the Bush administration have “made the classics powerfully resonant today” (“Et Tu, George?”, New York Times, January 23, 2007). Drawing from three examples—the Athenians’ disastrous Sicilian expedition described in the histories of Thucydides, the allegory about the cost of obsession in Melville’s Moby Dick, and “the constant subtext [of] how easy it is to be uncivilized when promoting civilization” in Virgil’s Aeneid—Kristof said that “at a time when we hear the siren calls of moral clarity, the classics almost invariably emphasize the importance of moral nuance, an appreciation for complexity, the need for humility.”
Kristof’s column drew a tremendous response, with over 400 readers contributing their own suggestions for “required reading” in the face of the political situation today. The column also got our own staff thinking about an idea that we have kicked around for some time. Those of us involved in the law often refer to legal concepts—the rule of law, judicial independence, equal justice for all—that sound good but that can be surprisingly difficult to define. We identify these concepts as fundamental to American society and we occasionally hear (or assert) that these concepts are under attack. But what precisely do these concepts mean? Where do they come from, and how have they been expressed over the course of our nation’s history? Do they have universal definitions or do their definitions vary in different contexts or cultures? How can the classics speak to these questions?
If we were to compile a list of classics—novels, plays, essays, films, poems—that define and explore principles central to our legal system, what might that list include? There are some obvious “starters,” of course—To Kill a Mockingbird, Twelve Angry Men, Gideon’s Trumpet—but there are some less obvious choices as well. In our own work, for example, we’ve used the lyrics to Bruce Springsteen’s song “American Skin” to discuss race and justice and Robert Frost’s poem, “Mending Wall,” to compare different understandings of the Constitution’s system of separate powers. What would you add to the list? We’d like to hear from you.
This is the ABA Division for Public Education’s first posting on Talking Justice. My colleagues and I plan to discuss a wide range of legal issues, but we’re particularly interested in the intersections between law and culture. We look forward to talking with you.
Jim Landman
Associate Director
ABA Division for Public Education
The views expressed in this posting are those of the author and have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association.