Minnesota Law Review

Who’s Afraid of Law and the Emotions?

Law and emotions scholarship has reached a critical moment in its trajectory. It has become a varied and dynamic body of work, mobilizing diverse disciplinary understandings, to analyze the range of emotions that implicate law and legal decisionmaking. Yet mainstream legal academics have often greeted it with ambivalence. They have not predictably viewed it as a resource for addressing questions within their substantive fields; it is often treated as a novel academic pastime rather than an instrument for addressing practical problems. This reception contrasts sharply with that accorded to two fields that have also challenged dominant notions of (legal) rationality: behavioral law and economics, and the emerging field of law and neuroscience.

In this Article, we examine the ambivalent reception of this promising body of work. We conclude that it may reflect the persistence of a rationalist tendency in law, and an incomplete grasp of the benefits of understanding these essential constituents of human cognition and motivation. We contend that the best answer to such resurgent doubt is to demonstrate the pragmatic potential of this scholarship. Notwithstanding the breadth of its epistemological challenges, law and emotions scholarship can contribute to the familiar normative work of the law—revising and strengthening existing doctrine, improving decisionmaking, and informing new legal policies. Moreover, it can facilitate the less familiar but nevertheless valuable task of using law to improve people’s affective lives. We elaborate the pragmatic potential of law and emotions by identifying three dimensions of this scholarship: its capacity to illuminate the affective features of legal problems; its ability to investigate these features through interdisciplinary analysis; and its power to integrate that understanding into practical, normative proposals. In demonstrating the utility of law and emotions scholarship, we also respond to some of the explicit concerns that have been raised about purposive legal intervention in the emotions.

This examination reveals law and emotions scholarship to be a vital endeavor, which can improve the operation of law, through a pluralistic, multidisciplinary understanding of emotions, not simply as defects of rationality but as affirmative modes of apprehending and responding to the world.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Minnesota Law Review Ranked Among Ten Most Cited Law Journals in America

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to report that it is the tenth most-cited law journal in the United States, according Washington & Lee’s recently-released 2011 law journal rankings. For more information on the announcement and the rankings, visit this link.

  • 2012 Symposium Announcement

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that the 2012 Law Review Symposium will focus on direct democracy and the Minnesota Marriage amendment and will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 26, 2012.

  • 2011 Symposium Webstreaming

    Live webstreaming for the 2011 Minnesota Law Review Symposium, Citizens United: Democracy Realized—or Defeated?, will be available at: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/minnesota-law-review-symposium-citizens-united-democracy-realized–or-defeated. Be sure to check it out!

  • Article Submission Policy Announcement

    On April 19, 2011, the Minnesota Law Review and several peer journals released a joint letter committing to give every author at least seven days to decide whether to accept any offer of publication. Eliminating “exploding offers” will improve the quality of our deliberations and the scholarship that we publish, [...]

  • Congratulations!

    Class of 2011 Excellence in Public Service Award recipient:  Steve Schmidt (vol. 95 Note & Comment Editor); and Class of 2011 Most Outstanding Contribution Award recipient:  Chelsea Brennan (vol. 95 Lead Managing Editor). Congratulations Steve and Chelsea!

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days