Publication Date


Document Type

Special Contribution


I understand that my role in this conversation is to help you understand why Stanley Fish is conservative. I know that Stanley is often thought to be a radical, but in fact I do not think he, or his position, is all that radical. Of course, philosophically he is an anti-foundationalist, he does not believe in free speech as an absolute, he is generally for most of the aims of those that call themselves "multi-culturalist," but none of that is sufficient to make him a radical. After all, no one has been more insistent than Stanley Fish that theory has no consequences.

So, my role is to help you see what a radical looks like. Of course, I am not a radical because I share Fish's anti-foundationalist views, I am a radical because I am Christian. I really do not have a theory, but I do find myself claimed by a community of people who have practices that make the practice of law, particularly as we know it, problematic. Christians do not have a theory that leaves everything the way it is, but we are part of the community that changes everything. I think this is particularly the case now that the liberal presuppositions and theories that have so dominated our understanding of law are breaking down.