Critical and Comparative Rhetoric: Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity

Front Cover
Critical and Comparative Rhetoric: Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity
Copyright information
Table of contents
Detailed Contents
List of Figures and Tables
About the Authors
Introduction
	Notes
1 What’s Wrong with Aristotle?
	The power of legal rhetoric
	The troubling roots of traditional legal rhetoric
	Classical thought patterns: Aristotle and Plato
	What’s wrong with Aristotle?
	Classical thought, rational thought, and White supremacy
	Classical thought and White supremacy in U.S. law
	Aristocratic and Aristotelian legal methods: categorizing from Olympus
	Legal formalism: a classical style of legal reasoning
	Problematizing the classical roots of traditional legal rhetoric
		Traditional legal rhetoric is based on aristocratic and patriarchal norms
		Traditional legal reasoning ruthlessly divides things, oftentimes unfairly
		Traditional legal reasoning incorrectly occupies a privileged epistemological space
	Future directions: “the last shall be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16)
		Why we need to get rid of traditional rhetoric even though it has produced some good legal outcomes
		Why we need to get rid of traditional rhetoric even though the classical norms relate more to the political than the rhetorical
	Notes
2 Problematizing Aristotle: Renovating and Remodeling Traditional Legal Rhetoric
	Introduction: legal education’s role in maintaining oppressive feedback loops
	Legal education’s preservation of White patriarchy is a feature, not a bug
	Indoctrination versus education in teaching law students legal reasoning and analysis
	Interrupting traditional legal rhetoric
		Boldness
		Empathy
		Shame
		Invisibilization
		Exasperation
		Flattery
	Conclusion
	Notes
3 Shifting the Focus from the West
	Contested terrain: challenging foundational narratives
	Building the legal framework for White cultural hegemony
		A compelling but unsuccessful challenge to the racialized nomos: Jamison v. McClendon
		Crafting justice based on the lived legal experiences of people of color: Washington v. San Kim Sum
	Conclusion: the need to critically engage with legal genres and analytic paradigms and to infuse legal reasoning with inclusive frameworks
	Notes
4 Multicultural Rhetorics
	The making of multicultural legal reasoning and analytic paradigms
	Types of multicultural rhetoric
		Indigenous rhetorics
			Background
			Indigenous rhetorical strategies
		African Diasporic rhetoric
			Background
			African Diasporic rhetorical strategies
			Guidance for Maat as it functions in the nommo
		Asian Diasporic rhetoric
			Background: Chinese and South Asian rhetorics
			Asian Diasporic rhetorics
			Asian Diasporic rhetorical strategies
		Latine rhetoric
			Background
			Latine rhetorical strategies
	Acknowledgments
	Notes
5 Reproducing the Canon, Reproducing Inequity (Traditional Rhetoric)
	United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 43 S. Ct. 338 (United States Supreme Court 1923)
	Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993)
	Grand Upright Music Limited v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
	Luke Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir. 1992)
	Baxter v. Bracey, 751 Fed. Appx. 869 (6th Cir. 2018)
	Sequoyah et al v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 620 F.2d 1159 (1980)
6 Interrupting the Canon
	Gideon v. Wainwright, 373 U.S. 335 (1963)
		Summary of Gideon v. Wainwright
		Excerpt from Petitioner’s Brief in Gideon v. Wainwright
		Traditional legal rhetoric in Gideon v. Wainwright
		Interrupters in Gideon v. Wainwright
			Empathy as an interrupter
			Invisibilization as an interrupter
			Boldness as an interrupter
			Flattery as an interrupter
	Loving v. Virginia, 188 U.S. 1 (1967)
		Summary of Loving v. Virginia, 188 U.S. 1 (1967)
		Excerpt from Petitioner’s Brief, Loving v. Virginia
		Traditional legal rhetoric in Loving v. Virginia
		Interrupters in Loving v. Virginia
			Boldness as an interrupter
			Shame as an interrupter
			Exasperation as an interrupter
	Conclusion
	Notes
7 Disrupting the Canon: Multicultural Rhetorical Strategies in Action
	Rethinking how we “do” law
	Multicultural rhetoric in action
	Multicultural rhetorical strategies in various legal genres
		The Complaint
		The Memo
		The Trial Brief
		The Appellate Brief
		The Judicial Opinion
	Notes
References
Index