Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:12:47.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Legal Language and Social Change during Colombia's Economic Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2010

Javier Couso
Affiliation:
Diego Portales University, Santiago, Chile
Alexandra Huneeus
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, School of Law
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the interaction between changes in the language of subsistence rights and the possibilities for greater social inclusion during the economic crisis of the late 1990s in Colombia. One would expect that during economic crises, courts would be deferential to governmental policies and manipulate legal language to serve governmental interests. In such situations, courts would be likely to use the rhetoric of political discretion, sovereignty, and the general interest to legitimize unpopular policies of economic adjustment that cut social spending to appease any popular mobilization against them.

In contrast with this assumption, the evolution of social rights' adjudication before and throughout the Colombian crisis suggests that the function of legal language is not just to legitimize adjustment policies. The language of the courts need not be an epiphenomenon of power politics. In fact, this language can be contested, transformed, mobilized, and used to foster an explosion in litigation that ultimately contributes to activating the political process, even against the explicit interests of the government. However, the case of Colombia also suggests that during times of crisis, and contrary to what some scholars assume, the successful contestation of legal meanings can help to reproduce the status quo instead of producing social change. Because the language of rights is general and abstract, it prevents courts from distinguishing between different people and different types of threats to people's material subsistence.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cultures of Legality
Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America
, pp. 25 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berger, Peter and Luckman, Thomas. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Correa, Patricia. 2000. “Public Debt, Public Debt Market, and Monetary Policy in Colombia.” Borradores de Economía, 147, Bogotá, Colombia: Banco de la República.Google Scholar
Conley, John M. and O'Barr, William M.. 2005. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Dugas, John C. 2001. “The Origin, Impact, and Demise of the 1989–1990 Colombian Student Movement: Insights from Student Movement Theory.” Journal of Latin American Studies, 33: 807–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverry, Juan Carlos. 1999. UPAC: Evolution and Crisis of a Model of Development, Archivos de Economía129. Bogota, Colombia: NPD.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, vii. Greenstein, F. and Polsby, N., eds. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Toward Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kalmanovitz, Salomón. 2001. Constitución y Modelo Económico, Paper presented at the ILSA Seminar on the 10th Anniversary of the Colombian Constitution. Bogota, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Koselleck, Reinhart. 2002. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. 1995. “A Response to Comments on the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe.” In The Meaning of Historical Terms and Concepts: New Studies on Begriffsgeschichte, Lehman, Hartmut and Richter, Melvin, eds. Washington D.C.: German Historical Institute.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2007. Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 1990. “Everyday Metaphors of Power.” Theory and Society, 19: 545–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth. 1994. “A New Social Constructivism for Sociolegal Studies.” Law and Society Review, 1243–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Scott and Grattet, Ryken. 2000. “Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning Making, and the Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law.” Law and Society Review, 34: 567–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin and Sweet, Alec Stone. 2002. “Testing, Comparison, Prediction.” In On Law, Politics and Judicialization, Shapiro, Martin and Sweet, Alec Stone, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. 2006. “Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict, and the Constitutional Change: The Case of the de facto ERA – 2005–06 Brennan Center Symposium Lecture.” California Law Review, 94: 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Alec Stone. 2002. “The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy.” In On Law, Politics, and Judicialization, Shapiro, Martin and Sweet, Alec Stone, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Syrett, Keith. 1998. “‘Immunity,’ ‘Privilege,’ and ‘Right’: British Trade Unions and the Language of Labor Reform.” Journal of Law and Society, 25: 388–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1998. “The Development of a Legal Rule: The Federal Common Law of Public Nuisance.” Law and Society Review, 32: 613–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissbourd, Bernard and Mertz, Elizabeth. 1985. “Rule Centrism Versus Legal Creativity: The Skewing of Legal Ideology Through Language.” Law and Society Review, 19: 623–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×