en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

Show issue
Year 2019 
Volume 11 
Issue 1

Argument z fetyszyzmu prawnego w dyskursie konstytucyjnym

Jacek Srokosz
Uniwersytet Opolski; Wydział Prawa i Administracji

2019 11 (1) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.286

Article contents

Abstract

The subject of the analysis presented in the text is an argument that tends to (and used to) be raised in the critical discourse on constitutionalism – the allegation of the so-called constitutional fetishism. The argument is to show why the constitutional discourse has lost its potential to explain and create social processes. The reason is that lawyers focus too much only on the content and interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, without considering a broader social context, which makes the constitutional discourse limited solely to legal issues with a simultaneous omission or underestimation of all other aspects of constitutionalism. This attitude of lawyers to the content of the constitution (or – in broader terms – to the provisions of law) is sometimes referred to even as idolatrous, hence the reference to the notion of fetishism in the religious sense. The aim of the text is to analyse the structure of this argument and to attempt to determine the impact it can have on constitutionalism.

References

  1. Blichner L.Ch., Molander A., Mapping Juridification, „European Law Journal” 2008, 14. [Google Scholar]
  2. Blokker P., Populist Constitutionalism, [w:] C. de la Torre (red.), Routledge Handbook of Global Populism, London 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brand M., Affirming and Refining European Constitutionalism: Towards the Establishment of the First Constitution for the European Union, „EUI Working Paper LAW” 2004, 2. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brossess Ch., de, O kulcie fetyszów, Warszawa 1992. [Google Scholar]
  5. Christodoulidis E., Law and Reflexive Politics, Dordrecht 1998. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen F.S., Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach „Columbia Law Review” 1935, 35. [Google Scholar]
  7. Comaroff J.L., Comaroff J., Reflection on Anthropology of Law, Governance and Sovergenity, [w:] F. Von Benda-Beckmann, K. Von Benda-Beckmann, J. Eckert (red.), Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling. On the Governance of Law, Farnham 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Danek A., Wstęp, [w:] W. Maliniak, Przeciw fetyszyzmowi konstytucyjnemu. Wybór pism, Kraków 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Denza E., Two Legal Orders: Divergent or Convergent?, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1999, s. 257–284. [Google Scholar]
  10. Frank J., Law and the Modern Mind, New York 1930. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gény F., Méthode d’interprétation et sources en droit privé positif: A Critical Essay, St. Paul 1954. [Google Scholar]
  12. Graber M.A., The Law Professor as Populist, „University of Richmond Law Review” 2000, 34(2). [Google Scholar]
  13. Holmes O.W., Book Review, „American Law Review” 1880, 14. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kennedy D., The role of law in economic thought: An essays on the fetishism of commodity, „The American University Law Review” 1985, 34, s. 939–1001. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kielhorn M., The Constitution for Europe: The Point of No Return?, Aberdeen 2004. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kochanowski J., Jurydyzacja życia, „Palestra” 2002, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kramer L., The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Oxford 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lemaitre J., Legal Fetishism at Home and Abroad, „Unbound” 2007, 3. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lemaitre J., Legal Fetishism: Law, Violence, And Social Movements In Colombia, „Revista Juridica U.P.R.” 2008, 77. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ławniczak A., Geneza konstytucji, Wrocław 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Maliniak W., Fetyszyzm prawniczy w doktrynach konstytucyjnych, „Droga” 1935, 3. [Google Scholar]
  22. Maliniak W., Józef Piłsudski jako polityk romantyczny. „Droga” 1935, 7–8, s. 585–602; 9, s. 728–751; 12, s. 1068–1080. [Google Scholar]
  23. Maliniak W., Żywotność i aktualność romantyzmu politycznego, „Droga” 1936, 1, s. 72–88; 2–3, s. 193–212; 4, s. 318–330. [Google Scholar]
  24. Müller J.W., Co to jest populizm?, Warszawa 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Parker R.D., „Here, the People Rule”: A Constitutional Populist Manifesto, „Valparaiso University Law Review” 1993, 27(3). [Google Scholar]
  26. Pashukanis E., The General Theory of Law and Marxism, New Brunswick–London 2002. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pound R., Mechanical Jurisprudence, „Columbia Law Review” 1908, 8. [Google Scholar]
  28. Skrzypek M., Rozwój teorii fetyszu of De Brossa do Freuda, [w:] Ch. de Brossess, O kulcie fetyszów, Warszawa 1992. [Google Scholar]
  29. Srokosz J., Geneza Case Method i jej wpływ na kształt amerykańskiej filozofii prawa, „Krytyka Prawa”, 2018, 10(2). [Google Scholar]
  30. Stallybrass P., Marx’s Coat, [w:] P. Spyer (red.), Border Fetishism. Material Subjects in Unstable Spaces, New York–London 1998, s. 183–207. [Google Scholar]
  31. Taggart P., Populism, Philadelphia 2000. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tanchev E., Historical and Psychological Sources Shaping Constitutionalism and Constitution Performance in Post Socialist Countries, [w:] S. Frankowski, P. Stephan (red.), Legal Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The View from Within, Dordrecht–Boston–London 1995. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tomlins Ch., Comaroff J., “Law As...”: Theory and Practice in Legal History, „UC Irvine Law Review” 2011, 1(3). [Google Scholar]
  34. Tushnet M., Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton 1999. [Google Scholar]
  35. Twining W., Globalisation and Legal Theory, Cambridge 2000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Walker N., The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, „Modern Law Review” 2002, 65, s. 317–359. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ward I., Beyond Constitutionalism: The Search for a European Political Imagination, „European Law Journal” 2001, 7(1). [Google Scholar]
  38. Blichner L.Ch., Molander A., Mapping Juridification, „European Law Journal” 2008, 14. [Google Scholar]
  39. Blokker P., Populist Constitutionalism, [w:] C. de la Torre (red.), Routledge Handbook of Global Populism, London 2018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Brand M., Affirming and Refining European Constitutionalism: Towards the Establishment of the First Constitution for the European Union, „EUI Working Paper LAW” 2004, 2. [Google Scholar]
  41. Brossess Ch., de, O kulcie fetyszów, Warszawa 1992. [Google Scholar]
  42. Christodoulidis E., Law and Reflexive Politics, Dordrecht 1998. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cohen F.S., Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach „Columbia Law Review” 1935, 35. [Google Scholar]
  44. Comaroff J.L., Comaroff J., Reflection on Anthropology of Law, Governance and Sovergenity, [w:] F. Von Benda-Beckmann, K. Von Benda-Beckmann, J. Eckert (red.), Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling. On the Governance of Law, Farnham 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Danek A., Wstęp, [w:] W. Maliniak, Przeciw fetyszyzmowi konstytucyjnemu. Wybór pism, Kraków 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Denza E., Two Legal Orders: Divergent or Convergent?, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1999, s. 257–284. [Google Scholar]
  47. Frank J., Law and the Modern Mind, New York 1930. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gény F., Méthode d’interprétation et sources en droit privé positif: A Critical Essay, St. Paul 1954. [Google Scholar]
  49. Graber M.A., The Law Professor as Populist, „University of Richmond Law Review” 2000, 34(2). [Google Scholar]
  50. Holmes O.W., Book Review, „American Law Review” 1880, 14. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kennedy D., The role of law in economic thought: An essays on the fetishism of commodity, „The American University Law Review” 1985, 34, s. 939–1001. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kielhorn M., The Constitution for Europe: The Point of No Return?, Aberdeen 2004. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kochanowski J., Jurydyzacja życia, „Palestra” 2002, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kramer L., The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Oxford 2004. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lemaitre J., Legal Fetishism at Home and Abroad, „Unbound” 2007, 3. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lemaitre J., Legal Fetishism: Law, Violence, And Social Movements In Colombia, „Revista Juridica U.P.R.” 2008, 77. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ławniczak A., Geneza konstytucji, Wrocław 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. Maliniak W., Fetyszyzm prawniczy w doktrynach konstytucyjnych, „Droga” 1935, 3. [Google Scholar]
  59. Maliniak W., Józef Piłsudski jako polityk romantyczny. „Droga” 1935, 7–8, s. 585–602; 9, s. 728–751; 12, s. 1068–1080. [Google Scholar]
  60. Maliniak W., Żywotność i aktualność romantyzmu politycznego, „Droga” 1936, 1, s. 72–88; 2–3, s. 193–212; 4, s. 318–330. [Google Scholar]
  61. Müller J.W., Co to jest populizm?, Warszawa 2017. [Google Scholar]
  62. Parker R.D., „Here, the People Rule”: A Constitutional Populist Manifesto, „Valparaiso University Law Review” 1993, 27(3). [Google Scholar]
  63. Pashukanis E., The General Theory of Law and Marxism, New Brunswick–London 2002. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pound R., Mechanical Jurisprudence, „Columbia Law Review” 1908, 8. [Google Scholar]
  65. Skrzypek M., Rozwój teorii fetyszu of De Brossa do Freuda, [w:] Ch. de Brossess, O kulcie fetyszów, Warszawa 1992. [Google Scholar]
  66. Srokosz J., Geneza Case Method i jej wpływ na kształt amerykańskiej filozofii prawa, „Krytyka Prawa”, 2018, 10(2). [Google Scholar]
  67. Stallybrass P., Marx’s Coat, [w:] P. Spyer (red.), Border Fetishism. Material Subjects in Unstable Spaces, New York–London 1998, s. 183–207. [Google Scholar]
  68. Taggart P., Populism, Philadelphia 2000. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tanchev E., Historical and Psychological Sources Shaping Constitutionalism and Constitution Performance in Post Socialist Countries, [w:] S. Frankowski, P. Stephan (red.), Legal Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The View from Within, Dordrecht–Boston–London 1995. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tomlins Ch., Comaroff J., “Law As...”: Theory and Practice in Legal History, „UC Irvine Law Review” 2011, 1(3). [Google Scholar]
  71. Tushnet M., Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton 1999. [Google Scholar]
  72. Twining W., Globalisation and Legal Theory, Cambridge 2000. [Google Scholar]
  73. Walker N., The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, „Modern Law Review” 2002, 65, s. 317–359. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ward I., Beyond Constitutionalism: The Search for a European Political Imagination, „European Law Journal” 2001, 7(1). [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Srokosz, Jacek (2019). Srokosz, J. . (2019). Argument z fetyszyzmu prawnego w dyskursie konstytucyjnym. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 11(1), 272-290. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.286 (Original work published 2019)

MLA style

Srokosz, Jacek. Srokosz, J. . “Argument Z Fetyszyzmu Prawnego W Dyskursie Konstytucyjnym”. 2019. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 11, no. 1, 2019, pp. 272-290.

Chicago style

Srokosz, Jacek. Srokosz, Jacek . “Argument Z Fetyszyzmu Prawnego W Dyskursie Konstytucyjnym”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 11, no. 1 (2019): 272-290. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.286.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read: