Abstract

Starting out from the basic post-modern insight that there is no text apart from interpretation, Ronald Dworkin seeks to salvage traditional jurisprudence by relocating the skeptical question of legitimacy. Utilizing this same insight, Critical Legal Studies seeks to undermine traditional jurisprudence and inspire radical social reform. Yet both fail to live up to their own expectations. "Hard" cases are still hard, and liberal legalism still reigns. So what went wrong? In this dissertation, I contend that the quixotic quests of Dworkin and CLS ultimately stem from a reluctance to follow through on the basic post-modern insight. Exaggerated expectations are the result of a lingering faith in the modernist project. As an alternative to Dworkin's "integrity" and CLS's "ideology," I defend Richard Rorty's vision of pragmatic liberalism which explicitly disavows foundations and incorporates lowered expectations concerning the role of theory in bringing about social change