Images of Law in Everyday Life:
The Lesson of School, Entertainment, and Spectator Sports
By Stewart Macaulay
Some of the references in this article may be outdated, but it seems that the theory still applies fairly well to today. I mean, c’mon, a VCR? Macaulay seemed to be all about that piece of outdated, obsolete piece of technology, though I supposed it was still big in the 80s. Anyway, back to the point at hand. Yes, in the end, Macaulay does make a fairly accurate point about how we all learn about the law and litigiousness through school, entertainment and sports. All of three of these topics come with rules, and showcase laws and the consequences of not following those laws. I clearly see the point Stew’s making, but I feel like it takes a very long time for him to make it, and that overall this was too broad of a topic for him to cover in this one article.
Some of the discussion was filled with odd points that distracted me from the topic at hand, such as his apparent disdain for the way in which we are educating American students about history and the bureaucracy and demand for profit from the publishing industry. His argument also included vague statements about the way in which we present law on television and in films, yet clearly they were a lot of mixed message being offered by those mediums. He claims they are inaccurate representations of reality that tend so show only certain themes, but then he goes to list a vast multitude of the many different ways in which law and law enforcement has been portrayed in the media.
Basically, I didn’t find his statement to be entirely relevant to his thesis, nor were they always backed up the statistics and references he used throughout the piece. In the conclusion, Macaulau noted that many of his findings were in fact contradictory, and I think that remained true throughout the article. The points he made on one page seemed to be forgotten by the next. And the final few pages he sort of lost me when he started talking about how there three areas of society should be altered in order to more accurately depict the relationship between law and society. I know the point he is making, and that we indeed learn a great deal about the law through these more common everyday experiences, but the extent to which he wants to alter them or at least find new meaning just seemed to be a very far stretch, and one that I simply could not buy.
The Lesson of School, Entertainment, and Spectator Sports
By Stewart Macaulay
Some of the references in this article may be outdated, but it seems that the theory still applies fairly well to today. I mean, c’mon, a VCR? Macaulay seemed to be all about that piece of outdated, obsolete piece of technology, though I supposed it was still big in the 80s. Anyway, back to the point at hand. Yes, in the end, Macaulay does make a fairly accurate point about how we all learn about the law and litigiousness through school, entertainment and sports. All of three of these topics come with rules, and showcase laws and the consequences of not following those laws. I clearly see the point Stew’s making, but I feel like it takes a very long time for him to make it, and that overall this was too broad of a topic for him to cover in this one article.
Some of the discussion was filled with odd points that distracted me from the topic at hand, such as his apparent disdain for the way in which we are educating American students about history and the bureaucracy and demand for profit from the publishing industry. His argument also included vague statements about the way in which we present law on television and in films, yet clearly they were a lot of mixed message being offered by those mediums. He claims they are inaccurate representations of reality that tend so show only certain themes, but then he goes to list a vast multitude of the many different ways in which law and law enforcement has been portrayed in the media.
Basically, I didn’t find his statement to be entirely relevant to his thesis, nor were they always backed up the statistics and references he used throughout the piece. In the conclusion, Macaulau noted that many of his findings were in fact contradictory, and I think that remained true throughout the article. The points he made on one page seemed to be forgotten by the next. And the final few pages he sort of lost me when he started talking about how there three areas of society should be altered in order to more accurately depict the relationship between law and society. I know the point he is making, and that we indeed learn a great deal about the law through these more common everyday experiences, but the extent to which he wants to alter them or at least find new meaning just seemed to be a very far stretch, and one that I simply could not buy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment