![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
What is the future for and of law and society scholarship? The Issue Editors here introduce the issue’s themes of disruption, temporality and law and their interconnection. Questioning the deeper implications that an era of political, cultural and technological disruption has for law and society scholarship, the various contributions to the special issue are given in outline and drawn together. The broader point emerges that any linear conception of temporality must find itself disrupted not by technology itself but by a radical plurality of laws.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Timothy D. Peters is Senior Lecturer in Law, USC Law School, University of the Sunshine Coast; Adjunct Research Fellow, Law Futures, Griffith University and President of the Law, Literature and the Humanities Association of Australasia. His research examines the intersections of legal theory, theology and popular culture.
Roshan de Silva-Wijeyeratne is Senior Lecturer in Westminster Law School, University of Westminster and Adjunct in Griffith Law School, Griffith University. Roshan taught Land Law and Law and Culture at Griffith Law School for 18 years. He graduated from the School of Oriental and African (University of London) in 1990 and was awarded his doctorate from the University of Kent in 1999. Prior to teaching at Griffith Law School, he taught at the University of East London. In 2014, he published Nation, Constitutionalism and Buddhism in Sri Lanka with Routledge and is currently researching both Australian and Sri Lankan colonial history. In 2019, he took up a position at Westminster Law School at the University of Westminster.
John Flood is Professor of Law and Society at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. His research focuses on lawyers and large law firms, globalisation of law, regulation, and technology and law.
Notes
1 Darian-Smith (Citation2013), p 2.
2 A point which Desmond Manderson makes in distinguishing between ‘law and society’ and ‘law and humanities’ scholarship: Manderson (Citation2014), p 82.
3 Darian-Smith (Citation2013). See also Manderson (Citation2014), p 82.
4 See Christensen et al (Citation2015). For the original Harvard Business Review article on disruptive innovation, see Bower and Christensen (Citation1995).
5 The 2003 edition of The Macquarie Dictionary (which was the edition available on one of our shelves) provides two definitions of ‘disrupt’: 1 ‘to interrupt the continuity of’; and 2 ‘to cause disorder in’. The more recently updated online edition includes an additional third definition related specifically to business, representing the temporal shift in the meaning of the word itself: ‘to displace (an existing market, technology, etc.) by an innovation which renders the existing product outmoded, sometimes resulting in job losses and social upheaval.’ See: Macquarie ABC Dictionary (Citation2003); Macquarie Dictionary (Citation2018).
6 Beynon-Jones and Grabham (Citation2019), p 1.
7 Beynon-Jones and Grabham (Citation2019), p 1, referring to Mawani (Citation2014).
8 See: Dianna Perche (2017) ‘Ten Years on, It’s Time We Learned the Lessons from the Failed Northern Territory Intervention’, The Conversation, 26 June 2017, http://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-its-time-we-learned-the-lessons-from-the-failed-northern-territory-intervention-79198.
9 See: de Silva-Wijeyeratne (Citation2014).
10 See: Bill Code (2017) ‘Manus Island Refugee Crisis and the Australian Media’, Al Jazeera, 3 November 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/asia/2017/11/manus-island-refugee-crisis-australian-media-171103065017168.html.
11 Fitzpatrick (Citation2001), p 207.
12 Spivak (Citation1988); Spivak (Citation1999).
13 Garth (Citation2015).
14 Cotterrell (Citation2015).
15 Fitzpatrick (Citation2001).
16 Derrida (Citation1992); Fitzpatrick (Citation2001).
17 Fitzpatrick (Citation1992).
18 Agamben (Citation2005); Agamben (Citation1998).
19 See, for example: Beynon-Jones and Grabham (Citation2019); Grabham (Citation2016).
20 See, for example, Darian-Smith (Citation2013); Pavlich (Citation2010).
21 On legal personality as ‘technique’ see Mussawir and Parsley (Citation2017).
22 A concern that Darian-Smith raises in the context of the instrumentalization of law and related threats to democracy: Darian-Smith (Citation2013), pp 19–20.