ABSTRACT

Perhaps jurisprudence has a moderately secure place in undergraduate law curricula in the UK at present – after much controversy and many local skirmishes in university law departments. However radical jurisprudence is claimed to be, however much it is claimed to provide a window for law students on contemporary law in its changing social context, its body of ideas actually changes quite slowly. The jurisprudence teacher might be imagined as rummaging in a box of different knowledges, pulling out the shiniest items to catch the eye of students. The image of a box of ideas from which the jurisprudence teacher selects is not intended to be a demeaning one–as though the teacher is to be seen as a trickster, magician or mere entertainer. Modern English jurisprudence as a taught subject, whose beginnings might be traced to John Austin's London lectures of 1829–33, arose as the nation-state consolidated its position as the author of virtually all law.