ABSTRACT
In terms of the previous chapters, this one continues with a contemporary manifestation of two versions of pragmatism, which I have already dealt with before, as organizing the educational message of Harvard Law School in its 'iconomical' position. One is the pragmatism of the 1950s, optimistic and harmonious, as found today in the texts of the negotiation scholars ofHarvard. The second is contemporary pragmatism in law, based on the Holmsian legacy, which constitutes the canon of a diverse and tom theoretical discourse. I present the first through the writing of Roger Fisher, Robert Mnookin, and other negotiation scholars at the Law School. I examine the second through depicting Ronald Dworkin as the writer of the mythological script of the contemporary jurist-intellectual. Dworkin posits himself in his 'law as integrity' notion preserving the place of the Holmsian believers in the life of the law, reconstituting the pragmatism of law in its next step. Fisher, on the other hand, infiltrates the optimistic self-righteous pragmatism of the 1950s into contemporary studies in social science by producing a new activist mode of negotiation. In contrast to a difficult conversation in negotiation, where there is no bottom line and no need of such a line, according to Dworkin in hard cases, there is one right answer. This chapter tries to show how and why this is true.
