ABSTRACT
Periodisation (the splitting up of history into set periods) is taken for granted in historical analysis and everyday life. Yet, it perpetuates a particular story which simplifies the account of the past to provide a narrative of progress. It furthers the ideas and assumptions referred to by Robert Gordon as ‘evolutionary functionalism’. These are ingrained in Law Schools. This chapter examines how a subversive approach to Legal History can disturb, debunk and challenge the narrative of historical accounts of law. Following on from the last chapter, it pays particular attention to feminist criticisms of periodisation. It examines whether there is an alternative to the assumption of evolution that underpins the way we understand law exploring Kathryn McNeilly’s work on ‘untimely evolution’ as a means of developing and superseding evolutionary functionalism. However, it will be argued that, although McNeilly’s work provides a significant advance, its evolutionary focus means that it continues to normalise development and advancement. The chapter therefore draws upon social entropy, chaos and complexities theories to suggest that it is ‘entropic complexity’ rather than evolutionary functionalism that is the norm. Overall, this chapter will suggest that superseding the narrative of evolutionary functionalism, as entrenched by periodisation, requires not only the highlighting and deconstruction of evolutionary functionalism but also its replacement and that is a vital contribution of the Subversive Legal History approach.
