Abstract
Epistemology is a daunting topic, particularly for sociolegal scholars seeking to produce empirical qualitative research. Theoretical discussion can seem abstract and cautionary, encouraging the constant questioning of one’s scholarly approach. Important as reflexivity undoubtedly is, scholars must at some point move beyond self-critique if a research project is to be seen through to completion. Many experienced researchers have offered avenues out of this impasse, proposing concrete frameworks for research design. Others have led by example, presenting detailed accounts of their own research processes alongside publications of their findings. Chronotopes of Law is an excellent example of the latter. In this monograph, Mariana Valverde pulls together in-depth reflections upon several years of her innovative research into a wide range of governance projects.
Eschewing both grand theorizing and prescriptive advice, Chronotopes continues in the Foucauldian tradition of developing potentially useful perspectives and analytical tools with which to ‘drill down’ into governance processes rather than constructing a new ‘theory of law and/or a model for governance studies’ (p. 180). It begins by outlining three conceptual ideas borrowed from the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. The first, ‘intertextuality’ is celebrated for having helped Bakhtin break away from structuralism by highlighting the relationality of language. The second, ‘dialogism’, emphasizes the inherent pluralism of such relational communication. The third, ‘the chronotope’, situates the previous two, demanding that any attention paid to space should always be synthesized with a consideration of time, and vice versa.
Valverde demonstrates how these resources could benefit sociolegal studies by reviewing the extant scholarship in legal geography and anthropology, which engages with law through questions of time and space. The influence of what has been called ‘the spatial turn’ is now well established, and Valverde’s contribution to this literature is to reassert that whilst every governance process might indeed be spatialized, it is also inevitably temporalized. Without the benefit of Bakhtin’s ideas, this has been underplayed, as Valverde identifies a tendency among sociolegal scholars to underestimate the extent to which ‘the temporal and the spatial dimensions of life and governance affect each other’ (p. 9). To remedy this deficit, Bakhtin’s concepts are mobilized and combined with insights detailed in her own previous work (Valverde, 2009). The monograph’s central claim – that ‘the workings of governance processes can be illuminated by viewing them as chronotopes’ (p. 57) – actively draws attention to the mutually constitutive temporal and spatial scale effects of a governance process; and further, onto what Valverde (p. 180) calls the ‘internal legal pluralism’ of ‘the game of jurisdiction’ – whereby institutional powers and knowledges are authorized and arranged in a systemic manner.
The decision to bring these two elements – scale and jurisdiction – to the fore in Chronotopes constitutes a streamlining of Valverde’s research agenda. When this was last presented, Valverde (2014: 382) suggested considering the logic and techniques employed within a governance project. In relation to logic, the ‘affective and aesthetic’ dimensions of governance were emphasized alongside its instrumental and rational aims (Valverde, 2014: 384). Specific ‘fears and moods’, comprising the unintended values of a project, were deemed at least as important as its rational goal or telos (Valverde, 2014: 382–384). Similarly, when discussing techniques, Valverde (2014: 382–388) warned against investigating only their rationale, emphasizing their ‘human’ effects, such as the ‘everyday techniques of governance’ (which were said to include ‘bodily habits’). That Valverde had to stress such caveats so as to clarify her scepticism towards a rationalistic conception of logic, or an instrumentalist understanding of techniques, may explain the reworking in Chronotopes. Logic and technique are replaced by ‘mood’ – encompassing both affect and aesthetics – and this, in turn, is relocated to an expanded notion of scale. Although this shift undoubtedly helps Valverde steer her agenda away from unrealistic rationalism, it is not wholly unproblematic. For, whilst affect and mood might be of importance, they have also proven notoriously difficult to explore in the ‘concrete’ sense that Valverde advocates. On this issue, Chronotopes offers little by way of guidance.
Nevertheless, Valverde does demonstrate how chronotopic analysis could enrich sociolegal studies by employing it within three areas of her scholarly interest: feminist legal theory (Chapter 4), Canadian procedural law (Chapter 5), and everyday personal security (Chapter 6). The broad scope of these chapters serves as both a reminder of the breadth of Valverde’s expertise and a demonstration as to the versatility of her approach. Each of these chapters could also stand alone, and Chapter 4 will be of particular interest to feminist theorists involved in the wider epistemological movement that seeks to return to and reassess the issues which are said to mark the fissure between second- and third-wave feminism (Hemmings, 2011). Herein, Valverde deconstructs the now well-rehearsed debate between second-wave and postmodernist feminisms, reinterpreting the two poles of the feminist ‘sex debates’ of the 1980s as relating to opposing sides of a shift in spatio-temporal scale rather than politics per se.
Whilst these examples of substantive analysis are presented after the first three (theoretical) framing chapters, Valverde is keen to stress that this does not reflect a deductive approach – but rather that her earlier theoretical and methodological reflections have actually emerged from, rather than preceded, this concrete empirical work. Those seeking to follow suit might then be advised to focus upon Chapter 3 – the most methodological chapter – turning back to the literature review and theoretical material only when and where necessary.
The monograph concludes with something of a ‘big reveal’, as Valverde explains the reasoning behind the organization of its structure and provides a helpfully clear summary of its key points. There is plenty of scope for sociolegal studies to take these on board. While theoretical debates around the limits of law and the role of the state abound in critical legal scholarship, Chronotopes offers novel and practical tools through which to examine the ongoing organization and effects of regulation in everyday life. Valverde (p. 179) admits that the monograph assumes ‘a certain prior commitment to meta-analysis and to issues of epistemology’, but where this is present, Chronotopes offers plenty of food for thought.