Talk:Morton Horwitz

Untitled
I think that my initial entry was evenhanded enough.

Gaius Catullus is incorrect in saying that Horwitz' first book "is not regarded as a serious work of legal historical scholarship despite its apparent continuing popularity in reading lists in America." The book is included in reading lists precisely because it is regarded as a serious work. That's not to say that most scholars agree with his methodology or conclusions. Legal history, like every academic discipline, has works that are regarded as major works even though virtually no one in the field would endorse them tout court. I think that moving Gaius Catullus' comments to a section on "Criticism" is a more fair way to approach criticisms.

Critical legal theory
He worked for critical leagal theory 182.176.222.99 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)