Critical Legal Studies (CLS) and Legal Realism are two influential movements in legal philosophy, but they diverge significantly in their approaches and underlying philosophies.
Legal Realism emerged in the early 20th century, primarily in the United States, and emphasizes that the law is not a set of abstract principles but is influenced by real-world social conditions and human behavior. Legal realists argue that judges often make decisions based on personal biases, social realities, and practical considerations rather than strictly adhering to legal formalism or precedent.
On the other hand, Critical Legal Studies arose in the late 20th century as a reaction against both traditional legal theories and the assumptions of legal realism. CLS scholars assert that the law is not just a reflection of social realities but is deeply intertwined with social power dynamics and ideologies. They argue that the law is inherently political and that it serves to reinforce existing hierarchies of power and privilege. This perspective encourages a critical examination of how law can perpetuate inequalities based on class, race, gender, and other factors.
In summary, while Legal Realism focuses on the connection between law and social conditions and emphasizes practical outcomes in judicial decision-making, Critical Legal Studies critiques the law’s role in sustaining power structures and advocates for transformative approaches to legal interpretation. The two movements share an understanding that law cannot be isolated from its societal context, but they differ in their underlying motivations and implications for legal practice.