Each year the members of the Oxford Jurisprudence community are asked to jurisprudentially idenfity themselves. This Jurisprudential Census constitutes a valuable resource for gauging the jurisprudential climate and enabling more or less stormy forecasts. Why? Just as there are many reasons for consulting a weather barometer, there are many reasons for consulting a jurisprudential barometer. Or perhaps more. Reasons for consulting a jurisprudential barometer (normally) depend on one's jurisprudential orientation. And that's what the Census records.
(important: clic on any batch to enlarge the picture)
If you feel that any (orthodox) categories are missing from the Census, email the Jurisprudential Censor and we will try to add them before next year's Jurisprudence Party. Categories that cannot be reduced to an orthodox Census like this one are necessarily excluded (fortunately for them?). Possible additions include: I am a Hohfeldian, I am a SirHenryMainian, I am a Schmittian, I am confused but unaware of it (thanks, Ben!). We wait for more requests!
If the project of making the Census
3-dimensional crystallised, we would be able to accommodate 'I go meta' and its
cognates. Again, all input is most welcome.
Badges were taken from 32 categories out of 64. (Does this mean that only 50% of jurisprudential orientations are currently represented at Oxford?) The graphic shows the relative popularity of each of these 32 categories. The two most popular badges were 'I am a subsidiary Endicottian' and 'I trust the Professor of Jurisprudence'. They were also the first ones to run out (in this order).
The Censor further notes that - as opposed to the 2004 Census - nobody identified him or herself as any type of Dworkinian. What is worrying about this fact is that there was not a correlative increase in Hartian identifications. One would assume that both groups have gone underground, if that did not contrast so strongly with the clarity/openness policy of Hartians.
The Confused outnumbered American Legal Realists, Blackstonians, Insulted Razians, Millians and Open-minded, bordering sceptics. They represented 6% of the badges taken. This suggests that, at least in their own eyes, those taking the remaining 94% were not confused.
Finnisians did not score higher
because they were split. Together, Focal Finnisians (4%),
Turn-of-the-century Finnisians (3%) and 21st century Finnisians (1%)
would have scored higher than Insulted Razians -- and, had they been
joined by Subtle Natural Lawyers (1%), they would have headed the Census.
Similarly, Insulted Razians (5%) and Multi-facetted Razians (4%),
if united, would have matched the number of united Finnisians.
John Gardner prepared delicious dishes.
Clic on images to enlarge.
Clic on images to enlarge.
ˇ Jurisprudential Orientation Test (JOT) - to help you
define your orientation
ˇ Political Compass - if politics is what you're interested in (*)
ˇ Jurisprudence Discussion Group - after-hours Jurisprudence debates
ˇ Oxford Jurisprudence - all you wanted to know, and maybe more
(*) This, in turn, presupposes a particular jurisprudential orientation. The author of this page has no connection to the author of the Political Compass.