Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeel, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorNewman, Han
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-10T10:00:02Z
dc.date.available2023-05-10T10:00:02Z
dc.date.issued2023-03-23
dc.identifier.citationPeel , E & Newman , H 2023 , ' "I Don't Think That's Something I've Ever Thought About Really Before": A Thematic Discursive Analysis of Lay People's Talk about Legal Gender ' , Feminist Legal Studies , vol. 31 , no. 1 , 31 , pp. 121-143 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-022-09508-3
dc.identifier.issn0966-3622
dc.identifier.otherJisc: 1009541
dc.identifier.otherJisc: 1009541
dc.identifier.otherpublisher-id: s10691-022-09508-3
dc.identifier.othermanuscript: 9508
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/26200
dc.description© The Author(s) 2023. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.description.abstractThis article examines three divergent constructions about the salience of legal gender in lay people’s everyday lives and readiness to decertify gender. In our interviews (and survey data), generally participants minimised the importance of legal gender. The central argument in this article is that feminist socio-legal scholars applying legal consciousness studies to legal reform topics should find scrutinizing the construction of interview talk useful. We illustrate this argument by adapting and applying Ewick and Silbey’s (1998) ‘The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life', ‘before’, ‘with’ and ‘against’ typology to interview talk about legal gender, and critique their cognitivist approach by offering a constructionist alternative. In our analysis, we offer a detailed discursive explication of three key legal consciousness themes. These themes offer a balanced representation of a dataset problematically ‘skewed’ towards sex-based rights feminist perspectives, namely that ‘before’ legal gender is an anti-decertification account, decertification would be risky for natal females; a ‘with’ legal gender construction is neither for nor against decertification per se, though the impact of decertification is produced in accounts as limited and unimportant; and ‘against’ legal gender is a pro-decertification classification, as not abolished legal gender is constructed as harmful to already marginalised groups. In concluding, we explore the reasoning for the lack of readiness for decertification currently, and return to the value of examining the construction of lay discourse about legal matters as talk is a form of social action. We suggest that applying discursive analysis to themes in legal consciousness studies enables a refocusing on the how rather than purely the what of divergent legal consciousnesses, and that this approach is a fruitful addition to feminist socio-legal studies.en
dc.format.extent23
dc.format.extent712361
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofFeminist Legal Studies
dc.subjectDiscourse
dc.subjectGender
dc.subjectInterview
dc.subjectLegal consciousness studies
dc.subjectLegal gender
dc.subjectQualitative research
dc.subjectGender Studies
dc.title"I Don't Think That's Something I've Ever Thought About Really Before": A Thematic Discursive Analysis of Lay People's Talk about Legal Genderen
dc.contributor.institutionApplied Psychology Research Group
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Health and Social Work
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150611746&partnerID=8YFLogxK
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s10691-022-09508-3
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record