Leigh Jenco


In this article, I point out some limitations of Michael Dowdle's "listening" model, particularly its basis in the "'principle of charity." I try to show that listening, as well as the principle of charity, are inadvertently passive and one-sided exercises that seem to have little similarity to the deeply self-transformative "learning" Dowdle urges us to undertake. I go on to suggest other ways of accomplishing the goals Dowdle sets for this project. Specifically, I develop the "self-reflexive approach" to think about how we might change ourselves--our conversations, our terms, our concerns--in addition to, and in the process of, learning from others. I argue that we must go beyond an expansion of the term constitutionalism, to consider its replacement: the Chinese conversation is not a case study that exhibits features predictable by already-existing (and largely Western-centric) models of legal understanding, but stands as itself an important source of socio-political theory that can contribute to solving larger puzzles within political-and social-scientific analysis more generally, including democratic theory and Chinese politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Included in

Law Commons