The Impact of Reform Litigation on Social Change

近几十年来，社会科学家投入了相当多的精力来分析法律、律师和诉讼在社会改革运动中的作用。一些工作对法院对社会中少数利益群体和弱势群体的可及性提供了普遍乐观的看法。其他学者对诉讼在推进渐进式社会变革中的效用提出了更为悲观的看法。持这种观点的人注意到许多不成功的改革诉讼。他们坚持认为，对代表长期处于不利地位群体的司法行动的乐观评估，往往反映了对所谓“权利神话”的天真信仰。也就是说，所有受害者都能在法庭上得到保证，司法确认的权利是摆脱政治和权力限制的社会变革的自我实现工具，这是一个神话。本研究试图超越关于法律在社会变革中的作用的争论，通过系统地研究法律、律师和诉讼在最近实施可比价值工资政策的政治斗争中的作用。该项目的核心包括对过去十年薪酬平等运动的六个案例研究。原始数据将从半。结构化访谈和问卷调查，重点关注律师、工会活动家、女权主义领袖、政府官员和行业官员在同等价值的政治斗争中对事件、政治动机和战略理解的看法。两种一般假设指导了这项研究：(1)关于平等待遇的诉讼和法律权利论述是动员活跃的政治选民的催化剂；(2)诉讼无论成功与否，都是撬动政策变化的关键资源。这项研究解决了社会法律理论中的核心问题。这项研究超越了以往对法律动员的研究，考察了使用法律的策略、先例和法律判决在制定策略中的作用，以及法律在赢得法庭案件之外的间接影响。动员和法律被视为相互作用的因素，最终拥抱不参与诉讼的公民和活动家，最终改变参与诉讼的律师和法官的话语。通过确定可比价值经验的差异以及社会运动可能利用或受到权利概念限制的不同方式，本研究提供了提供经验数据的独特前景，这些数据对于更普遍地评估对权利的批评和权利倡导政策至关重要。这项研究还应阐明法律在法庭之外的政治领域的复杂影响，从而可以构建关于法律在社会中的作用的更充分的理论。

Social scientists in recent decades have devoted considerable attention to analyzing the role of law, lawyers, and litigation in movements for social reform. Some work has provided a generally optimistic view about the accessibility of courts to minority interests and disadvantaged groups within society. Other scholarship has presented a more pessimistic perspective regarding the utility of litigation for advancing progressive social change. Those with this view note the many instances of unsuccessful reform litigation. They maintain that optimistic assessments of judicial action on behalf of long disadvantaged groups often reflect a naive faith in what is called the "myth of rights"..that is, the myth that all victims are assured their day in court and that judicially affirmed rights are self implementing instruments of social change removed from the constraints of politics and power. This study seeks to move beyond this debate about the role of law in social change by systematically examining the role of law, lawyers, and litigation in recent political struggles over the implementation of comparable worth wage policies. The core of the project consists of six case studies of pay equity campaigns over the last decade. The primary data will be derived from semi.structured interviews and questionnaires that focus on perceptions of events, political motivations, and strategic understandings among lawyers, union activists, feminist leaders, and officials in government and industry in comparable worth political struggles. Two general hypotheses guide the research: (1) that litigation and legal rights discourse about entitlements to equal treatment are a catalyst for mobilization of an active political constituency, and (2) that litigation, whether successful or not, has been a pivotal resource in leveraging policy change. The study addresses central questions in sociolegal theory. The research goes beyond previous studies in legal mobilization by examining the tactics of using law, the role of precedents and legal decisions in shaping tactics, and the indirect effects of law separate and apart from winning court cases. Mobilization and the law are seen as interactive elements ultimately embracing citizens and activists who are not involved in law suits and eventually changing the discourse of lawyers and judges who are. By identifying variations in comparable worth experiences and different ways in which social movements might use or be limited by the concept of rights, this research offers the unique prospect of providing empirical data that is essential for assessing the critique of rights and the policy of rights advocacy more generally. The study should also illuminate the complex influence of law in political arenas outside of courtrooms from which more adequate theories about the role of law in society can be constructed.