Practical intellectuals ...
who are concerned with real-world application of theoretical concepts - which IMO covers most people who frequent SWC.
I write as a professional in my profession (law), and as an amateur in the area of military history. We can draw some parallels - and some distinct differences.
For example, as to differences, lawyers in the actual practice of law tend to deal more with the micro side (individuals and small groups - e.g., a jury of 12). The military deals more with the macro side (larger population groups, both military and non-military). In short, lawyers tend to deal with problems that most often have a finite solution or solutions.
The military is faced with more messy problems ("wicked problems", a new term for me, which I learned from another thread). Thus, the military has a harder job in designing, planning and implementing solutions.
Now, having defined some differences, back to the intellectual discussion.
---------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago (after reading another thread here), I got to thinking about the professional literature in my profession and who wrote it. Since I am a "common law" lawyer (UK-US tradition), I started there. The "Roman law" tradition took a different path in its professional literature (considered below).
The path taken by my UK "ancestors" starts with Glanville (a nom de plume), reign of Henry II, who wrote a short treatise on the writs of his time and how to present them in court (in short, tactics). Glanville seems to have been a composite by two then-leading figures in Anglo-Norman law - "judges".
We then move on to Bracton (a judge), reign of Henry III, who expanded Glanville's small book on the writs; and, based on some 2000 case reports ("after-action reports"), illustrated the actual results of practice. We are still largely into tactics; but applying actual results of related ("on-point") cases, takes us into the realm of operational doctrine - given a type of case, you should proceed as so, unless .....
But, Bracton went a step further, by introducing his two volume discussion of writs and practice, with a volume addressing not only what the law, in various areas, was - but what it should be, in his opinion. So, we have reached the advent of legal strategy and its design (ca. 1300).
We then fast-forward to Coke's Institutes (1600's) and Blackstone's Commentaries (1700's) in the UK - and then to James Kent and Joseph Story (to name but two) in the US. Their methodology built on, and expanded, what was written before them; but, based on their own practical experiences at the bar and on the bench - all of them were successful practicing lawyers, who later became judges.
So, legal professional literature has a history of being based on the practical application of intellect to real-world situations (cases), where the sequence of strategy <> operations (cases) <> tactics, with feedback between the elements, is very real.
Its approximation to the military sequence should not be surprising. The original trial lawyers (from the time of Bracton) were the "serjeants at law", officers of the court commissioned by the Crown. That institution (which lasted until 1877, in honorary form) gave rise to the Inns of the Court and their barristers, who originally were students under the serjeants at law (from whom, the judges were selected).
The "Roman law" tradition in continental Europe took a different path. There, the emphasis was on academic learning (similar to the Canon Law education from which it developed). So, the major writers in that tradition have been academics, who may or may not have had practical experience in the field. Thus, the Roman law tradition has been more akin to:
Quote:
"I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
The "common law" approach has been more like:
Quote:
"I know this works in practice. Is there a unified theory that can be built from the practice; and, if so, what are the exceptions - often more important than the general rule."
--------------------------------------------
After Kent and Story, who were leaders in the early US law school movement, initial US legal education developed along its present lines. That is, you pick up some kind of undergrad degree and then take a three year law degree. That program demanded law professors, who first came from the ranks of practicing lawyers; but later became more of getting a law degree, getting a couple of years of actual practice, and then finding a law school and writing a lot of articles. Thus, something of gap has developed between what is taught in law schools and what is practiced in the field
I was reminded of that when I took a trip to the Ann Arbor area and decided to sit in on a Criminal Law and Procedure class then being taught by one of my former professors - and a very good one at that. That day, he was discussing manslaughter and negligent homicide, mostly in the context of vehicular deaths.
For some reason, "wrongful death" cases seemed to gravitate to me in my own trial practice (both criminal and civil). Listened to the lecture, and the many questions and answers between prof and students. My primary thought (expressing it would have been impolite under the circumstances, since I was not there as "guest lecturer") was "you guys have a hell of lot to learn about the real world" - including my prof who was, in my law school days, an absolute genius (IMO then).
Now, do we practicing lawyers read the literature (law review articles and books) written by our academic brethren ? You betcha we do, because they have the time and brains (hard to find a law prof who was not an A student and law review) to research large areas of the law. Do we blindly accept their conclusions and opinions ? No way - because we know that, in general, they lack experience in practical applications.
As far as continuing legal education is concerned, that is still - and will probably remain - the province of practicing attorneys, who have to employ sources and methods from anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, etc. So, the "serjeants at law" are still alive, practicing and trying to educate each other.
I did find it interesting that Ms. McFate is a Harvard Law grad and anthropologist - and, at least in the latter area, one of a practical bent. Considering that she also spent a couple of years as a litigation assistant, one might infer something of a practical bent in the former area, as well.
----------------------------------
PS 1: I've been reminded of the differences between the "Common Law" lawyers and "Roman Law" lawyers in looking at I Law discussions in the context of "War Crimes". Many academics in the I Law field are very much "Roman Lawyers" - not surprising, since I Law has a Roman Law base. To me as a practitioner, some of their arguments, opinions and conclusions seem very "loopy" - so, there is also a gap there.
PS 2: - wilf ... hmm...
Quote:
yes, I am that boring!
Boring is not my inference, but who am I to argue with a self-characterization.
"I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
My take on this, an use of it in my signature, is only partially humorous.
A lot of what the "military mind" takes as being "right" or "useful" is rarely based on a sound or deep understanding. - eg: there are few generally agreed definitions of Suppression and/or Surprise, yet 99% of soldiers understand them on an intuitive level and can apply, to a useful degree. - the problem is that without sound definitions, discussion cannot be progressed beyond accepting the norms that currently apply.
As an aside, the original statement, in my case, was made by Brigadier Charles Dick, who, as concerns Soviet Operational Art, and Operational Art in general is one of the best thinkers I have ever met.
