On Becoming a Legal Person 127ently attempting to guide a student into playing the role of herself—but it is an
interestingly abstract “standard average law student” from whom he wants to hear:
Transcript 6.25 [5/7/24–26]Prof.: Tell me. Why are you in law school, Ms. C.? Why are you studying the
law? Don’t tell me “to become a lawyer;” I understand that.
Ms. C.: It interests me.
Prof.: Because it interests you. What a quaint way to put it. Why aren’t you in
business school? Where every sensible person probably ought to be now.
Ms. C.: I’m thinking of changing right now.
Prof.: A possibly wise move. But why didn’t you go directly to business school?
[Several turns omitted in which the student reiterates that law school interests her,
and the professor repeats his question about her motivation for choosing law school.]
Ms. C.: To do something different.
Prof.: What is it that’s different about the law, from business?
Ms. C.: It’s not certain; it’s ever-changing.
Prof.: Well, it is that. It is ever-changing. Or is it just that you like variety?
Come, Ms. C., you’re not that shallow a person. Let’s be honest. Let’s
force you to say something maybe you don’t really mean. Let’s psycho-
analyze you. You’re in law school rather than business school because
you find it at bottom more deeply satisfying or at least you thought you
could, to study the law than to go to business school. You may be right,
however, to be a lucre-seeking monster at the present time in history, but
that’s not what you are. There is a deep emotional fulfillment that you
are supposed to be getting from the law school. That is why you came
here.Here the student is actually put in the position of giving “incorrect” answers about
her own inner thoughts and motivations. The professor, in supplying the “correct”
answers, imports for her not only a way of talking but also an entire persona and
set of normative orientations. These orientations oppose the purely money-seek-
ing motivations of those who attend business school to the alternative, more lofty
goals of those who pursue law. The student is being trained to play herself in a drama
defined by the professor, to discern in strategic terms what discursive position is
required to carry this drama forward, and then to speak in the voice of that “I.”
As we’ve noted, the message conveyed through this fluid reanchoring of foot-
ing across sides of legal arguments is one that privileges language structure over
content, ability to shift discursive positions over fixed moral or emotional an-
chors. Indeed, the self that emerges from the prism of this linguistic ideology is
above all else defined by an ability to make arguments. This new self can rise above
the distracting pulls of emotion and common cultural judgments by means of
an ongoing internal and external dialogue based in legal doctrines and catego-
ries. Competence in this dialogic discourse form becomes a measure of one’s
ability to be and think like a lawyer. Achieving reason is possible through dis-
course. If one is so angry that one cannot make the arguments on the other side
(perhaps feeling such righteous indignation that it is difficult to contemplate that