The Unending Conversation: Gut Renovations and No-Demo Renos

Abstract

Gut Renovations made an extraordinary contribution to the conversation by showing how traditional legal rhetoric, especially syllogistic reasoning, perpetuates bias and injustice, and proposed looking to non-Western rhetorical forms as an alternative. In The Unending Conversation , Professor Kathy Stanchi praised Gut Renovations , but pointed out that perhaps the trouble with traditional legal rhetoric is not only the rhetorical structure we use to make our arguments, but also the “deeply biased body of law” on which our arguments are based. 1 Essential to both arguments is the idea that legal rules and the legal syllogism have great power to determine the outcomes of cases. We see the problems and propose another solution. Yes, law is biased. And yes, the use of syllogistic reasoning, embodied in traditional legal rhetoric in the acronym IRAC, can further that inherent bias. 2 But IRAC and legal rules can be far less constraining and outcome determinative than they may appear. And if IRAC and rules are malleable—not fixed—they can be repurposed as instruments of change. Sometimes a structural foundation is so faulty that the house must be torn down to the studs. But other times a house can be transformed through no-demo renos by using the structure that exists to create something new and beautiful. This Essay argues that in addition to Gut Renovations ’ call to look to other forms of rhetoric to de-bias our perspectives and our law, we also must envision ways to achieve change through the structures of traditional rhetoric. We need to reform traditional legal rhetoric not just from the outside in, but also from the inside out.

Part of CIRS Nexus · Curated by Lauren Lowenstein, The Biotoxin Lady