Cracking the "Red, White, and Blue" Ceiling: Toward a New International Role for the Law and Society Association

The idea that the study of law in society is a universal phenomenon and the dream that the Law and Society Association (LSA) could become a cosmopolitan institution embracing scholars from all over the world are hardly new. From the earliest days when we could all meet in Red Schwartz's living room, to the Budapest and Vancouver meetings when we met in another country and attendance went well over 1,000, many in the field and in the Association have accepted this idea and followed this dream. For those of this persuasion, Lynn Mather's presidential address was welcome evidence that the dream is still alive. Yet at the same time it is a chilling reminder of the limited degree of internationalization that has occurred since some of us crowded into that living room in Buffalo. While she points proudly to several indicators of increased engagement of scholars from outside the United States in LSA activities, she also notes counter-trends and worries that some seemingly positive developments may contain ambivalent messages. For example, the creation of a special international award seems, at first blush, to be a positive move toward internationalization. But, as Mather points out, it could also be seen as acceptance of the idea that all other awards just naturally go to citizens of the United States of America, so that a special award has to be set aside for all the scholars from the rest of the world. Is There a "Red, White, and Blue" Ceiling? Although Mather does not come out and say it, one can read her address as recognizing that there is a "red, white, and blue" ceiling that limits the role of people from outside the United States in LSA, much as the famous "glass ceiling" limits the career progress of women and minorities in many spheres. Thus, just as the Association's major awards seem always to go to people from the United States, so do all the positions of leadership. How many presidents or other officers can you name who do not have a U.S. passport? How many annual program chairs or Law & Society Review editors can you think of who did not teach at institutions in the United States? Surely, the increase of non-U.S. members between 1980 and today, from 15 to 26%, and the increasing number of meetings held outside the United States, shows real progress. Yet we should not take this as proof that we are becoming truly global or that there is a positive trend line we can project into the future. Given the rapid growth of sociolegal studies outside the United States in recent years, an 11% increase in non-U.S. membership in more than two decades is not that remarkable. And one would hardly say that LSA is truly international when three-quarters of the members still come from one country. This is especially true since absolute membership figures do not measure intensity of participation. If we had an index that measured service on the Board, membership on committees, participation in graduate student workshops, and attendance and teaching in summer institutes, as well as receipt of awards and appointment to leadership roles, we would find that the effective international presence falls far below the 25% level. Similarly, the decision to hold meetings outside the United States, in conjunction with institutions based in other countries, is a welcome trend. But when the Association meets outside the United States, does it develop real partnerships or are these meetings really American shows with limited foreign participation? From the first joint meeting with the Research Committee on the Sociology of Law in Amsterdam to the present, our foreign counterparts have worried about American domination at these events. If, as Mather counsels, we need to take internationalization seriously, then we need better indicators of participation and a more nuanced understanding of the pressures and forces that may be creating the invisible "red, white, and blue" ceiling. But we do not need to wait for such work to know that if we want our field to be more universal and our association more cosmopolitan, then more needs to be done. …