Read on Twitter
Something on my new paper about malice in tort and criminal law. I also wanted to say something about my experience venturing into a new sub-discipline mid-career and what I see as the "crossover phenomenon." https://lawandreligionforum.org/2020/12/28/reconstructing-malice-in-the-law-of-punitive-damages/ 1/x
I'm generally peripatetic in my writing, preferring to write about what interests me rather than to stick to a single discipline. This strategy has advantages and costs, to be sure, but even on the rangy side of things, people tend either to go "public law" or "private law." 2/x
In my case, I've largely written in criminal law and constitutional law. I had not branched out to private law areas. A few years ago, though, I started teaching Torts, and I began to notice "crossovers." 3/x
E.g., criminal law and tort law share a lot in the history of intentional tort and felony--and not just the names of torts and crimes. Constitutional, criminal, and tort law all use the act/omission distinction. Punitive damages and punishment theory share conceptual space. 4/x
And there are many, many other such examples. My views about law have been formed by these crossover phenomena, and more and more I've come to believe that the seamless web is more real than not. 5/x
The concept of malice is one such crossover phenomenon. So I spent a few years learning about it and reaching out to scholars I did not know in a discipline I knew little about for advice. 6/x
One reason that I recommend the rangy approach to scholarship is that it connects you to a whole new community of scholars and projects. The torts scholars I reached out to were unfailingly kind and supportive as I clunked around their field. 7/x
Another benefit of the rangy approach is that you come to appreciate more and more crossover phenomena. Sometimes these are true crossovers, and sometimes they actually are distinct matters that might go by the same name or use the same terminology. 8/x
But still, just as there is a connection of scholarly communities, there can be a connection of ideas that, at least for me, has been a lot of fun. I suppose that's one reason to go with ranginess in scholarship: it's enjoyable. 9/x
Finally, a kind word for peer review. I've submitted to peer reviewed publications about 4-5 times in my career. I know some of the criticisms, and I'm sure they are quite correct and important. But for me, unfailingly, the experience has been extremely positive. 10/x
My papers have uniformly become better papers as a result of peer review. That has certainly been true of the processes used by the Journal of Tort Law. But I think it is true more broadly--and peer review is particularly helpful if you are (or want to be) a rangy scholar. 11/x
I'll have more to say about my paper itself, but for now: here's a vote for range over specificity; for seamlessness over disciplinary fragmentation; and for the breadth of connection of ideas and people. 12/12
