Research
You will find a complete range of our monographs, muti-authored and edited works including peer-reviewed, original scholarly research across the social sciences and aligned disciplines. We publish long and short form research and you can browse the complete Bristol University Press and Policy Press archive.
Policy Press also publishes policy reviews and polemic work which aim to challenge policy and practice in certain fields. These books have a practitioner in mind and are practical, accessible in style, as well as being academically sound and referenced.
This chapter concludes on the possibility of generating a positive theory of social justice for labour law by changing the way in which ‘personhood’ is conceived. In the chapter it is argued that there are three main positive effects for labour law of adopting a more relational approach to personhood. This approach brings together the work of Marxist, feminist, and classical labour law scholars; it is an inclusive critical agenda. Second, addressing personhood at the heart of labour law is a way of reconciling some of labour law’s greatest contradictions and theoretical dilemmas. Third, the relationship between labour law and personhood is not just a theoretical issue; it is crucial to engage with personhood in order to move forward with a labour law agenda for social justice. The hope is that changing the way in which we view personhood as a matter of labour law will lead to law and policies which are more effective in improving the lives of workers. In particular, embedding relationality will make us more able to respond to labour market change.
This chapter provides an overview of the relationship between social justice and labour law. It outlines the engagement of labour law with critical theory, and introduces Marxist and feminist approaches to labour law. It discusses the traditional social justice narrative of labour law (the coincidence of ‘labour is not a commodity’ and ‘inequality of bargaining power’) and the difficulties and contradictions that arise. It is argued in this chapter that fundamental to the difficulties and contradictions in the social justice narrative in labour law is the way in which personhood is conceptualized. This assertion is supported by an investigation of Sinzheimer’s critique of labour law and the person. The final section of this chapter seeks to suggest an alternative conceptualization of the person based around ‘relationality’. This conceptualization builds on Sinzheimer’s approach but also incorporates feminist and Marxist approaches to (legal) personhood.
This chapter starts with the context of the relationship between labour law and feminist theorizations generally, and an explanation of the failure of feminism and the feminist method to reach the mainstream of labour law theory. It is argued that this represents a missed opportunity for both labour law and social justice. The second section presents the feminist critique of the liberal legal subject and explains why this critique is so important for social justice. The third section suggests ways in which that critique can be positively developed into a social theory for labour law. It investigates the promise of vulnerability theory, and particularly the suggestion that the liberal legal subject should be replaced with the ‘vulnerable subject’ of law. It then moves to outline the potential of the ‘relational’ subject and the value of the promotion of relational autonomy for social justice for workers. The limitations of those approaches are then considered, and in particular, the need to incorporate some of the insights outlined in Chapter 2.
The aim of this chapter is to explore the different ways in which personhood can be conceptualized in law generally and how far those conceptualizations could and have infiltrated labour law. The chapter starts with an investigation of legal personhood and the law and the distinction between naturalist and legalistic approaches to legal subjectivity. Rationalist, religionist, and naturalist positions are explored in terms of how far they have been incorporated into labour law theory and the implications of their adoption for labour law. This includes an investigation of the intersection between different views of personhood, labour law, and human rights. The final section of the chapter attempts to move the debate forward by introducing Sinzheimer’s ‘socialist’ view of the relationship between labour law and personhood, which it is argued sets up the initiative for a more ‘relational’ approach to labour law and the person.
This book aims to revitalise the link between social justice and labour law through exploring the issue of personhood and the ‘subject’ of the law.
Rodgers argues that incorporating a more ‘relational’ notion of self into labour law not only provides a fresh normative perspective through which to evaluate existing labour laws, but will also make us more able to respond to labour market ‘shocks’ and labour market change into the future, including the introduction of AI.
It is only by embedding relationality into our law that can we really respect the humanity of workers and construct a legal framework through which social justice can be achieved at work.
This chapter takes forward the debate by considering the impact of narratives of personhood on the design and operation of collective rights. It is argued that our failure to incorporate collective experience into our understandings of the worker/person seriously limits our ability to promote (collective) justice for workers. Section 2 engages with the distinction between individualism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. It is argued in this section that these elements have tended to become severed from each other, and that this has been to the detriment of both collective and individual rights. Section 3 discusses traditional collectivist approaches and their relationship to the law. Section 4 deals with the position of collective rights on the individualist/collectivist divide. The chapter ends with a reflection on the value of attempting to erode the individualist/collectivist distinction identified in the chapter, by more completely engaging with collective or relational views of personhood.
This chapter outlines the underlying tensions in employment status which derive from our understandings and commitments to different ideas and versions of personhood. It then proceeds to investigate how these tensions are manifested in the conceptual difficulties and failures around employment status. The chapter then discusses how the courts have attempted to resolve some of these tensions and some of the reform suggestions in practical terms. The penultimate section outlines an alternative conceptual model for employment status which might address some of the issues raised in this chapter: the softening of the categories and distinctions around employment status through the idea of ‘personality in work’. In the final section the limitations of the ‘personality in work’ model are identified, and an argument made for a more radical solution to the problems of employment status through moving towards a relational subject of law which incorporates (rather than rejects) dependency.
This chapter focuses on the interviews with relationship professionals working with or for separated parents and their children outside of the mediation context, outlining whether, in principle, they believed that young people ought to be given a voice in the decision-making when parents separate and the psychological, wellbeing and agency benefits (and risks) of doing so. It also explores their views on child-inclusive mediation’s role in giving young people a voice. Its analysis compares these views with those of young people in focus groups on these questions.
ePDF and ePUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence.
Recent legislative changes in England and Wales have eroded children’s ability to exercise their article 12 UNCRC rights to information, consultation and representation when parents separate. However, children’s voices may be heard through child-inclusive mediation (CIM).
Considered from a children’s rights perspective, this book provides a critical socio-legal account of CIM practice. It draws on in-depth interviews with relationship professionals, mediators, parents and children, to consider the experiences, risks and benefits of CIM. It investigates obstacles to greater uptake of CIM and its role in improving children’s wellbeing and agency.
Exploring the culture and practice changes necessary for a more routine application of CIM, the book demonstrates how reconceptualising CIM through a children’s rights framework could help to address barriers and improve outcomes for children.
This chapter draws together the themes and arguments made in the preceding chapters to consider the conceptual, legal and practical changes needed to build a family justice system that has mediation at its centre but which is fully compliant with article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Its primary conclusion based on the Healthy Relationship Transitions study is that there are compelling arguments for moving towards a family justice system that fully respects children’s voices when parents separate in line with their article 12 rights, if only to improve their wellbeing and mental health. Whislt incorporation of the UNCRC into domestic law must be the long term goal, it considers how child-inclusive mediation can be used to change the culture to accept children’s rights and test how a system can in practice take children’s information, consultation and participation rights seriously, ensuring young people exercise appropriate agency. Alongside statutory and practice reforms, it concludes such a move towards a relational family approach can, in the short to medium term, achieve a rights balance between children and parents, not present within the prevailing parental autonomy discourse.
