The teaching of law and the learning economy as located and embodied practices

Abstract

The following pages include the answer to the comments of Mauro Benente and Malena Costa Wegsman on my text “Teaching law in the economics of learning”. This answer explains the theoretical framework underpinning it. This theoretical framework is based on the critique of the mechanistic atomist paradigm and also assumes, both the critique of the androcentrism that have always been presented in the teaching or transmission of legal knowledge and in its production (aspect emphasized by Costa), and the acceptance that the legal training is not a mere reflection or epiphenomenon of the economic structure (aspect pointed out by Benente). This implicit theoretical framework, which I will try to develop in my response, allows me: 1) to justify why
I do not consider this to be a mere reflection of the economical structure; 2) to explain the androcentric dimension of the teaching of law and the legal professions that I also assume, and that I believe is still present at this stage of the learning economy; 3) to deepen, appealing to Law itself, the possibilities of resistance or leakage, proposed by Benente and Costa, due to the restlessness that the economy of learning seems to configure.