Statutory Interpretation and the Idea of Progress

Statutory interpretation, Professor Eskridge1 observes, has been a neglected intellectual stepchild, "the Cinderella of legal scholarship" (p. 1). If so, then Eskridge himself may qualify as the messenger with the glass slipper who has rescued the waif from obscurity. For over a decade, he has been in the forefront of research on the subject and has played a leading role in the scholarly renaissance now underway. Dynamic Statutory Interpretation synthesizes and extends his far-reaching contributions to the subject. Even beyond its theoretical sophistication and extensive scholarship, perhaps the book's most attractive feature is the internal tension between sometimes opposing viewpoints. Eskridge candidly admits that he admires conflicting normative visions, for his experiences have given him a prismatic rather than a unified vision: My approach can be described as one of critical pragmatism. It reflects a balance among three facets of my life: my thoroughly middleclass background and exposure to legal work through the usual insider institutions (Ivy League law school, clerkship, tony law firm), versus my experience as a gay man (which makes me a pariah looking at legal practice from the outside), versus my fascination with the phenomenon of scarcity and its [economic] implications for public life. My experience sweeps widely if not comprehensively across the American political spectrum.2 Consequently, Eskridge•sdiscussion tends to be dialectical, embracing first one viewpoint and then another. His conclusions are more nuanced than some readers may expect from an outspokenly "progressive" legal scholar. The price of these internal intellectual tensions is a reduction in theoretical elegance and rhetorical sweep,