Paper Revision

You did a good job explaining and reducing the difficult theories to the very basic understanding necessary for your paper, but I had a difficult time trying to tie everything together. This is mainly because you frontloaded your essay with the various theories and did not introduce the topic that you seem to be applying the theories to until the very end. In addition, when you did mention the topics, you mentioned them briefly and in an almost passing manner so that it was difficult to see how they related to the previous discussion on the theories and your ultimate insight/message/conclusion. Transition sentences or roadmapping would have been helpful. That being said, I think your paper will benefit greatly if you try a different approach in organization. Perhaps you can try weaving and contextualizing the topic and the theories together. While the headings helped, the ideas and conclusions contained in the headings were not clearly and fully carried over to the ensuing content. Other than that, I liked that your essay was very interactive with the reader, whether that was through the various questions that you posed or your sense of humor.

What ought a lawyer in the 21st century know that the current law school model cannot or will not teach? One consideration is how we, as law students, rationalize away cognitive dissonance rather than continuing in a sort of dissonance-induced anguish. When we do this, we adopt a type of belief formation that make the psychological distant, or the abstract, expendable. The consequence is a commitment to a particular worldview that unrealistically replaces the real, painful, and difficult problems with contrived problems that are comfortably and easily resolved.

One way to understand how we adopt such a worldview is to consider construal level theory, which considers how our mental representations of certain events, people, or things are formed in relation to psychological distance. Specifically, individuals represent psychologically near events with concrete, low-level construals and psychologically distant events with abstract, high-level construals. Low-level construals encompass concrete, contextualized, and subordinate features of events. High-level construals, in contrast, refer to abstract, decontextualized, and superordinate features of events. The difference in our minds’ ability to appreciate and grasp these two concepts in relation to our present reality results in different approaches to how we approach them. So, for example, it would be much easier for me to do terrible things to person who exists as a faraway mental abstraction than it is to do those same terrible things to a flesh and blood person right in front of me. The person close by is "heavy" when I try to mentally cast her aside, so it's easier to care about what happens to her than something distant that I take “lightly.”

We rationalize or dismiss the decontextualized when faced with cognitive dissonance, which results when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The term itself is disarmingly cute. I imagine it as just a fly buzzing around my head, and the words have the connotation of a harsh chord in the background music of my life that would be slightly jarring if I actually heard it. More than likely, though, I won’t even notice it as I go about my day. But the cuteness of the concept belies the ugliness of what it is supposed to denote. Maybe things are what they do and not what they are called, but what things are called greatly determines how they are understood. As my favorite Torts professor from last semester often said, "You name it and you own it." To label something, to put a word on something, is to commit to a particular understanding of that thing, and that understanding (or lack thereof) is no less than a theory of the universe. The concept of cognitive dissonance ought not to be so easy to think about, because the underlying thing is, in a nutshell, extreme anguish in various degrees.

Taking this in the context of specific examples - judges obviously must make law, but they should never admit to it; institutions thrive as a result of both their efficiency and their waste; and I make trivial decisions knowing that sometimes my decisions mean that real people die. Even while my subjective reality does not feel like a life and death struggle, life is objectively a life and death struggle for someone else. So I can try to imagine what it would be like to actually fear for my life right now, and maybe I'll experience a sudden terror of death, but it passes quickly enough. Real, painful problems, as opposed to the contrived problems that I’m comfortable solving, are freaking difficult.

Assuming that as law student and human being, I am pretty good at rationalizing…if I can get myself into the anguish of being mentally torn, how can I get myself to stay there? What would hinder me from staying there? What would it feel like to be relatively powerless and disposable in various ways, not only on alternate Thursdays or what have you, but for an extended period of time? And what would those repeated impressions over months and days and years do to someone’s brain? In contrast, what would feeling relatively powerful over an extended period of time do? These are the questions that we must confront and work through as future lawyers of the 21st century.