England's criminal justice system has been depicted as evolving from a preindustrial form in which wide judicial discretion served to legitimate the social order, to a new form where the need to impose industrial discipline on an increasingly urbanized work force produced less harsh but more systematic punishments. According to this vision, the wheels of Victorian justice ground both more gently and more intrusively than they had a century before, since along with the abolition of many capital crimes and the diminishing resort to incarceration went an intensified examination of private lives. As Jennifer Davis has made clear, however, historians of crime often underestimate the degree of continuity between eighteenth- and nineteenth-century law enforcement, particularly at the local level. Significantly, both eighteenth-century justices of the peace and nineteenth-century police court magistrates enjoyed great latitude in their dealings with the poor people who appeared before them. Nowhere is the highly personal and unsystematic nature of modern summary justice more strikingly revealed than in the police court's adjudication of disputes between husbands and wives.

Until recently, North American labor law historiography has been dominated by the view that the legal regime regulating trade unions and collective bargaining has passed through three stages of development: repression, toleration, and promotion. This evolutionary narrative served the function of justifying current collective bargaining schemes by showing them to be the progressive realization of political and industrial pluralism. Confidence in the narrative, however, is eroding. In part, this is fuelled by the crisis of the current collective bargaining regime. It no longer appears to be able to deliver the goods. Not coincidentally, critical scholars have also chosen this moment to scrutinize the Whiggish history produced by writers committed to the Wagner Act model and have found it wanting.

As long as legal scholarship focused on traditional sources that were considered “distinctively legal,” a great variety of “legal texts” were consigned to scholars in other disciplines. Thus, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1932) and his classic work The Common Law (1881) appeared safely inside the categorical “box” identified as distinctively legal, while Louis Calhern's portrayal of Holmes and the film The Magnificent Yankee (MGM, 1950) fell outside.

In recent years, however, both the inside/outside distinction and the legal box metaphor have become increasingly suspect. Drawing upon post-structuralist theories, which highlight the discursive and representational dimensions of law, a variety of different projects seek to locate the diverse places at which legal rhetoric and imagery are constituted.