Brisa Paim Duarte, Normative Validity, Macro-narrativity and Micro-narrativity in Law
10
through their own methodological projection as normative limits both to the valid inter-
pretation of legal materials (norms and statutes, precedents, doctrinal arguments...) and
to the ex-novo constitution of normative criteria able to respond to the juridical specificity
of the case sub judice. (Linhares 2012a, 23–42; Neves 2013).
As a transpositive principle constituted and sustained in communitarian praxis, law
is then comprehended as an experience of temporal validity, and not an object or entity
simply created top-down by the declaration of will of formal authorities, bare voluntas of
potestas, nor a somehow conceived heteronomous institution. In this sense, law and laws
(in its possible dogmatic specifications in either imperatives, rules or norms (Neves 1998, 46–
50) are not synonyms, and jurist’s typical role (iuris-diction) is not to be mistaken as the
bare logical and subsumptive formal application of law’s given premises under previously
“selected” and organized «facts» of a case, namely when such «application» (better
understood as a process of realization) is confronted with a multidimensional and
problematic experience of reality and juridicity that can only arise interpretatively, and, in
this way, as a construction itself, in its relation both to institutional requirements and to
living praxis. As the practical nature of the related problem of proof makes clear, the case is
not a given (Neves 1993, 157–66; Linhares 2001; Bronze 2006, 607–81), so it is already
common to think about it in terms of «fact construction», «narrative construction of fact»
(Jackson 1991, 59), «narrazioni fattuali» (Taruffo 2010, 203), and so on. On the other
hand, the normative ambition of jurisdiction is not satisfied by the tactical and juridically
uncompromised implementation of contingent strategies and policies. Despite legislation,
for instance, can also have a social-political finalistic character and even be used
accordingly (as an instrument to implement social transformations and pragmatic
strategies), unless we can submit the intelligibility of legal experience to the contingency
of power, being a means of official verbalization of such strategical goals is not what makes
the juridicity of such legislation possible, is not what makes such laws law. In sum, the
law, in its intentionality and cultural specificity, is not a place from where one can extract
unproblematic solutions to premolded facts, but also not an opportunity to perform all
sorts of strategies.
As the third – the tertium comparationis – and an experience, law is at the same time institu-
tional and impermanent, the normative scale operating between the past and the present,
feeding itself from tradition of history and novelty of cases (subjected to a practical rein-
vention), and the moment of judgement represents the crucial point of this mediation,
since it is the moment when law’s normativity, in its problematic character, descends from
the abstract and becomes into being only through the mediation of cases, as questions
that demand valid and adequate normative responses. As such, analogy is, then, at the
heart of rationality and reasoning in law (Bronze 2012a; 2012b). But my goal in this paper
is not to address the full scope and grounds of Jurisprudentialist proposal, but, differently,
just try to shed some light in the ways such a comprehension of law's practical meaning
relates to narrativity.
Here, the term «narrative/ity» must be understood broadly, in relation to the
problem of rationality and reasoning, and, in a referential level, naming a specific structure
of storytelling composition or communicational interpretive strategy which takes place
inside or outside the realm of fiction and functions, within law’s culture, in combination
with other types of practical rationalities, such as those embedded in the activities of
performance, translation and analogy. But which also allows to be reconciled with the