Why a duck? Are feminist legal journals an endangered species, and if so, are they worth saving?

• Author: Kornhauser, Marjorie E.
• Position: Why a Feminist Law Journal?

In the movie Cocoanuts Groucho Marx is explaining the blueprints for a real estate development. He has just pointed out a viaduct, when Chico interrupts:

Why a duck? Why a--why a duck? Why-a-no-chicken?" [Groucho] ... You try to cross over there a chicken, and you'll find out why a duck. It's deep water, that's viaduct. [Chico, still puzzled, asks again, and Groucho replies] Look .... Suppose you were out horse-back riding and you came to that stream and wanted to ford over there, you couldn't make it. Too deep. [Chico] But what do you want with a Ford when you gotta horse? (1) "Why a duck?" you may be thinking when this symposium asks "Why a Feminist Law Journal?" The answer is not quite as absurd as you may think (and the dialogue may indicate). The development needs viaducts (and horses as well as Fords) because no one method of transportation works best in all situations. Similarly, legal scholarship needs feminist law reviews because a variety of journals can best transport ideas to people. Nevertheless, the symposium's invitational letter asked whether feminist legal journals have become "a victim of their own success" and whether "they [have] outlived their usefulness?" These questions imply two facts. First, that feminist legal scholarship is no longer marginal; second, that its marginal status is (or was) the raison d'etre for the existence of feminist journals. (2) Both "facts" do not hold up under scrutiny. In other words, marginalization may be a reason for the existence of feminist journals, but it is not the only one. Even if it were however, that justification would still exist because feminist scholarship has not yet been fully accepted into the mainstream of legal scholarship. Indeed, the simple act of asking questions indicates feminist legal scholarship's continuing marginal status.

Let us start with the second question first and assume for the moment that feminist law journals have been successful. Success in this context presumably means that these journals have established (or helped to establish) feminist legal scholarship as a full member of the legal scholarship family with access to publishing in general law reviews equal to that available to other types of legal scholarship. (3) In other words, assume that it is no harder to publish feminist legal scholarship in prestigious general journals than it is to publish, for example, articles on criminal law. Why would success in these terms lead to the second question: have feminist journals outlived their usefulness?

The Cocoanuts dialogue reveals--at least according to my deconstruction of it--that any transportation choice operates best within certain parameters. Sometimes cars are a better means of transportation than horses are, sometimes you use a road to get to your destination, and sometimes you need a viaduct. Although any transportation choice has both advantages and disadvantages, rarely is a method so disadvantageous or outmoded that it is eliminated entirely. (4) Indeed, people generally do not ask whether specialty journals in other fields, such as criminal law, are useful once the field is successful. General wisdom acknowledges that these journals are appropriate highways of communication, good for both authors and readers. They allow, for example, for broader, deeper, and more sophisticated explorations of topics than would otherwise occur since they are written for experts in the field. They also help an author reach her targeted reader, although the advent of electronic databases decreases the importance of this reason for specialty journals. True, there is always the debate about whether an untenured faculty member should publish in a top-tiered specialty journal or a mediocre general law review. However, that question is a far cry from wondering whether there is no longer any need for specialty journals.

So why are we asking whether feminist legal journals have outlived their usefulness, when we have assumed for argument's sake...