What should legal analysis become?

Professor Waldron reviews Professor Unger's book What Should Legal Analysis Become? He divides Unger's analysis into two parts: a negative analysis and a positive analysis. Waldron finds the negative part of Unger's book largely compelling; it argues that contemporary legal analysis is characterized by a passive acquiescence in existing institutional arrangements. It is toward the second part of Unger's book, the positive analysis, that Waldron directs his criticism. He finds unconvincing Unger's description of the way legal analysis can become a catalyst for change of the institutional imagination of society. The unsatisfactory nature of this positive prescription makes it harder to accept that legal analysis can have the transformational effect on institutional imagination that Unger proposes for it.