Law and the Uncooked--a Reply (Response and Reply: Edmond's 'Thick Decisions' Oceania 74(3)‪)‬

First, let me express my thanks to Burke and Fergie for their generous and considered responses. I am sympathetic to their contributions, particularly the desire for more macroscopic theorising, sensitivity to power relations and Fergie's provisional programmatic sketch. Indeed this general agreement leads me to defend or explain aspects of 'Thick Decisions' in response to what are occasionally surprising criticisms. I am not inclined to defend my approach against criticisms which suggest that 'Thick Decisions' should have done things which were never intended or clearly beyond its legitimate scope. The article was not presented as a comprehensive account of law-anthropology relations, but rather to indicate 'how a judge practically managed law and evidence' (Edmond 2004a: 190) in a decision which made up part of the HIB litigation. The title was, after all, 'Thick Decisions' and not 'Law and Anthropology'. Clearly, the article was not offering a macro-theory of law-expert relations, a fully-blown analysis of power or detailed account of the treatment of (anthropological) expertise in all legal and quasi-legal settings. The article evidently has contributions to make on these issues but generally maintains more modest explanatory pretensions (see also Good 2004).