Jan Maurits Broekman

The close ties between law and psychiatric illness challenge our effort to understand the complex semantics of Western culture and the foundations of law in the heart of that culture. It is, however, difficult to be immediately confronted with the limitations of these semantics. Can one ever achieve a refined precision of psychiatric issues? Lawyers and psychiatrists tend to disregard the fact that people live within different realms of expressiveness, even where the same phenomena seem apparent. They neutralize all relativity and design a quasi-universal body of legal doctrines or construct an all-embracing medical nosology. The question remains what practices of judgment are justifiable when the history books demonstrate the ever-changing character of the idea of a common good and a well-ordered life. Notions of relativity accompany decisions to punish or to cure, to exclude or to include, to disregard or to consider. In these decisions, there are never supracultural notions at hand and only rarely ideas that reach beyond the boundaries of either profession's own discourse.

Wat is de plaats van het recht in de samenleving? Hoe fungeert het juridisch discours? Wie is de mens van het recht? Waartoe leiden de semantische transformaties die het recht tot een eigen discours maken? Hoe gaat de maatschappij met het juridisch discours om? Hoe verhoudt het rechtsbeleid zich tot de rechtswetenschap? Hoe verhouden de verschillende vakgebieden binnen het recht zich tot elkaar? Deze en andere vragen tussen rechtsfilosofie, rechtstheorie en rechtspraktijk worden in een collectie wetenschappelijke teksten geconfronteerd met kritische interdisciplinaire benaderingen. Het boek biedt in die zin een kleine encyclopedie van de juridische discipline, gelieerd aan overwegingen van algemene cultuur.

Die Diskussion zwischen Marxismus und Strukturalismus wird im allgemeinen als eine Angelegenheit des heutigen französischen Strukturalismus betrachtet. Diese Auffassung wird hier relativiert und erweitert. Es stellt sich nämlich heraus, dass Wurzeln des jetzigen strukturalen Denkens im Russischen Formalismus zu finden sind und dass bereits dort eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Marxismus stattfand, die bis heute ihre Gültigkeit behalten hat. Die wichtigsten Themen dieser Diskussion sind die Idee der Verfremdung, die Frage des Strukturdenkens und das Problem des Verhältnisses zwischen literarischer und sozialer Realität. Sie sind in vielerlei Gestalt Gegenstände der Diskussion in Moskou und Petersburg während der zwanziger Jahre unseres Jahrhunderts, aber auch in den dreissiger Jahren im Prager Kreis - dieselben Themen werden heute in den Pariser Kreisen diskutiert, sowohl in dem literarischen Kreis der Zeitschrift Tel Quel wie auch in dem Althusser-Kreis. Auf dem Hintergrund dieser Fragen steht der Gegensatz zwischen einem Wesensdenken und einem Strukturdenken. Er beherrschte sowohl den Formalismus als den Strukturalismus des Prager Kreises. Heute ist eine Verschiebung zu registrieren : es geht um denselben Gegensatz im Marxismus. Kann der Marxismus, besonders seine Theorie der Praxis, vermitteln zwischen beiden Denkformen, da er sie als ihn selbst kennzeichnende Ambiguität in sich trägt?

The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics is integrated in the regular program of a US Law School and student enrollment is honored with credit points. Hitherto, the study of Legal Semiotics has mainly been located outside the Law Schools in the US and the Faculties of Law in the EU. Two important questions within the more general theme of Legal Semiotics and Legal Education arose: (1) the program requirements in an education context, and (2) the attention and interests of the students. This IJSL issue offers essays presented during the Round Table which closed the Seminar, provides some experience-based suggestions for a Seminar program and discusses how to deal with the pragmatic attitude of law students. It interests how those topics relate to legal and semiotic literature and how they focus globally important viewpoints, as can be concluded in the example of the legal semiotics of family structures.

Peirce shows how he presupposes that a ‘most general science of semeiotic’ is entirely a matter of culture. Semiotics unfolds even beyond the debate on specific differences between nature and culture. The expression ‘semiotics of culture’ entails all components of a true pleonasm. Pierce finds his parallel in the philosophy of Hegel and both philosophers consider the close ties between expressiveness and consciousness as a specifically human, cultural and spiritual activity. That viewpoint leads not only to linguistic but also to other expressive phenomena, among which the body. Faces are perhaps the most outstanding bodily carriers of expression, so that Peirce’s analyses of Thirdness relate to the human face, not as a natural but as a cultural datum, in particular an artifice. A face-to-face relationship is embedded in a regulative discourse rather than an ethical appeal or other metaphysical dimensions. Three cases show various degrees of artificiality with different semiotic implications: Tilda Swinton’s appearance at the recent 2008 Oscar ceremony, the body art of Orlan and the first 2005 facial transplant of Isabelle Dinoire. The three do not only show how the human face is an artifice, but also how realities can appear to be fictitious within patterns of semiotic nature. Any sign can be a correlative to a fictitious world!

Faces challenge the sender-receiver model as the major scheme of thought for appropriately understanding interaction between human individuals. The openness and indeterminacy of faces lead to establish a semiotically relevant distinction between interaction and interactivity. The latter is our proposed articulation of the dynamic energy that thrives through the existence of signs and the uses of a semiotics. Facial expressions sustain and express the vital dynamism of making meaning in life. This often occurs at a bewildering distance to legal life and discourses established by legal terminologies.

Is the European Union a new Walden? Although a contrast in form and format, the Union is surprisingly close to the latter's underlying philosophy. One can read this proximity in the Treaties or the many facets of the European idea which mirrors in the Union's emerging legal system. Today there is no longer a Union of a limited number of Nation States desiring to end divisions among themselves, to acquire mutual respect and prosperity or a higher standard of living and working conditions for its members. European citizenship shows a global orientation and is in continuous competition with the discourse of a globalizing economy and its Internet democracy. Analyses of concepts such as political geography, global, (supra)national and regional citizenship, democracy, learning society, native tongue and market lead to the insight that the Union's legal system wishes to ensure its citizens a legally engendered, formatted and protected global position for action. Walden's philosophy has a new face.