Jan Maurits Broekman

This volume provides a critical roadmap through the major historical sources of legal semiotics as we know them today. The history of legal semiotics, now at least a century old, has never been written (a non-event itself pregnant with semiotic possibility). As a consequence, its sources are seldom clearly exposed and, as word, object and meaning change, are sometimes lost. They reach from an English translation of the 1916 inaugural lecture of the first Chair in Legal Significs at the Amsterdam University, via mid 20th century studies on "property" or "contract," to equally fascinating essays on contemporary semiotic problems produced by former students of the Roberta Kevelson Semiotics Roundtable Seminar at Penn State University 2012 and 2013. Together, the materials in this book weave the fabric of semiotics and significs, two names for the unfolding of semiotics in law and legal discourse at least until the second half of the 20th century, and both of which covered a lawyer's focus on sign and meaning in law. The latter is embedded within the cultural imperatives of the civilization that gave these terms meaning and made them an effective tool for the dissection of law, its reconstitution as an instrument to be used by the lawyer to advance the interests of her clients, and for judges as a means to restructure language as a narrative of law whose power could bend behavior to its strictures. Legal semiotics has become an indispensible part of the elite lawyer's toolkit and a fundamental approach to analysis of legal texts. Two previous volumes published in 2011 and 2012 explored the conceptual, methodological and epistemological progress in the field of legal semiotics, the modern forms of semiotics study, and the mechanics of meaning making processes by lawyers. Yet the great lessons of semiotics requires a focus on the origins of the concepts and frameworks that would become contemporary legal semiotics, its origins as an object of the consciousness of meaning making-one whose roots, as lessons for the oracular conversations of law, are expanded in this volume.

This book examines the concept of meaning and our general understanding of reality in a legal and philosophical context. Starting from the premise that meaning is a matter of linguistic and other forms of articulation, it considers the inherent philosophical consequences. Part I presents Klages', Derrida's, Von Hofmannsthal's and Wittgenstein's explorations of silence as a source of articulation and meaning. Debates about 20th century psychologism gave the attitude concept a pivotal role; it illustrates the importance of the discovery that a word is globally qualified as 'the basic unit of language'. This is mirrored in the fact that we understand reality as a matter of particles and thus interpret the real as a component of an all-embracing 'particle story'. Each chapter of the book focuses on an aspect of legal semiotics related to the chapter's theme: for instance on the meaning of a Judge's 'Saying for Law', on law students training in varying attitudes or on the ties between law and language. Part II of the book illustrates our general understanding of reality as a matter of particles and partitioning, and examines texts that prove that particle thinking is basic for our meaning concept. It shows that physics, quantum theory, holism, and modern brain research focusing on human linguistic capabilities, confirm their ties to the particle story. In contrast, the book concludes that partitions and particles are neither a fact in the history of the cosmos nor a determinant of knowledge and the sciences, and that meaning is a process: a constellation rather than a fixation. This is manifest once one understands meaning as the result of continuously changing attitudes, which create our narratives on cosmos and creation. The book proposes a new key for meaning: a linguistic occurrence anchored in dimensions of human narrativity.

This engaging book examines the origins and first effects of the concept ‘legal semiotics’, focusing on the inventor of the term, Roberta Kevelson. It highlights the importance of her ideas and works which have contributed to legal theory, legal interpretation and philosophy of language. Kevelson’s work is particularly relevant today, in our world of global electronic communication networks which rely so much on language, signs, signals and shortcuts. Kevelson could not have foreseen the 21st century, yet the story of her work and influence deserves more attention as it is key to our understanding of modern legal discourse and why law fascinates and is accepted in modern society. The authors draw on Kevelson’s hitherto unknown Office Papers and Notes, and a biographical examination points to key influences in her work such as the early feminist movements of the US East Coast, the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and the semiotics of Thomas Sebeok. This forms the basis for a more encompassing research of Kevelson’s position, work and philosophical background, which the authors call for. A quick and enlightening read, this book interests a wide range of readers with an interest in legal history and the fields which Kevelson both drew on and influenced, including lawyers, students and scholars.

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 Behandlungsweise kann jedoch sehr verschieden sein. Diese letztere charakterisiert nicht nur eine bestimmte Auffassung von Philosophie, sondern ebenso den Philosophen, der sie anwendet. In dem Sinne ist jede Erörterung eines philosophischen Gedankens zugleich eine bio graphische Notiz. Der erfahrungswissenschaftliche Charakter der in diesem Band ge sammelten philosophische Gedankengänge entstammt zu einem er heblichen Teil der Kenntnisnahme der (ursprünglich amerikanischen) Kulturanthropologie. Ihr Schöpfen aus den Initiativen der alther kömmlichen Ethnologie wie auch aus der vergleichenden Völkerkunde hat, zusammen mit dem fruchtbaren «:field-work», auf einer anthropo logischen Basis neue und neuartige Erfahrungen über den Menschen hervorgehoben. Dadurch ist mehr als ein bloßes Kooperieren von Philosophie und Wissenschaft gewachsen: hier hat sich der Charakter des Philosophischen selbst gewandelt. Diese Kooperation, ja vielmehr tiefgreifende Verschränkung ist ein Merkmal moderner Philosophie. Besonders im Denken von Hermann Wein ist dieses Charakteristikum zu einem fruchtbaren philosophischen Ausgangspunkt geworden. Das wäre sowohl für seine philosophisch-anthropologischen wie auch für seine sprachphilosophischen Erörterungen nachzuweisen. Eben in der Abschätzung und Durchdenkung jener Bereiche bekommt die Idee der Erfahrung ihre Gestaltungskraft. Als Grundmotiv wäre diese Idee zu betrachten - nicht als ein regelmässig wiederkehrender Hinweis oder die Formulierung irgendeiner Wünschbarkeit in philosophicis. Betrachtet man unsere Philosophie der Gegenwart, so ergibt sich, dass ein solcher Ausgangspunkt außer in anthropologischen und be stimmten sprachphilosophischen Erwägungen auch in ethischen Frage stellungen fruchtbar geworden ist - wir weisen auf die amerikanischen und anderen.

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 ?

Lawyers write, blog and are otherwise producers of words; they structure public life through legal discourse and integrate all issues that reinforce legal reasoning. Even if one is inclined not to justify the power of their words in the context of a democratic theory, one is hardly able to challenge its public acceptance. But semiotic analyses harden the question whether these emperors wear nothing but robes. That attitude intensifies where medicine becomes increasingly relevant for legal discourse, as becomes clear where for instance US political viewpoints bring bioethical issues to the Courts. One major theme in today’s medicine pertains to identity in its psychological, philosophical and social dimensions. Identity thus becomes a groundbreaking semiotic issue in law and medicine; both discourses are particular important to the otherness of the other. A US criminal law case interests here (Harrington v. State of Iowa, 2003; cited as: 659N.W.2d 509). The case is decided with “information about what the person has stored in his brain”. A chain of signs is involved: from “brain-function” to “brain-storage” via “brain-scan” to “brain-fingerprint”, for which the case became famous. A long series of signs and meanings belong here to intertwined discourses. Central is a particular sign in each discourse: “brain” means brain scan, and “fingerprint” means law! The two display trading mechanisms, which determine the otherness of the other and the self! The chain of signs in the Harrington case shows inter-disciplinarity in law and inter-discursivity among law and medicine. The trading itself underlines the semiotic dimensions in cyberspace, in particular the semiotics of the virtual (Hayles, Kurzweil) and their effects on legal discourse

The question of the philosophical basis of medical science and medical practice is considered under three closely related themes: (i) the doctor-patient relationship, (ii) the structure of the medical-ethical discourse, and (iii) the problem of philosophical founding in relation to medical conduct. The doctor-patient relationship is regarded as a transformational relation. Acceptance of the illness of the patient, the construction of a complaint as a necessary condition — and not a description of an existing reality — as well as the establishment of a common interest are determinants of that relation. They are related to the dominant form of science and thought in medicine, namely application. This is typical for the Standard Medical-Ethical Discussion (SMED), its scope and its rationality. The third issue leads to the thesis that this particular rationality is not a sufficient ground for considering the medical discourse to be founded in philosophy.