Home › Weblog › University

Logocentrism and Legal Conceptions of the Subject

25 September 2003

It's that time of semester again! Time for another meaty analysis of that legal system so dear to our hearts. This time the unwitting critic is poststructural semiotics - what joy! Time to deconstruct me a gavel to wreak metaphysical havoc...Ahem.

Word-play aside, the next two weeks will be marked by my wayward frollicking through the meadow (minefield?) that is contemporary jurisprudence. That, and a distinct lack of news posts. Quite a shame, actually - there is a lot happening in cyberlands. Of course, my tendancy to err towards procrastination on the scale of productivity means you might well be seeing some updates in between now and 6 October.

Comments

29 September 2003 - 3:23pm — John Leung (not verified)

Ah. It's good to see a fellow postmodernist postmodernising about the law. Your decontruction will be far more complex and meaty than mine, I assure you. So I have, meaning is plural, law is not. Therefore Law=bad (full stop)
30 September 2003 - 8:12pm — Jaani

Now, now John. The urge to delegitimate our dominant legal paradigm must be tempered with the knowledge that (though far from perfect) alternatives are equally incoherent and also flawed in practice. Deconstruction is too often misunderstood as a wholly destructive process. In fact, it can (emphasis on CAN) be used with constructive effect (ie, highlighting assumptions implicit in a particular conception of the law). Unfortunately, it tends to be bandied about as the latest philoosphical catchphrase worthy of attention, something for which Derrida and Foucault have a lot to answer. Best of luck with your essay. Are you coming to the High Court hearing in Melbourne on Friday? *cough* torts revision? *cough* :)