The journal of Human Justice

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 31–54 | Cite as

Rethinking subjectivity in law and ideology: A semiotic perspective

  • Dragan Milovanovic
Essays

Abstract

Post-Renaissance thought ushered in a new global optimism; however, postmodernist thought has recently challenged many of the claims to truth that form the basis of this line of inquiry and semiotic analysis has been one of its critical tools. Accordingly, this paper focuses on establishing a psychoanalytic semiotic perspective in law which is materially based. Law, ideology, and subjectivity are investigated in terms of discourse analysis. A Lacanian framework is integrated with a critically informed analysis that examines how the ‘what happened’ in the courtroom is constructed. It is argued that subjectivity is intrinsically connected with discourse. Two levels of discourse analysis are examined: the level of juridico-semiotic production, and the sphere of intra- and inter-subjective semiotic production. The notion of a semiotic grid constituted by three axes is developed, and extraverbal context is conceptualized as determinative. An alternative conceptualization of subjectivity in law based on Lacan is then argued for.

Keywords

High Court Fetishism Capitalist Mode Reality Construction Grammatical Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Althusser, L. 1971.Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannister, S., and D. Milovanovic 1990. The Necessity Defense, Substantive Justice and Oppositional Linguistic Praxis.International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 18: 179–198Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. 1986.Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, C. Emerson and M. Holquist, eds. Austin, TX: University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Barley, S. 1983. ‘Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organizational Cultures.’Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benveniste, E. 1971.Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, FA: University of Miami PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Borch-Jakobsen, M. 1991.Lacan: The Absolute Master. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. 1987. ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field.’The Hastings Law Journal 38: 814–853Google Scholar
  8. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1986.Democracy and Capitalism. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  9. Capra, F. 1982.The Turning Point. New York: Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenstein, S. 1975.The Film Sense. New York: Harcourt Brace JovanovichGoogle Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. 1972.The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: PantheonGoogle Scholar
  12. — 1977.Discipline and Punish. New York: PantheonGoogle Scholar
  13. — 1984. ‘The Juridical Apparatus,’ in W. Connolly, ed.,Legitimacy and the State. New York: New York University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Freud, S. 1914.The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. New York: MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  15. — 1965.The Interpretation of Dreams. New York: Avon BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedrichs, D. 1980. ‘The Legitimacy Crises in the United States: A Conceptual Analysis.’Social Problems 27: 540–554Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. 1967.Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor BooksGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodrich, P. 1984. ‘Law and Language: An Historical and Critical Introduction.’Journal of Law and Society, 11: 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. — 1990.Languages of Law: From Logics of Memory to Nomadic Masks. London: Weidenfeld and NicolsonGoogle Scholar
  20. Granfield, R., and T. Koenig. 1990. ‘From Activism to Pro Bono: The Redirection of Working Class Altruism at Harvard Law School.’Critical Sociology, 17: 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. 1975.Legitimation Crises. Boston: Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
  22. — 1984.The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I,Reason and the Rationalization of Society, T. McCarthy, trans. Boston: Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
  23. — 1987.The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. II.Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, T. McCarthy, trans. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. Heath, S. 1981.Questions of Cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Henry, S., and D. Milovanovic. 1991. ‘Constitutive Criminology.’Criminology 29: 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson, B. 1971.Law, Fact and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside: Deborah Charles PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  27. Jakobson, R. 1971. ‘Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disorders,’ in R. Jakobson and M. Halle, eds.,Fundamentals of Language. Paris: MoutonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy, D. 1982. ‘Legal Education as Training for Hierarchy’ in D. Kairys, ed.,The Politics of Law, 40–61. New York: Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  29. Kojeve, A. 1980.Introduction to the reading of Hegel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Kristeva, J. 1980.Desire in Language. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. — 1984.Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Lacan, J. 1991.L'Envers de la Psychanalyse. Paris: Editions du SeuilGoogle Scholar
  33. — 1988.The Seminars of Jacques Lacan, Book 11,The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954–1955. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. — 1981.The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. New York: W.W. NortonGoogle Scholar
  35. — 1977.Ecrits: A Selection, A. Sheridan, trans. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
  36. Laclau, M., and E. Mouffe. 1985.Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. New York: VersoGoogle Scholar
  37. Laplanche, J., and J. Pontalis. 1973.The Language of Psycho-Analysis. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar
  38. Lecercle, J. 1990. The Violence of Language. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, J. 1990.Jacques Lacan. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Lemaire, A. 1977.Jacques Lacan, D. Macey, trans. New York: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  41. MacCabe, C. 1979.James Joyce and the Revolution of the Word. London: MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  42. — 1985.Tracking the Signifier. Minneapolis: Uiversity of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Manning, P. 1979. ‘Metaphors of the Field: Varieties of Organizational Discourse’.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 660–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Medvedev, P., and M. Bakhtin. 1978.The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Metz, C. 1982.The Imaginary Signifier. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Mika, H., and J. Thomas. 1988. The Dialectics of Prisoner Litigation: Reformist Idealism or Social Praxis?’Social Justice 15: 48–71Google Scholar
  47. Milovanovic, D. 1986. ‘Juridico-Linguistic Communicative Markets: Towards a Semiotic Analysis’.Contemporary Crises, 10: 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. — 1987. ‘The Political Economy of “Liberty” and “Property” Interests.’Legal Studies Forum, 11: 267–293Google Scholar
  49. — 1988a.A Primer in the Sociology of Law. Albany, NY: Harrow and HestonGoogle Scholar
  50. — 1988b. ‘Jailhouse Lawyers and Jailhouse Lawyering.’International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 16: 455–475Google Scholar
  51. — 1989.Weberian and Marxian Analysis of Law: Structure and Function of Law in a Capitalist Mode of Production. Aldershot: GowerGoogle Scholar
  52. — 1991. ‘Images of Unity and Disunity in the Juridic Subject,’ in R. Quinney and H. Pepinsky, eds.,Criminology as Peacemaking, 209–227. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana PressGoogle Scholar
  53. — 1992a.Postmodern Law and Disorder: Psychoanalytic Semiotics, Chaos and Juridic Exegeses. Merseyside: Deborah Charles PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  54. — 1992c. ‘Subjectivity and Reality Construction in Law,’ in D.H. Currie and B.D. MacLean, eds.,Re-Thinking the Administration of Justice, 169–181. Halifax: FernwoodGoogle Scholar
  55. Milovanovic, D., and J. Thomas. 1989. ‘Overcoming the Absurd: Legal Struggle as Primitive Rebellion.’Social Problems, 36 (1): 48–60Google Scholar
  56. Morgan, G. 1980. ‘Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organizational Settings.’Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 605–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. — 1983. ‘More on Metaphor: Why We Cannot Control Tropes in Administrative Science.’Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pagels, H. 1983.The Cosmic Code. New York: Bantam BooksGoogle Scholar
  59. Pecheux, M. 1982.Language, Semantics and Ideology. New York: St. Martin's PressGoogle Scholar
  60. Ragland-Sullivan, E. 1986.Jacques Lacan and the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
  61. Saussure, F. de. 1966.Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  62. Silverman, K. 1983.The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, P. 1988.Discerning the Subject. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas, J. 1984. ‘Law and Social Praxis: Prisoner Civil Rights and Structural Mediations’, in S. Spitzer and A. Scull, eds.,Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control, Vol. 1: 141–170Google Scholar
  65. — 1987.Prisoner Litigation: The Paradox of the Jaihouse Lawyer. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  66. Todorov, T. 1984.Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Volosinov, V. 1986.Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  68. — 1976.Freudianism: A Marxist Critique. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. 1972. ‘Thought and Word’, in P. Adams, ed.,Language in Thinking, 180–213. Middlesex: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Human Justice Collective 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Milovanovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Northeastern Illinois UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations