The Semiotic Web of the Law

  • Robert W. Benson

Abstract

As I read this I was astonished by the semiotic intuition of the protesters, by the way they simultaneously wove together subtle signs from American legal, political and pop culture to give Justice O’Connor’s texts new meaning. Their play on the near-homonyms “Sandra Day” and “Sandra Dee” was particularly astute. Sandra Dee, for those of you who make it a point not to store the trivia of pop culture in your memories, was a blonde movie star of the ’50s known for her role as the original “Gidget,” a naive character who hung out at the beach and adored the boys who exploited her while they pretended to teach her how to ride a surfboard.3 A decade later, her innocence was satirized in the musical Grease by a chorus of street-wise young females chiding, “Look at me, I’m Sandra Dee, lousy with virginity.” 4Thus was the first female Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court reduced to the level of a Malibu surfer groupie. And thus did the protesters produce a new meaning for Justice O’Connor’s judicial opinions: namely, if I may offer a bowdlerized version, that her opinions represent naive, old-fashioned submission to male dominance, here in the form of the aggressive Rehnquist.

Keywords

Dust Manifold Transportation Mold Amid 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 10.
    On collage/montage as the key concept of post-modernism, and on Derrida as collagist, see Ulmer, “The Object of Post-Criticism,” in The Anti-Aesthetic: Esssay on Postmodern Culture, (ed.) H. Foster, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 11.
    R. Venture, Complexity and Condradiction in Architecture, 16, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 12a.
    Gabel & Kennedy, “Roll Over Beethoven,” Stan. L. Rev., 36, 1, 1984:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 12b.
    J. L. Borges, “The Lottery in Babylon,” Fictions, 1956.Google Scholar
  5. 14.
    Carrington, “Of Law and the River,” J. Legal Educ., 34, 1984:222.Google Scholar
  6. 16.
    U. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, 1984:187–188.Google Scholar
  7. 17.
    Fiss, “Objectivity and Interpretation,” Stan. L. Rev., 34, 1982:739; “Conventionalism,” S. Cal. L. Rev., 58, 1985:177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 18.
    R. Dworkin, Law’s Empire, 1986; “Law as Interpretation,” Tex. L. Rev., 60, 1982:527; “My Reply to Stanley Fish (and Walter Benn Michaels): Please Don’t Talk about Objectivity Any More,” The Politics of Interpretation, (ed.) W.J.T. Mitchell, 1983:287.Google Scholar
  9. 21.
    S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?, 1980:335.Google Scholar
  10. 24.
    C. Geertz, Local Knowledge, 1983:218.Google Scholar
  11. 26.
    Eco, The Name of the Rose, 1983:39–46.Google Scholar
  12. 27.
    Eco, A Theory of Semiotics, 1979:67, quoting quoting D. Schneider, American Kinship, A Cultural Account 2, 1968.Google Scholar
  13. 37.
    An indispensable new starting point for such scholarship is P. Goodrich, Reading the Law, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 38.
    H. G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. 39.
    D. Hoy, The Critical Circle, 1978:115–116.Google Scholar
  16. 41.
    Kennedy, “Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenology of Judging,” J. L. Ed., 36, 1986:518.Google Scholar
  17. 43.
    G. Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 46.
    F. R. Dickerson, The Interpretation and Application of Statutes, 1975:Ch. 7.Google Scholar
  19. 47.
    C. Gottlieb, Beyond Modern Art, 1976:344.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Benson
    • 1
  1. 1.Loyola Law SchoolLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations