La différence barthésienne entre «écrivains et écrivants» et la «The Open Texture of Law» décrite par H. L. A. Hart

Abstract

This paper examines how the Barthesian difference between écrivains et écrivants can help analyse H.L.A. Hart’s Open Texture of the law. By comparing literary and judicial interpretation, one is able to better understand how lawyers, judges, and legislators can better interpret, use, and draft legislation and case law. In using concrete examples of legislation with regard to the phrase “cruel and usual”, this paper evaluates different interpretive techniques, uncovering key differences. In particular, it compares what implications the Death of the Author would have on legislation that may be considered as vague, or open-ended. Could this mean the Death of the Legislator? What kind of impact may this have on a democracy’s authority? Ultimately, it is suggested that Barthe’s interpretive literary theories are undesirable when it comes to deciphering legislation. Indeed, more concrete and structured approaches are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Baldick and Baldick [2].

  2. 2.

    Minda [11].

  3. 3.

    Barthes [3].

  4. 4.

    Et al. pg 148.

  5. 5.

    Barthes [4].

  6. 6.

    Et al.

  7. 7.

    Barthes, Essais Critiques pg 151.

  8. 8.

    Et al.

  9. 9.

    Hart [9].

  10. 10.

    Bix [5].

  11. 11.

    Et al.

  12. 12.

    Lyons [10].

  13. 13.

    Antonin and Breyer [1].

  14. 14.

    Burke [6], a remarqué que Barthes était: …the most flagrant abuses of auteurism in recent times…’.

  15. 15.

    Barthes, Essais Critiques pg 151.

  16. 16.

    Et al.

  17. 17.

    Les avocats et citoyens… sont-ils lecteurs?

  18. 18.

    Barthes [3].

  19. 19.

    Gilhooley [8].

  20. 20.

    Barthes, Essais Critiques pg 154.

  21. 21.

    Webber, Gregoire CN, the Unfilfilled Potential of the Court and Legislature Dialogue.

  22. 22.

    Est-il responsable, ou démocratique à le faire?

  23. 23.

    408 U.S. 238 (1972), qui a effectivement suspend la peine du mort aux États-Unis.

  24. 24.

    Furman v. Georgia.

  25. 25.

    Lyons [10].

  26. 26.

    E.g. Canada Shipping Act R.S.C., 1985, c. S-9 section 180 titulée “Discharge of Seamen”.

References

  1. 1.

    Antonin, Scalia and Stephen Breyer. 2011. Hosted by the Federalist and the American Constitution Societies. Youtube.com. YouTube, 25 Mar 2015.

  2. 2.

    Baldick, Chris, and Chris Baldick. 2008. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Barthes, Roland. 1981. Essais Critiques. Paris: Éditions Du Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barthes, Roland. 1986. The Rustle of Language. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bix, Brian. 1991. H. L. A. Hart and the Open Texture of Language. Law and Philosophy 10 (1): 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Burke, Seán. 1998. The Birth of the Reader. The Death and Return of the Author Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Furman v. Georgia. 1972. 408 U.S. 238.

  8. 8.

    Gilhooley, S. 2011. Authorship, Authority and the Founding: The Significance of the Author for the American Constitution, 1–35. SSRN.

  9. 9.

    Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Claredon.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lyons, David. Open Texture and the Possibility of Legal Interpretation. Working Papers Series (n.d.): n. pag. SSRN.

  11. 11.

    Minda, Gary. 2001. Cool Jazz But Not So Hot Literary Text In: James Boyd White’s Improvisations of Law as Literature. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 13 (1): 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Merci à Amandine Lepers-Thornton ‘Chartered Linguist in Oxford’ pour ses rédactions et soutien linguistique.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Weinberger.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weinberger, M. La différence barthésienne entre «écrivains et écrivants» et la «The Open Texture of Law» décrite par H. L. A. Hart. Int J Semiot Law 34, 409–419 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09654-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Open texture
  • Interpretation
  • Semiotics
  • Barthes
  • Hart