Abstract
This study discusses the possibilities for developing a model of legal semiotics based upon the distinctly dialectical theories of language, culture and society contained in the writings of Hegel and Theodor Adorno. It builds upon, and contributes to, a growing interest in Hegel’s theory of language more generally. For both Hegel and Adorno, it is not possible to develop a viable theory of culture, social integration and cultural/intellectual development occurring over various transitional stages, without attending to how the semiotic dimensions of human experience operate. The routine employment of various signs associated with, for example “law”, “legality”, “legal procedure” etc. and the relations between them, help generate, sustain and modify an overall, and collectively shared, interpretative framework. This study focuses upon only three of the host of possible themes that a Hegelian semiotics of law could usefully address. These are: the interpretation of core semiotics distinctions; the implications of the mediating role played by signs; and, thirdly, the application to our lived-experience of legal signs of a semiotically informed methodology of “immanent criticism”. The latter provides an approach to the conduct of advanced research into contextual aspects of semiotic themes, whose potential as a self-critical resource for “law and semiotics” has yet to be adequately realised. The Hegelian tradition rejects the idea that the relationship between legal signs and the signified is essentially arbitrary, treating this interpretation as itself an arbitrary and ideologically-loaded construct that articulates historically specific pathologies of late modern social, cultural and political relations. Instead, this scholarly tradition seeks to expose from within the zone of our concrete lived-experience of signs remnants of the mutual implication of these two strata. Its critical methodology aims to analyse contradictions between the implications of law’s normative expressions, and the impact of the actions of legal institutions upon specific groups of human subjects. Such a critical approach contrasts actual institutional outcomes with the implications of the norms they continue to rely upon to secure their legitimacy. This approach is only possible, however, once we grasp the significance of the potentially dialectical, that is mutually defining, nature of the sign/signified relationship. Without this recognition, legal semiotics risks self-imposed imprisonment within an artificially disconnected, experientially impoverished and narcissistic sphere of “cultural studies”.
Keywords
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 via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Adorno, T. W. 1956. Quasi una Fantasia, Essays on Modern Music, tr. Rodney Livingstone. London: Verso.
Adorno, T. W. 1971. Die Actualitat der Philosophie. In Die Frühschrifen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, T. W. 1973. Thesen über die Sprache des Philosophen. In Die Frühschrifen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, T. W. 1974. Henkel, Krug und frühe Erfhrung. In Noten zue Literatur. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, T. W. Negative Dialectics, 2001 revised English translation by Dennis Redmond at: http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/MM3.html
Adorno, T. W. Minima Moralia, 2005 revised English translation by Dennis Redmond at: http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/MM3.html
Adorno, Theodor W. and Horkheimer, Max. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso.
Bodammer, T. 1969. Hegels Deutung der Sprache. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Brockmeier, J. 1990. Language, Thought and Writing: Hegel After Deconstruction and the Linguistic Turn. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain, 21–22, 30–54.
Burbidge, J. 1981. On Hegel’s Logic: Fragments of a Commentary. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.
Burbidge, J. 1982. Language and Recognition. In ed. M. Westphal, Method and Speculation in Hegel’s Phenomenology Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 85–94.
Burns, T. 1989. Hegel, Derrida, and the Sign. In ed. H. Silverman Derrida and Deconstruction. New York, NY: Routledge, 77–91.
Burns, T. 2000. The Purloined Hegel: Semiology in the Thought of Saussure and Derrida. History of the Human Sciences, 13(4), 1–24.
Collins, A. B. 2000. Hegel on Language, Citizenship, and the Educational Function of the Workplace: The Marxist Challenge. Owl of Minerva, 32(1), 21–43.
Coltman, K. 1966. Gadamer, Hegel and The Middle of Language. Philosophy Today, 40, 151–159.
Cook, D.J.1973. Language in the Philosophy of Hegel, NY:Den Haag.
De Boer, K. 2001. The Infinite Movement of Self-Conception and Its Inconceivable Finitude: Hegel on Logos and Language. Dialogue, 40, 75–97.
Derrida, J. 1976. Of Grammatology, tr. G. Spivak. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Derrida, J. 1982. The Pit and Pyramid: Introduction to Hegel’s Semiology. In Margins of Philosophy, tr. Alan Bass. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 69–108.
Foster, S. 2006. Adorno: The Recovery of Experience. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Hahn, S. 1994. Hegel on Saying and Showing. Journal of Value Inquiry, 28(2), 151–168.
Harvey, I. 1982. The Linguistic Basis of Truth for Hegel. Man and World 15, 285–297.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1969. In ed. Werke. Science of Logic, tr. A. V. Miller. New York, NY: Humanity Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1970–1971. In ed. Werke, Eva Moldenhauer, and Karl Markus, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1975. In ed. Werke. Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind, tr. W. Wallace. New York, NY and Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoffmeister, J., ed. 1936. Dokumente zu Hegels Entwicklung. Stuttgart: From-mann, reissued, 1974.
Lamb, D. 1980. Language and Perception in Hegel and Wittgenstein. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Lau, C. F. 2006. Language and Metaphysics: The Dialectics of Hegel’s Speculative Proposition. In ed. J. O. Surber, Hegel and language. Albany, NY: SUNY, 55–74.
Leibniz and Hegel on Language. 1973. In eds. J. O’Malley, K. Algozin, and F. R. Weiss, Hegel and the History of Philosophy, The Hague: Mouton.
Löwith, K. 1965. Hegel und die Sprache. Die neue Rundschau, 76, 278–297.
Magnus, K. D. 2001. Hegel and the Symbolic Mediation of Spirit. New York, NY: SUNY.
McCumber, J. 1993. The Company of Words: Hegel, Language, and Systematic Philosophy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern.
McCumber, J. 2003. A Question of Origin: Hegel’s Privileging of Spoken over Written Language. Bulletin of Hegel of Great Britain, 47/48, 50–60.
Nancy, J. L. 2001. The Speculative Remark, tr. C. Suprenant. Stanford, IL: Stanford University.
Nuzzo, A. 2006. The Language of Hegel’s Speculative Philosophy. In ed. J. O. Surber, Hegel and Language. Albany, NY: SUNY, 75–91.
Pearson, G., and Salter, M. 1999. Getting Public Law Back into a Critical Condition: The Rule of Law as a Source for Immanent Critique. Journal of Social and Legal Studies, 8(4), 483–508.
Peters, J. D. 1997. The Root of Humanity: Hegel on Communication and Language. In eds. D. Klemm and G. Zöller, Figuring the Self: Subject, Absolute and Others in Classical German Philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY, 227–244.
Reid, J. 2006. Objective Language and Scientific Truth in Hegel. In ed. J. O. Surber, Hegel and Language. Albany, NY: SUNY, 95–110.
Salter, Michael. 1992. Laws of Language in Hegel’s Semiology. International Journal of Law and Semiotics, 5(14), 165–180.
Salter, M., and Shaw, J. 1992. Towards a Critical Theory of Constitutional Law: Hegel’s Contribution. In ed. Michael Salter, Hegel and Law. Aldershot: Ashgate, 90–120.
Salter, M., Shaw, J.J.A. 1994.Towards a Critical Theory of Constitutional Law: Hegel’s Contribution, Journal of Law and Society, 21(4 ), 464–486
Saussure, F. 1983. Course in General Linguistics, tr. R. Harris. London: Duckworth.
Schalow, F. 1993. The Question of Being and the Recovery of Language within Hegelian Thought. Owl of Minerva, 24(2), 163–180.
Schmidt, F. 1961. Hegel’s Philosophie der Sprache. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 9, 1479–1486.
Simon, J. 1966. Das Problem der Sprache Bei Hegel. Stuttgart: Kohlhanner.
Smith, J. 1974. Sentences Against Sentences: An Aspect of the Hegelian Dialectic. Dialectis and Humanism, 1, 67–73.
Smith, J. 1987. U-Topian Hegel: Dialectic and Its Other in Post-structuralism. The German Quarterly, 60, 237–261.
Smith, J. 1994. The Language of Mastery and the Mastery of Language: The Recognition of Rhetoric in Hegel. Clio, 23(4), 377–394.
Stähler, T. 2003. Does Hegel Privilege Speech over Writing?: A Critique of Jacques Derrida. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11(2), 191–204.
Surber, J. O. 1975. Hegel’s Speculative Sentence. Hegel-Studien, 10, 210–230.
Surber, J. O., ed. 2006. Hegel and Language. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Salter, M. (2010). Resources for a Dialectical Legal Semiotics?. In: Wagner, A., Broekman, J. (eds) Prospects of Legal Semiotics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9343-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9343-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9342-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9343-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)