Post-Structuralism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Post-Structuralism - Essay ExampleAlong with Lvi-Strauss, three of the most prominent post-structuralists were first counted among the so-called Gang of Four of structuralism par virtuousness Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Michel Foucault. The works of Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and Julia Kristeva are also counted as prominent examples of post-structuralism.Legal theory is necessarily involved with question of language, meaning and interpretation. Language has increasingly become a major object of inquiry within divers range of legal theory. This is partly due to the work of J.L. Austin and his speech language theory, between 1962 and 1973. 2At that time discussions were very passionate, then, after a less popular period, it re-finds a great interest at the beginning of the eighties. In France, it has penetrated philosophy thanks to the works of Ducrot and Ricoeur. The first publication on this subject dates from 1974. In Europe the situation is quite similar with one rem arkable exception in 1962 with the Swedish K. Olivecrona and the arrest G.H. von Wright3. But in 1972, Alf Ross published an article with a signification title The Rise and Fall of the Doctrine of Per formatives , in one hand he jilted following Austins first distinction between per formatives and constatives, or more generally, between saying something and doing something, but on the other hand, he didnt accept the second var. of the theory, with the distinction between the elocutionary, illocutionary, and perlocucionnary act. Alf Ross distinguished only two main types of speech act indicative and directive, in his book Directives and Norms. Each of these acts had one or several(prenominal) norms behind to determine its normative consequences. These norms were called norms of competence. Contribution to the question of the legal language specificity a frontal attack against basis of the pure theory of law. The theorical fence of the language theory attraction exercised on juris ts is that in the sixties legal theoricians and philosophers went to a saturation point caused by kelsenien theory. Thus per formative theory allowed a frontal attack against the bases of pure theory by suppressing grnd norm hypothesis. In admitting existence of per formative speech acts, which didnt ask existence of superior norms, we could pock what Mc Cormick called the imperativist fallacy. But it is also important to stress that speech act theory allowed to oppose oneself to the epistemological rupture, inherited from Hume and Kant applied in our area by Kelsen between Sein and Sollen, Is and Ought. Some jurists had this deep intuition that this radical scission which closed them in the swollen world, the one of signification of will act, cut them from reality, and dismantle legal reasoning from perception foundations signing by its irrationalism. Though, doctrine of per formatives by its theory of presuppositions reinaugurates the link between speech act and its factual pre suppositions. It is the reason why the speech act theory has