FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W333545812> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W333545812 endingPage "197" @default.
• W333545812 startingPage "184" @default.
• W333545812 abstract "For scholars who are interested in debating importance of in field of communication (Charland, 1991; Cloud, 1994; 1998; Greene, 1998; McGee, 1990; McKerrow, 1989; Ono and Sloop, 1992, Owen & Ehrenhaus, 1993; Sandmann, 1994), one of most important issues that has to be raised is question of interrelationship between material and rhetorical realities. This is an especially salient issue for legal communication scholars because most of research in this sub-field has focused on analyses of major judicial opinions. From a critical rhetorical perspective, this emphasis on elite texts can be problematic because it obfuscates role that vernacular discourse (Ono and Sloop, 1992) plays in creation of our rules of Moreover, we need to reconsider question of how much social change can take place when texts are altered, but social and material conditions remain basically same. For example, a legal critic might use her discussion of materiality to look for t he ways in which decisions like Brown v. Board (1954) have actually influenced our notions of separate but equal, or changed living conditions of people of color in our society. As Wood & Cox (1993) remind us, we all live a world of embodied lives, constrained, informed and framed by material circumstances such as living and working environments, food, and medical care--or lacks thereof (p. 278). In this essay, I employ a critical legal framework that allows one to look at that exists between legal symbolic universes and material realities of individuals and communities who have to negotiate their way through particular judicial situations. Moreover, I hope to show that use of jurisprudential terms that look emancipatory does not always mean that actual freedom or liberty exists in lives of everyday citizens. The symbolic world is more than simply play and fabrication, and nowhere is this more obvious than in realm of legal argumentation, where romantic impulses of jurisprudence cannot hide ways people gain and suffer (Lewis, 1994). As Makau and Lawrence (1994) noted in a previous essay in this journal, [S]tudies of judicial reasoning show that institutions have members who often use inventional strategies that both reflect and help create cultural norms ... (p. 191). In order to understand just how some of these judicial negotiations take place, I have divided this essay into four major sections. In first segment, I discuss between law, materiality and critical rhetoric, keying on possible alterations in way we think about ideographs (McGee, 1980) and In second part of manuscript, I provide a brief genealogy of term Necessity, including some of its political usages in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The third portion of essay then shows how some key classical liberal ideographs were deployed in Malthus-Godwin Poor Law debates. Finally, in last section of essay, I provide a brief assessment of potentialities of adopting critical legal perspectives. LAW, MATERIALITY, AND CRITICAL RHETORIC In most orthodox legal theorizing, jurisprudence is considered to be a field of scholastic inquiry, where best theorists are able to put aside their subjective notions of ideology in their search for true rules, principles, and standards of law. Klinger (1994) averred that at one time the theory of and theory of rhetoric had an almost synchronous relationship, but today that relationship is substantially ignored, and overtly denied (p. 236). Within this traditional perspective, legal argumentation may be influenced by external social disputation, but rule of law is only altered by decision makers who can avoid being influenced by politics or ideology. For example, Rosen (1999) has recently observed that there are those who believe that both conservatives and liberals need to follow Founder's original understanding of Constitution (p. …" @default.
• W333545812 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W333545812 creator A5013846469 @default.
• W333545812 date "2001-03-01" @default.
• W333545812 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W333545812 title "Legal Argumentation in the Godwin-Malthus Debates" @default.
• W333545812 cites W127228093 @default.
• W333545812 cites W1970390902 @default.
• W333545812 cites W1978498046 @default.
• W333545812 cites W1979185071 @default.
• W333545812 cites W1981348430 @default.
• W333545812 cites W1991522609 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2012016771 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2012414252 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2014083076 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2023198223 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2033004373 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2063834628 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2073233644 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2083265255 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2122423109 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2318376064 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2325001887 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2329947864 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2333253076 @default.
• W333545812 cites W2515901412 @default.
• W333545812 cites W4230914407 @default.
• W333545812 cites W423791822 @default.
• W333545812 cites W4239397795 @default.
• W333545812 cites W4243291186 @default.
• W333545812 cites W4255738592 @default.
• W333545812 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951669" @default.
• W333545812 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W333545812 type Work @default.
• W333545812 sameAs 333545812 @default.
• W333545812 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W333545812 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W333545812 hasAuthorship W333545812A5013846469 @default.
• W333545812 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W333545812 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W333545812 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W333545812 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W333545812 hasConcept C65059942 @default.
• W333545812 hasConceptScore W333545812C111472728 @default.
• W333545812 hasConceptScore W333545812C138885662 @default.
• W333545812 hasConceptScore W333545812C144024400 @default.
• W333545812 hasConceptScore W333545812C17744445 @default.
• W333545812 hasConceptScore W333545812C65059942 @default.
• W333545812 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W333545812 hasLocation W3335458121 @default.
• W333545812 hasOpenAccess W333545812 @default.
• W333545812 hasPrimaryLocation W3335458121 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W1493131192 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W1544285175 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W1581876134 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W2083007055 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W2810654249 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W4321509371 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W60899261 @default.
• W333545812 hasRelatedWork W74112647 @default.
• W333545812 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W333545812 isParatext "false" @default.
• W333545812 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W333545812 magId "333545812" @default.
• W333545812 workType "article" @default.