Marouf Hasian

The rhetorical boundaries of ‘the law’: A consideration of the rhetorical culture of legal practice and the case of the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine

In the lexicon of contemporary liberal‐democratic legal practice, to “think like a lawyer” is to have mastered the fundamental, rational principles of “the law, “ a mastery which confers a technical, professional understanding of legal practices unavailable to ordinary, untrained people. This essay invites critics to take a different approach to jurisprudence, one that looks at the ways in which laws are negotiated within the broader rhetorical culture and then transformed into legal edicts. Using a case study of the “Separate But Equal” doctrine, the authors offer a set of characteristics that demarcate the rhetorical substance of legal practices within American rhetorical culture.

Children of the stones: The Intifada and the mythic creation of the Palestinian state

This essay explores the rhetorical significance of the 1987–1993 Palestinian uprising known as the “Intifada.” Eschewing traditional notions of nationalism that focus on military conquest or diplomatic treaties, the authors argue that the “children of the stones” use mythic tales as a way of creating a collective identity, a historical tradition, and a Palestinian nation. Building on the work of other communication scholars, the essay claims that symbolic constructions were an important part of the persuasive efforts of Palestinians who sought to mobilize support for the Intifada.

Understanding the power of conspiratorial rhetoric: A case study of the protocols of the elders of Zion

This essay provides an example of how communication scholars interested in rhetorical criticism can apply the notion of fragments” in studies of influential discursive fabrications. The essay illuminates the ways in which conspiracy rhetorics like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been strategically deployed by many communities in Europe and the United States. By studying the structural relationships that exist between apparently finished texts (McGee, 1990) and their origins, cultures, and influences, we can gain a better appreciation of the ways that these anti‐Semitic documents appeal to multiple audiences. At the same time, we can better understand how some communities have created counterarguments to combat anti‐Semitism.

The aesthetics of legal rhetoric: The ambiguities of race in Adarand v. Pena and the beginning of the end of affirmative action

For scholars interested in understanding the intimate relationship between law and communication, few cases can rival the symbolic value of the Supreme Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Yet less than a half century after Brown, Americans face the possibility that in the name of “equality”; the nation is having to renegotiate the ways in which the federal government provides legal and equitable remedies to individuals in a purportedly color‐blind world. In the summer of 1995 a divided Supreme Court decided the Adarand case and in the process raised the level of judicial scrutiny that would be used in federal affirmative action cases. This article focuses on the aesthetic dimensions of judicial rhetoric and argues that the law can be viewed as a judicial performance rather than simply a formalistic set of rules. Using the Adarand decision as a case study, the essay illustrates some of the ambiguities and contradictions that occur when jurists grapple with competing visions of race, equ...

Judicial rhetoric in a fragmentary world: “Character” and storytelling in the Leo Frank Case

This essay considers how both legal and public rhetors construct our jurisprudential norms in terms of the Leo Frank trial. Specifically, it examines the ways in which “characters” are developed in legal discourse in efforts to gain our warranted assent. Unlike more traditional critiques that evaluate the formal logics of the leading cases, this essay focuses attention on the ways in which race, class, and gender are constructed in discussions of Leo Franks guilt or innocence. The essay highlights the rhetorical dimensions of direct and cross‐examination, closing statements, and press accounts of the trial.

Freedom of expression, population “checks” and obscenity in nineteenth century England: A case analysis of the Besant‐Bradlaugh trial

For many practitioners, jurists, and free speech scholars, there are few jurisprudential quagmires that can rival the abyss created by obscenity rules and regulations. This historical essay claims that by using the Besant‐Bradlaugh trial as a case study, scholars can combine legal and cultural perspectives in order to understand some of the religious, class, and gender dimensions of obscenity. The essay traces the development of the history of “obscene libel” from Curlls Case in the eighteenth century to the passage of Lord Campbells Act and the application of the Hicklin test in the Besant‐Bradlaugh trial of the nineteenth century.

The Empires Strike Back: The Sokal Controversy and The Vilification of Cultural Studies

has brought to the surface many latent feelings that have been around for decades (Rosen 1996). For example, the cultural or social sciences are relatively new fields and it has been only in the last several decades that philosophical, literary, historical, sociological and literary approaches have been taken seriously (Keller 1995, 10). As Lewenstein (1996) recently observed, Sokal’s supporters have used this episode as a way of stimulating new attacks on the &dquo;culture studies of science&dquo; and similar approaches (B 1). Sokal’s arguments have resonated with a diverse number of audiences who see themselves as victims of a dangerous trend. Some scientists share the perception that there is a causal connection between the scarcity of research dollars and the rising influence of postmodernity. Researchers in the hard sciences have for decades lamented the drastic

Communication law as a rhetorical practice: A case study of the Masses decision

This article discusses the ways in which rhetorical theory and critical practice can inform our understanding of communication law. By looking at some of the culturetypal and countercultural myths that went into the construction of Americas free speech doctrines during and after World War I, critics can gain an appreciation of the polysemic nature of law. Using the commentaries surrounding Learned Hands decision in the Masses case as a point of departure, the article illustrates how legal decisions can be viewed as discursive fragments that are a part of the broader rhetorical culture.

Remembering and Forgetting: A Postmodern Interpretation Of the Origins of the "Right of Privacy"

come at a price-they have helped create an elitist view of the law that often marginalizes the contributions that have been made by communities that have been traditionally excluded from the process of creating our jurisprudential norms.5 As Condit and Lucaites have recently reminded us in Crafting Equality, this denigration of the role of rhetoric results in the trivialization of the contributions of African-Americans, women, and other historically oppressed groups. 6