《毕业设计_美国法律研究(300pages)》.docVIP

PAGE  PAGE 71  HYPERLINK /hibbitts/meta_int.htm Making Sense of Metaphors: Visuality, Aurality and the Reconfiguration of American Legal Discourse By Bernard Hibbitts The Abstract Building on the work of Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, David Howes and other scholars of the senses, this article examines the reconfiguration of contemporary American legal discourse represented by the apparent shift from mostly visually-evocative metaphors for law and legal practice (judicial review, bright-line distinctions, penumbras of authority, observing the law, squaring precedents, etc.) towards a greater number of aurally-evocative figures of speech (law as dialogue, conversation, polyphony, etc.).  HYPERLINK /hibbitts/meta_p1.htm Part I of the article establishes the importance of examining this reconfiguration in light of the nature of metaphor and its central role in thought and legal reasoning.  HYPERLINK /hibbitts/meta_p2.htm Part II explores the techno-cultural, sociological and phenomenological roots of American jurists traditional preference for visual legal metaphors. It argues that visualist legal language has both reflected and reinforced three fundamental circumstances: first, Americans long-standing technological and cultural prejudice in favor of visual expression and experience; second, the legal and political power of certain gender, racial, ethnic and religious groups which at least in the American context have demonstrated a particular respect for visuality; and third, the corespondence between traditional American legal values and the values supposedly supported by vision itself.  HYPERLINK /hibbitts/meta_p3.htm Part III of the article investigates the multiple factors behind the growing vogue of aural metaphors in American legal discourse, especially among critical theorists seeking liberation from orthodox outlooks and values. It attributes the new figurative aurality to three factors: first, American cultures technologically-stimulated