This review considers how another outdated postcolonial law has been struck down in a former British colony amidst campaigns, global change and action by an appellate court. This follows from the historic 2018 Supreme Court ruling from Trinidad and Tobago in the Jason Jones judgement, in which it was decided that existing laws prohibiting consensual adult intercourse and sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults were unconstitutional. This review adds to that decision to highlight further social and sociolegal change in the region which has direct implications for future challenges to postcolonial laws which are ‘sitting on the books’. My review looks at recent case law which has overturned Guyana’s Victorian-era cross-dressing prohibition, as it relates to 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act of Guyana.
{"title":"Striking Down Victorian-Era Cross-Dressing Law in Public Ban","authors":"Rajiv Jebodh","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020213","url":null,"abstract":"This review considers how another outdated postcolonial law has\u0000been struck down in a former British colony amidst campaigns, global\u0000change and action by an appellate court. This follows from the historic\u00002018 Supreme Court ruling from Trinidad and Tobago in the Jason Jones\u0000judgement, in which it was decided that existing laws prohibiting consensual\u0000adult intercourse and sexual acts between consenting same-sex\u0000adults were unconstitutional. This review adds to that decision to\u0000highlight further social and sociolegal change in the region which has\u0000direct implications for future challenges to postcolonial laws which\u0000are ‘sitting on the books’. My review looks at recent case law which\u0000has overturned Guyana’s Victorian-era cross-dressing prohibition, as\u0000it relates to 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act\u0000of Guyana.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88427227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At a time of ‘interdisciplinary’ scholarly debate and ‘transdisciplinary’ pedagogy, some disciplines appear more siloed and tone deaf to each other than ever before. This article will consider why law and anthropology as disciplines offer almost no impact upon each other’s educational or research agendas.
{"title":"Does Anthropology Matter to Law?","authors":"Jeremy J. Kingsley, Kari G. Telle","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020205","url":null,"abstract":"At a time of ‘interdisciplinary’ scholarly debate and ‘transdisciplinary’\u0000pedagogy, some disciplines appear more siloed and tone deaf to each\u0000other than ever before. This article will consider why law and anthropology\u0000as disciplines offer almost no impact upon each other’s educational\u0000or research agendas.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72526717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article demonstrates how an integral element of the fabric of governance on the eastern Indonesian island of Lombok, and many other parts of the Indonesian archipelago, are non-state local security arrangements, such as night watches and militias. These groups play a significant role in the local infrastructure of security and law enforcement. Consequently, this article challenges a common assumption by legal scholars, and many other observers of Indonesia, that state-based institutions such as the police are the exclusive, and only legitimate, mode of law enforcement in Indonesia. Through an ethnographic engagement with the idea of law enforcement on Lombok, I seek to broaden these assumptions about legitimate modes of statecraft. These non-state entities fill a void in the Indonesian law enforcement architecture that the state is unable or unwilling to fulfil (or potentially finds it more practical to delegate to local non-state institutions).
{"title":"Militias as Law Enforcement in Eastern Indonesia?","authors":"Jeremy J. Kingsley","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020203","url":null,"abstract":"This article demonstrates how an integral element of the fabric\u0000of governance on the eastern Indonesian island of Lombok, and many\u0000other parts of the Indonesian archipelago, are non-state local security\u0000arrangements, such as night watches and militias. These groups play a\u0000significant role in the local infrastructure of security and law enforcement.\u0000Consequently, this article challenges a common assumption by\u0000legal scholars, and many other observers of Indonesia, that state-based\u0000institutions such as the police are the exclusive, and only legitimate, mode\u0000of law enforcement in Indonesia. Through an ethnographic engagement\u0000with the idea of law enforcement on Lombok, I seek to broaden these\u0000assumptions about legitimate modes of statecraft. These non-state entities\u0000fill a void in the Indonesian law enforcement architecture that the state\u0000is unable or unwilling to fulfil (or potentially finds it more practical to\u0000delegate to local non-state institutions).","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85615369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ethnographic studies of legal materiality and the bureaucratic mundanities of law often juxtapose their richly empirical approach to the material assemblages of law with the ‘grand talk’ and conceptual abstractions of law. This article considers the intersection of formal legal discourse and the mundanity of bureaucratic practice through an examination of two judicial opinions concerning the legal significance of the Bates number, a sequential digit inscribed onto documents produced in US pretrial discovery. Through this analysis, the article both illustrates the Bates stamp’s role in the material constitution of law, and offers a reminder that the stories law tells about its own materiality can offer insights into, and enact and extend, the sociolegal agency of bureaucratic tools.
{"title":"On the Material Semiotics of the Bates Stamp","authors":"A. L. Kaljund","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020204","url":null,"abstract":"Ethnographic studies of legal materiality and the bureaucratic\u0000mundanities of law often juxtapose their richly empirical approach to\u0000the material assemblages of law with the ‘grand talk’ and conceptual\u0000abstractions of law. This article considers the intersection of formal legal\u0000discourse and the mundanity of bureaucratic practice through an examination\u0000of two judicial opinions concerning the legal significance of the\u0000Bates number, a sequential digit inscribed onto documents produced in\u0000US pretrial discovery. Through this analysis, the article both illustrates the\u0000Bates stamp’s role in the material constitution of law, and offers a reminder\u0000that the stories law tells about its own materiality can offer insights into,\u0000and enact and extend, the sociolegal agency of bureaucratic tools.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75359934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As a researcher working within the field of collaborative or ‘engaged’ legal and political anthropology in Latin America, law does very much shape my research agenda and that of most of my colleagues. I would also contend that anthropology does impact law throughout the region, although to a much lesser extent. This is most evident in the legalisation, judicialisation and juridification of indigenous peoples’ collective rights to autonomy and territory in recent decades. Yet, the influence of anthropology on legal adjudication in the region is not only limited to issues pertaining to indigenous peoples: engaged applied ethnographic research is playing an increasingly important role in revealing to legal practitioners and courts the effects of human rights violations in specific contexts, and victims’ perceptions of the continuums of violence to which they are subjected.
{"title":"Anthropology and Law in Latin America","authors":"R. Sieder","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020207","url":null,"abstract":"As a researcher working within the field of collaborative or ‘engaged’\u0000legal and political anthropology in Latin America, law does very much\u0000shape my research agenda and that of most of my colleagues. I would\u0000also contend that anthropology does impact law throughout the region,\u0000although to a much lesser extent. This is most evident in the legalisation,\u0000judicialisation and juridification of indigenous peoples’ collective\u0000rights to autonomy and territory in recent decades. Yet, the influence of\u0000anthropology on legal adjudication in the region is not only limited to\u0000issues pertaining to indigenous peoples: engaged applied ethnographic\u0000research is playing an increasingly important role in revealing to legal\u0000practitioners and courts the effects of human rights violations in specific\u0000contexts, and victims’ perceptions of the continuums of violence\u0000to which they are subjected.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"185 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80327674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Goldstein, D. M. (2012), Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian City (Durham: Duke University Press), 344 pp., 9 photographs, 1 map, ISBN: 978-0-8223-5311-9 (paperback).Daniel M. Goldstein’s Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian City (2012) is a thickly described and richly detailed ethnography of uncertainty in the barrios of Cochabamba, Bolivia. It holds important insights for legal anthropology, particularly where the sub-discipline intersects with the anthropology of the state and the anthropology of human rights. The ethnographic detail is exemplary, with the work here having serious implications for anthropological theory and opening up several avenues for further investigation. That it opens new debates more than it offers cohesive answers – as is, admittedly, possibly fitting for the ‘uncertain anthropology’ that Goldstein advocates – both is the prime strength of the work and can be offered as a gentle critique. I consider this to be because of the ambitious breadth of the work to the extent that directions that were implied were ultimately left somewhat unexplored. This review article is an attempt to consider the prime contributions of Outlawed and to tentatively map some of these implied connections.
Goldstein, D. M.(2012)，《非法:玻利维亚城市的安全与权利之间》(杜伦:杜克大学出版社)，344页，9张照片，1幅地图，ISBN: 978-0-8223-5311-9(平装本)。丹尼尔·m·戈尔茨坦的《非法:玻利维亚城市的安全与权利之间》(2012)对玻利维亚科恰班巴地区的不确定性进行了详尽的描述和详细的民族志。它对法律人类学有着重要的见解，特别是在这个分支学科与国家人类学和人权人类学交叉的地方。人种学的细节是典型的，这里的工作对人类学理论有严重的影响，并为进一步的调查开辟了几个途径。它开启了新的争论，而不是提供了有凝聚力的答案——不可否认，这可能符合戈尔茨坦所倡导的“不确定的人类学”——这既是本书的主要力量，也是一种温和的批评。我认为这是因为作品的广度太大，以至于隐含的方向最终都没有被探索。这篇评论文章试图考虑《被取缔》的主要贡献，并试探性地描绘出其中一些隐含的联系。
{"title":"Known Unknowns","authors":"Benjamin O. L. Bowles","doi":"10.3167/jla.2018.020212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2018.020212","url":null,"abstract":"Goldstein, D. M. (2012), Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian\u0000City (Durham: Duke University Press), 344 pp., 9 photographs, 1 map,\u0000ISBN: 978-0-8223-5311-9 (paperback).Daniel M. Goldstein’s Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian\u0000City (2012) is a thickly described and richly detailed ethnography of\u0000uncertainty in the barrios of Cochabamba, Bolivia. It holds important\u0000insights for legal anthropology, particularly where the sub-discipline\u0000intersects with the anthropology of the state and the anthropology of\u0000human rights. The ethnographic detail is exemplary, with the work here\u0000having serious implications for anthropological theory and opening up\u0000several avenues for further investigation. That it opens new debates more\u0000than it offers cohesive answers – as is, admittedly, possibly fitting for the\u0000‘uncertain anthropology’ that Goldstein advocates – both is the prime\u0000strength of the work and can be offered as a gentle critique. I consider\u0000this to be because of the ambitious breadth of the work to the extent that\u0000directions that were implied were ultimately left somewhat unexplored.\u0000This review article is an attempt to consider the prime contributions of\u0000Outlawed and to tentatively map some of these implied connections.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89940829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The forum in this issue, reflecting on the problematics of the relationship between anthropology and law, as a timely focus is also indicative of how these debates revolve around disciplinary and cross-disciplinary issues. That such co-presence of anthropology and law, incorporating research in informal and formal settings, various kinds of collaboration and, in some instances, sceptical views about its value, continues to merit close attention also signals how views of differences animate a well-populated and extended field. The concerns are often articulated around an epistemic divide between anthropology and law, and allow for questioning both within and across disciplinary areas, even as much is made of the richness of an ethnographic approach to law alongside other methods and analyses, as indicated. Lawrence Rosen, in his response to the commentators in the forum, notes ‘our special area of interest is actually a great doorway into many key issues for both disciplines’, as he identifies the spaces where it is incumbent for anthropologists to act to address these cross-disciplinary challenges.
{"title":"Extended Sites of Action","authors":"Narmala Halstead","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020201","url":null,"abstract":"The forum in this issue, reflecting on the problematics of the relationship\u0000between anthropology and law, as a timely focus is also indicative\u0000of how these debates revolve around disciplinary and cross-disciplinary\u0000issues. That such co-presence of anthropology and law, incorporating\u0000research in informal and formal settings, various kinds of collaboration\u0000and, in some instances, sceptical views about its value, continues\u0000to merit close attention also signals how views of differences animate\u0000a well-populated and extended field. The concerns are often articulated\u0000around an epistemic divide between anthropology and law, and\u0000allow for questioning both within and across disciplinary areas, even\u0000as much is made of the richness of an ethnographic approach to law\u0000alongside other methods and analyses, as indicated. Lawrence Rosen,\u0000in his response to the commentators in the forum, notes ‘our special\u0000area of interest is actually a great doorway into many key issues for\u0000both disciplines’, as he identifies the spaces where it is incumbent for\u0000anthropologists to act to address these cross-disciplinary challenges.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89892644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jeremy Kingsley and Kari Telle’s provocation article raises several important issues. The thrust of their argument as I understand it is that anthropology does not matter much to the field of law in many parts of the world. They are quick to point out, however, that this is a relative point and that their comparative frame takes as its point of departure the much greater degree of intellectual engagement that obtains between schools of medicine and public health on the one hand and the field of anthropology on the other. I concur with their overall argument but will phrase it in slightly different terms: despite the robust collaborations that sometimes involve legal scholars and anthropologists (e.g. in legal clinics at New York University and elsewhere; see Merry, this issue), faculty in law schools are much less likely to embrace the work of anthropologists than are their colleagues who specialise in medicine and public health. In this brief comment, I offer tentative hypotheses as to why this situation exists in the North American context. I approach the relevant issues from a historical perspective, focusing on hierarchies of legitimacy and prestige, shifts in both academia and the job market for anthropologists, and the rise of neoliberal doctrines in academia and beyond.
Jeremy Kingsley和Kari Telle的挑衅文章提出了几个重要的问题。据我所知，他们的论点的主旨是，在世界上的许多地方，人类学对法律领域并不重要。然而，他们很快指出，这是一个相对的点，他们的比较框架是以医学和公共卫生学院与人类学领域之间更大程度的智力接触为出发点的。我同意他们的总体观点，但会用略微不同的术语来表达:尽管有时会有法律学者和人类学家(例如在纽约大学和其他地方的法律诊所)参与强有力的合作;(参见《本刊》)，法学院的教员比他们那些专攻医学和公共卫生的同事更不可能接受人类学家的工作。在这篇简短的评论中，我对为什么这种情况存在于北美的背景下提出了初步的假设。我从历史的角度来处理相关问题，重点关注合法性和声望的等级制度，学术界和人类学家就业市场的变化，以及学术界内外新自由主义教义的兴起。
{"title":"Why Anthropology Doesn’t Matter Much to Law","authors":"M. Peletz","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020209","url":null,"abstract":"Jeremy Kingsley and Kari Telle’s provocation article raises several\u0000important issues. The thrust of their argument as I understand it is that\u0000anthropology does not matter much to the field of law in many parts\u0000of the world. They are quick to point out, however, that this is a relative\u0000point and that their comparative frame takes as its point of departure\u0000the much greater degree of intellectual engagement that obtains\u0000between schools of medicine and public health on the one hand and the\u0000field of anthropology on the other. I concur with their overall argument\u0000but will phrase it in slightly different terms: despite the robust collaborations\u0000that sometimes involve legal scholars and anthropologists (e.g.\u0000in legal clinics at New York University and elsewhere; see Merry, this\u0000issue), faculty in law schools are much less likely to embrace the work\u0000of anthropologists than are their colleagues who specialise in medicine\u0000and public health. In this brief comment, I offer tentative hypotheses as\u0000to why this situation exists in the North American context. I approach\u0000the relevant issues from a historical perspective, focusing on hierarchies\u0000of legitimacy and prestige, shifts in both academia and the job market\u0000for anthropologists, and the rise of neoliberal doctrines in academia\u0000and beyond.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86801520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article concerns the relationship between motorcycle taxi drivers in Kigali and the legal frameworks that govern their business. While motorcyclists commonly subvert legal processes, or avoid complying with regulations, this should not be understood in terms of their ‘resistance’ to legal orders. To do so would imply that laws are imposed on their social lives from without; however, I show how illegalities help to structure social life by creating ‘mistakes’ that are the basis of social relations. I argue that motorcyclists do not confront legal orders in the idiom of resistance, but neither are they determined or shaped directly by legality. Rather, partially formed by breaches of rules, law is integral to their lives, shaping them indirectly or tangentially, according to the relationships and connections ‘mistakes’ with respect to law enable. Law regulates life not by encoding its rules, but by allowing certain kinds of relationships to form.
{"title":"Life at a Tangent to Law","authors":"W. Rollason","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020103","url":null,"abstract":"This article concerns the relationship between motorcycle taxi drivers in Kigali and the legal frameworks that govern their business. While motorcyclists commonly subvert legal processes, or avoid complying with regulations, this should not be understood in terms of their ‘resistance’ to legal orders. To do so would imply that laws are imposed on their social lives from without; however, I show how illegalities help to structure social life by creating ‘mistakes’ that are the basis of social relations. I argue that motorcyclists do not confront legal orders in the idiom of resistance, but neither are they determined or shaped directly by legality. Rather, partially formed by breaches of rules, law is integral to their lives, shaping them indirectly or tangentially, according to the relationships and connections ‘mistakes’ with respect to law enable. Law regulates life not by encoding its rules, but by allowing certain kinds of relationships to form.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75313666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is a special responsibility to incur individual readings of one’s work from colleagues. I hope the following line of thought does them justice.Nay Rather, an essay by Anne Carson (a translator and poet as well as a classical scholar), begins with an account of the trial of Joan of Arc. Caught in battle against the English and their Burgundian allies on 23 May 1430, a year after she had assisted a French army in lifting the English siege of Orleans, Joan of Arc was put on trial for heresy. The trial lasted from January to May 1431, and Joan was burnt at the stake on 30 May, aged nineteen. In recounting this history, Carson explains that she is particularly interested in the way in which, as she puts it, Joan was ‘distant’ from her own words. Carson (2014: 8) elaborates. Joan of Arc’s guidance, military and moral came from a source that she called ‘voices’. She began to hear them at the age of twelve, and they commanded her style of dress, her beliefs and the revolutionary politics of her action. At her trial, her English ecclesiastical prosecutors wanted to know her voices, for Joan to name and describe them in ways in which they might understand: in terms of recognised religious imagery and emotions, and in a conventional narrative that might then be subjected to mechanisms of theological proof.
{"title":"Being Inside and Outside Social Relations","authors":"N. Rapport","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020110","url":null,"abstract":"It is a special responsibility to incur individual readings of one’s work from colleagues. I hope the following line of thought does them justice.Nay Rather, an essay by Anne Carson (a translator and poet as well as a classical scholar), begins with an account of the trial of Joan of Arc. Caught in battle against the English and their Burgundian allies on 23 May 1430, a year after she had assisted a French army in lifting the English siege of Orleans, Joan of Arc was put on trial for heresy. The trial lasted from January to May 1431, and Joan was burnt at the stake on 30 May, aged nineteen. In recounting this history, Carson explains that she is particularly interested in the way in which, as she puts it, Joan was ‘distant’ from her own words. Carson (2014: 8) elaborates. Joan of Arc’s guidance, military and moral came from a source that she called ‘voices’. She began to hear them at the age of twelve, and they commanded her style of dress, her beliefs and the revolutionary politics of her action. At her trial, her English ecclesiastical prosecutors wanted to know her voices, for Joan to name and describe them in ways in which they might understand: in terms of recognised religious imagery and emotions, and in a conventional narrative that might then\u0000be subjected to mechanisms of theological proof.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/JLA.2018.020110","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72401534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：