and encouraged as a part of human nature, while others need to be controlled because they are evolutionary rerrmants of another time.l85 As Professor Wilson has noted, our innate characteristics “have to be played somewhat like a musical instrument, with some parts stressed to produce results of great beauty and pleasure (by terms of the human limbic system) and other parts sublimated or averted.”'86
Cognitive Science X SC of TextsCognitive science disproves social constructions of textFruehwald, PHD + Professor of legal writing,2006 (Scott, “The Emperor Has No Clothes: Postmodern Legal Thought and Cognitive Science”, Georgia State University Law Review, Issue 2, volume 3, Article 6, pg. 402-403) //AKIf language is not socially constructed, then texts are not social constructions. This is vitally important forlaw because cases, statutes, and administrative rules are texts. If texts are social constructions, as postmodernists argue, then a reader is free to interpret them in any way that he or she might wish; thereare no constraints on textual interpretation.This is also supported by the postmodern concept that the self is purely a social construct. Ifthere is no self behind the text, then it is not important what the writerintended, and the reader can freely interpret that text.However, if the writer is controlled by innate thought processes as is supported by cognitive science, then the reader is not free to make just any interpretation of the text. The reader must interpret the text with an awareness of those thought processes. In other words, the reader cannot ignore conventions of language and grammar that make the text intelligible; there is a pre-existing “grid” for textual interpretation.152 Furthermore, since thereis a self behind the text, the writer becomes more important than the reader. The reader cannot ignore what the writer expressed in the text just because the reader would prefer a different interpretation. To go further, “the text [under this theory] is autonomous; the text is the only proper ‘thing’ to be interpreted.”‘53 This is because “signs can only be used if they are separable from intent.”154 Because words are signs that are separable from intent, the reader must decipher those symbols, rather than trying to reconstruct the writer’s intent.155In other words, the writer’s intention can only be found by looking at the text, to discover the text’s meaning.For example, a judge should use textualism in interpreting a statute, instead of trying to go behind the text to discern the legislature’s intention.'56 Theabove insights limit CLS’s critique concerning textual indeterminacy.Every interpretation is not possible; rather, the choices are limited by the conventions of language established by our innate thought processes. If judges are limited to discovering the meaning in the text of a statute, then their choices are limited by the rules of language. If
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 150 pages?