I posted some of this in another forum, but I thought it could be mentioned here given the (very) brief discussion we had here about post-modern thought. Literary theory is actually extremely important when it comes to making and enforcing laws. As I will explain below, people really should cringe whenever they hear the term "constructivist judges" thrown around. The literary theory that those same judges base their opinions on has actually been proven to be more problematic than other strategies no less than four times by literary critics worldwide.<br><br>I posted this in response to a thread about the recent ruling by a judge that evolution warning stickers on textbooks were unconstitutional. (thread here)<br><br>This is what I wrote:<br>This is an interesting case because the very language of the ruling shows the biggest differences between the interpretive strategies used by mainstream and so-called constructivist judges. <br><br>In this case, the mainstream judge would rule as this judge did. Since the word "theory" is contextually used with a negative connotative meaning ("It's just a theory and that's it."), it is interpreted as conveying a religious viewpoint, which is not allowed under the First Amendment. <br><br>If a constructivist judge were applying their interpretive strategy, they would rule that since the word "theory" is correct given the denotive meaning fits the situation, it is religiously neutral, even though it suggests otherwise. <br><br>The more you get into literary interpretation, the more you find that the so-called constructivists or formalists use approaches that are much more malleable to meaning than the more modern (and I would argue more disciplined) approaches.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
-- Cee Bee Double-U