Technical Legality: Law, Technology and Science Fiction
01 Jan 2010-
TL;DR: In this article, the intersections of law and technology, referred to here as technical legality, are explored through taking science fiction seriously, and it is argued that reflection on technical legality reveals the mythic of modernity.
Abstract: This thesis concerns the intersections of law and technology, referred to here as
‘technical legality’. It argues that reflection on technical legality reveals the
mythic of modernity. The starting point for the argument is that the orthodox
framing of technology by law – the ‘law and technology enterprise’ – does not
comprehend its own speculative jurisdiction – that is, it fails to realise its oracle
orientation towards imagining the future. In this science fiction as the modern
West’s mythform, as the repository for projections of technological futures, is
recognised as both the law and technology enterprise’s wellspring and cipher.
What is offered in this thesis is a more thorough exploration of technical
legality through taking science fiction seriously. This seriousness results in two
implications for the understanding of technical legality. The first implication is
that the anxieties and fantasies that animate the calling forth of law by technology
become clearer. Science fiction operates as a window into the cultural milieu that
frames law-making moments. In locating law-making events – specifically the
making of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and the Motor Car
Act 1909 (Vic) – with the clone ‘canon’ in science fiction (specifically Star Trek:
Nemesis (2002)) and H.G. Wells’ scientific romances, what is offered is a much
richer understanding of how the cultural framing of technology becomes law than
that provided by the ‘pragmatic’ positivism of the law and technology enterprise.
The second implication arises from the excess that appears at the margins
of the richer analyses. Exploring technical legality through science fiction does
not remain within the epistemological frame. Each of the analyses gestures
towards something essential about technical legality. The law and technology
enterprise is grounded on the modern myth, which is also the myth of modernity – Frankenstein. It tells a story of monstrous technology, vulnerable humanity and
saving law. The analyses of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and
the Motor Car Act 1909 (Vic) show that this narrative is terrorised, that the saving
law turns out to be the monster in disguise; that the law called forth by technology
is in itself technological. In extended readings of two critically acclaimed science
fictions, Frank Herbert’s Dune cycle (1965–83) and the recent television series
Battlestar Galactica (2003–10), the essential commitments of technological law
are exposed. Dune as technical legality makes clear that technological law is truly
monstrous, for behind its positivism and sovereignty its essence is with the
alchemy of death and time. Battlestar Galactica as technical legality reduces
further the alchemical properties of technical law. Battlestar Galactica moves the
metaphysical highlight to the essence of technology and very nearly ends with
Heidegger’s demise of Being in ‘Enframing’: monstrous technology and
monstrous law reveal a humanity that cannot be saved. However, at the very
moment of this fall, Battlestar Galactica collapses the metaphysical frame,
affirming technological Being-in-the-world over empty ordering, life over death.
This free responsibility to becoming that emerges from Battlestar
Galactica reunites technical legality with the mythic of modernity. The modern
denial of myth, which allowed Frankenstein to narrate technical legality, has been
challenged. Free responsibility to becoming means a confidence with myths; it clears the way for the telling of new stories about law and technology.
Citations
More filters
2,927 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a judge in some representative American jurisdiction is assumed to accept the main uncontroversial constitutive and regulative rules of the law in his jurisdiction and to follow earlier decisions of their court or higher courts whose rationale, as l
Abstract: 1.. HARD CASES 5. Legal Rights A. Legislation . . . We might therefore do well to consider how a philosophical judge might develop, in appropriate cases, theories of what legislative purpose and legal principles require. We shall find that he would construct these theories in the same manner as a philosophical referee would construct the character of a game. I have invented, for this purpose, a lawyer of superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen, whom I shall call Hercules. I suppose that Hercules is a judge in some representative American jurisdiction. I assume that he accepts the main uncontroversial constitutive and regulative rules of the law in his jurisdiction. He accepts, that is, that statutes have the general power to create and extinguish legal rights, and that judges have the general duty to follow earlier decisions of their court or higher courts whose rationale, as l
2,050 citations
599 citations
01 Apr 2001
371 citations
369 citations
References
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, with the prior written consent from the Librarian, New South Wales Parliamentary Library.
Abstract: Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, with the prior written consent from the Librarian, New South Wales Parliamentary Library, other than by Members of the New South Wales Parliament in the course of their official duties.
6 citations
Book Chapter•
01 Jan 2008
6 citations
01 Feb 1982
TL;DR: Is the family an essentially consensual unit wherein a man and a woman who are married to each other agree to have and raise children, to regard themselves and the children as a family, and to give each other the comforts of material and emotional support, regardless of any genetic nexus?
Abstract: Is the family primarily a biologic unit composed of a fertile male, a fertile female and children who are genetically theirs, or is the family an essentially consensual unit wherein a man and a woman who are married to each other agree to have and raise children, to regard themselves and the children as a family, and to give each other the comforts of material and emotional support, regardless of any genetic nexus?
6 citations
TL;DR: Kapell and Lawrence as mentioned in this paper present a collection of seventeen essays examining both eras, but lean heavily on the most recent additions to Lucas's "sacred canon," bringing traditional analytical modes up to date.
Abstract: Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise: Fans, Merchandise, & Critics Matthew Wilhelm Kapell and John Shelton Lawrence, Editors. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. Volume 14 in the Popular Culture & Everyday Life Series. With a new scholarly history of ''writer-director-producer'' George Lucas's cinematic space empire long overdue, Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise: Fans, Merchandise, & Critics promises at last to get to the bottom of the most profitable American storytelling business of the last thirty years. On its face, little about the Star Wars realm is familiar, but the film, television, and print works in its "expanded universe" have proven remarkably successful at stroking the egos of Earthlings, for whom Lucas's galaxy "far, far away," stewarded by a benevolent sect of monastic "Jedi Knights," often seems preferable to our own. The title of this new, irresistible anthology, though, suggests slightly more business history than editors Matthew Kapell and John Lawrence are prepared to provide; short, autobiographical chapters on toy merchandising punctuate extended literary criticism of the six Star Wars films and their popular reception. This reception, of course, has been mammoth. Steeped in the mythic archetypes of Joseph Campbell and borrowing images from various popular entertainments, the original Star Wars film trilogy of 1977-1983 enflamed imaginations with stories of individual empowerment, "redemptive violence," and what (according to Homer Simpson) really brings Americans into movie theaters: revenge fantasies. (The second "prequel" trilogy of 1999-2005 made piles of cash but attracted fewer converts.) This collection of seventeen essays examines both eras, but leans heavily on the most recent additions to Lucas's "sacred canon," bringing traditional analytical modes up to date. A collective fantasy none treat as real but many respect, the six Star Wars films are amenable to the kind of laborious textual analysis customarily reserved for religious texts. The first trilogy's story of a bored teenager goaded into political rebellion by a telepathic space hippie struck multiple chords in 1970s America; a less inspiring story of an interstellar democracy's descent into despotism enriched (or muddied) the later films. Of course, the Devil can cite Scripture to suit his own purposes, and so rich is the Star Wars galaxy in familiar mythologies, evocative visuals, and bombastic poetry that even the most improbable interpretations ring at least partly true. As with any creed, this new anthology reminds the reader, acolytes have selectively reinterpreted Star Wars to suit their own personal beliefs. …
6 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: This column analyses recent accounts of democratic deliberative processes, authoritative regulation and the Lockhart Committee's own account, finding that regulation turns out to be largely an appeasement strategy, directed towards the losers of the contest, in this case the opponents of therapeutic cloning and hESC research.
Abstract: Bioethical issues pose challenges for pluralist, democratic societies due to the need to arbitrate between incompatible views over fundamental beliefs. The legitimacy of public policy is increasingly seen to depend on taking public consultation seriously, and subsequently regulating contested activities such as therapeutic cloning and hESC research. In December 2006, the Australian Federal Parliament lifted the ban on therapeutic cloning, following recommendations of the Legislation Review Committee (Lockhart Committee), which recently reported on its approach and methods in this journal. This column analyses recent accounts of democratic deliberative processes, authoritative regulation and the committee's own account. Authoritative regulation turns out to be largely an appeasement strategy, directed towards the losers of the contest, in this case the opponents of therapeutic cloning and hESC research. This is because regulation fails to minimise harm as perceived by the losers, and fails to meaningfully limit what it is the winners wish to do. Moreover, regulation adds an unnecessary layer of red tape to the work of the winners. Committees of inquiry in bioethical matters should be more open about their processes and their normative recommendations, at the risk of eroding trust in parts of their processes.
6 citations