"Instead of trying to write the perfect rule book we hire intelligent people to interpret the situation and apply common sense - in most cases."
Bad of me, but I stole the above quote from somebody's blog. I don't know precisely what the blog was about--it was something to do with sports or fairness in the workplace, I believe. Yet, it all seems to boil down to exactly the point made in the quote when understanding situations where a sense of this distinction is needed.
One of my favorite books and stage productions has always been "Les Miserables," the story of Jean Valjean and his road to redemption during the French Revolution by the author Victor Hugo. It fascinates me because, in essence, it is an examination of the nature of truth and law as applied to humanity and society as a whole. Because when it comes down to it, good judgment and critical analysis are very sociological skills...we cannot pretend to remove ourselves from the equation.
The character of Valjean may indeed be taken as the symbol of universal "natural" man, struggling in an amoral world beset with poverty, disease, disillusion, and political upheaval. The scope is indeed grand, but the story is universal and known to us all.
Valjean's foil is a character called Javert, a guard at the prison where Valjean was incarcerated, and a police inspector later on in the novel when Valjean has reclaimed his life helped by the grace of others who led him toward a just path (whether it is in actuality a Christian idea or not, the concept of this grace is inherent in the story).
Javert plagues Valjean; hunts him. The film and the book versions differ, but the plot is the same in that Valjean's initial crime was a petty theft. Yet Javert is bound, by the letter of the law and all it portends, to pursue Valjean even after it is obvious that the once 'sinner' or rule breaker has been redeemed a thousandfold and when most other souls, truth be known, blessed with common sense, perhaps would understand the nature of the 'lawlessness' as applied to a starving man stealing a crust of bread so that he might eat.
Javert pursues Valjean to the extent that he causes his own death, jumping into the river Seine when he finally understands that his following the 'law' (or the letter of the law) has made him immoral and that he IS the evil he would prosecute.
On a light note, the scene where Javert jumps into the river to drown himself (on stage, amid a dark star filled and reflected sky, which is so well done) always reminds me philosophically of that scene in the 80's movie "War Games," when the computer is desperately trying to 'logically' figure out a way to win a tick tack toe game for the destruction of the world. No way to do it. The only logical way to win, is NOT to play the game (by the precise rules, all the time, I would add).
Of course, following the letter of the law is done for various reasons.
Sometimes it is done because some people have the personality type of a Javert--rule bound, rigid, and not cognizant of deeper truth. Sometimes the letter of the law (only) is followed, also, because people are lazy and it is simply easier to understand the surface of things than to get involved or to hurt your brain going a little deeper. Sometimes, the letter of the law is followed because an organization or a system of laws has become so large or so byzantine that nothing BUT the letter of the law can be followed due to lack of resources or the ability to interpret the rules.
Sometimes it is followed because squeaky wheels are the only ones heard amid an atmosphere too disordered or too large for moderators, law makers, or law enforcement to actually do their job.
****************
The word "law" originally referred to legislative statutes, but now the term can be used to refer to a rule of any kind. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic opposite. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, they are obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of a law. When one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law, he or she is doing what the the law was intended for, though not necessarily adhering to the literal.
Intentionality in following the letter of the law, but not the spirit may be accomplished in our legal, social and work world by exploiting technicalities, loopholes, or any ambiguous language. An example of this might be, arcane knowledge of setbacks on a city lot; somebody understanding a loophole in the rules might be able to build a structure that is larger than what the space actually allows for or what the city planning and zoning laws actually call for.
Another example of this could be found in a legal definition of harassment. A law or rule might state that harassment consists of aggressive or attack-oriented verbal remarks toward another person. Simple enough, if aggression always followed a pattern of literal and simple disparaging remarks as attacks or harassment. More difficult if someone is intent on gaming the system, which is the following of the letter—over, or contrary to—the spirit of the law.
It is used in a negative fashion as a deliberate way to manipulate the rules to achieve a personal advantage. Usually, it also means the proponent of such a game acting in an antisocial, irritating or harassing manner, all the while technically staying within the bounds of the rules or the law.
It probably is no surprise to political junkies, either, that Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the "Letter v. Spirit" debate. Modern Constitutional interpretation divides among the lines of 'Living Constitution' scholars advocating a 'spirit of the law' interpretation strategy Vs. Originalist or Textualists, who advocate a more "'letter of the law'-based approach.
So. What does it all mean? Is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law debate indeed a political discussion where each side (we would like to think...or at least our spin-induced press would brainwash us to believe) has equal say? Is it a question of the ability to use critical thinking skills and analysis? Or iIs it common sense and good judgment?
It is said that one of Shakespeare's favorite themes was the letter of the law v. spirit of the law debate. This can be seen in The Merchant of Venice, notably through the character of Shylock, bound on extracting his "pound of flesh," which is his due to him by his Old Testament law. Shakespeare doesn't leave it so one-dimensional, however, as many interpretations show a portrayal of Shylock as a sympathetic and tragic figure--as a tormentor himself, he is also a tormented character.
Perhaps one, if the characters all met in some kind of literary cross-cultural salad, that Jean Valjean would forgive; whereas Javert would aim to destroy--as much as the letter of the law would allow.
Written by Lena Severinsen
Writer, photographer, designer
Writer, photographer, designer
Law is not what lawyers say "it is" in actual social practice for sociologists. This music presentation outlines a talk on sociology of law given at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) last January 16, 2009.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
0 comments
Post a Comment