Abstract

The author analyses the role of dissent and anarchic thinking in modern legal culture. Such notions traditionally convey opposition to established authority and are essential for all free and open societies. In fact, the right to dissent and practising anarchic beliefs exist insofar as a true right of confrontation is guaranteed by the legal system. In this perpective, the author suggests some correspondences between dialogic thinking, that Peirce says allows all ideas to grow semiotically, and the development of the role of dissent in the legal culture. Generally speaking, the question concerns the well‐known Peircean dichotomy between chance/spontaneity and lawfulness. This thesis is exemplified in detail looking at the history of US law, at its outset the direct consequence of a legal counter‐cultural movement against British common law. Moreover, the possibility of dissent is written into the United States constitution. At least three modes of dissent are built into American law as legal counter activities: (1) voices of nondominant religions, (2) dissent within the legal system, e.g., dialogue among and within the courts, (3) challenging the legal system sanctioned by the right to civil disobedience and by other forms of reaction against an oppressive government.