nderstanding
the contemporary shift away from visual towards
more aural legal metaphors requires an initial explanation of our
traditional preference for visually oriented legal language. In this
part of the Article, I suggest that this preference is a product of
three overlapping factors: first, a longstanding American cultural
bias towards visual expression and experience that is arguably based
on the social prominence of the written word; second, the traditional
numeric and political domination of American law and legal literature
by members of gender, racial, ethnic, and religious groups which
through their special command, control, or endorsement of writing have
in the course of American history developed and/or demonstrated a
particular respect for visuality; and, third, the accord that exists
between orthodox American legal values and the values we have come to
associate with vision as a phenomenon. In the pages that follow, I
will consider each of these factors in turn.

I don't know why I am memeing this.