The Language of Power
By Carisa Carlton
Jurisdiction as a Cultural & Linguistic Framework
Why Jurisdiction Matters in Understanding Power and Culture
This article explores jurisdiction as a cultural framework, revealing how language shapes power across scales — from the U.S. Supreme Court to corporate boardrooms and small workplace teams. Drawing on anthropologist Dr. Justin Richland’s concept of “juris-diction” (speaking the law) and Conley and O’Barr’s ideology framework, it demonstrates that law is culture, embedding societal norms, and culture is law, informing authority’s expression. Through 2025 Supreme Court cases like Trump v. CASA, corporate strategies at Tesla, and micro-level dynamics at xAI, the article illustrates how legal language constructs power, influencing governance, organizational behavior, and individual agency.
Shaping Societal Norms
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Trump v. CASA, Inc. and Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees exemplify how jurisdiction, as a linguistic and cultural act, defines power at the highest levels of governance. In Trump v. CASA (June 27, 2025), the Court ruled 6–3 to curb federal judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions against executive orders, specifically targeting President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 on birthright citizenship. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion, grounded in the Judiciary Act of 1789, argued that courts lack historical precedent to grant broad relief beyond specific plaintiffs. This decision, steeped in precise legal language, asserted the Court’s authority to limit its own reach, reinforcing a cultural narrative of judicial restraint. Yet, Justice Jackson’s dissent warned of threats to the rule of law, highlighting a competing cultural value of robust judicial oversight. Here, Richland’s concept of jurisdiction as a “macrosociological force” is vivid: the Court’s language not only delineates its authority but also shapes societal expectations of governance, influencing public trust and policy enforcement.
Similarly, in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (July 8, 2025), the Court paused a lower court’s injunction blocking Trump’s executive order for federal workforce reductions. The majority’s unsigned opinion emphasized the judiciary’s limited role in preemptively halting executive actions, deferring to lower courts for further review. This linguistic act of restraint mirrors Richland’s idea of “juris-diction,” where even a decision to limit jurisdiction reinforces the Court’s authority to define its boundaries. These rulings embed cultural values — federalism, separation of powers — into the legal fabric, demonstrating that law is culture, as it shapes societal norms, and culture is law, as public values inform judicial language.
Corporate Jurisdiction: Power in the Boardroom
The same principles of jurisdiction as a cultural framework extend to corporate contexts, where legalistic language defines authority and reflects societal values. In 2025, companies like Tesla and Google navigate regulatory scrutiny — on AI ethics or labor disputes — by deploying language to assert jurisdictional autonomy. For instance, Tesla’s high-profile headquarters relocations, led by Elon Musk, are framed in corporate statements as strategic moves to align with “innovation-driven” jurisdictions. This language, echoing Richland’s metalinguistic qualities, constructs a cultural narrative of entrepreneurial freedom while consolidating executive power. Similarly, Google’s compliance reports on AI regulations use terms like “stakeholder value” or “ethical governance” to mystify power dynamics, aligning with Conley and O’Barr’s ideology framework, which highlights language’s role in obscuring authority while linking to inhabitable positions of power (Conley and O’Barr, 143).
Get Carisa Carlton’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Corporate governance documents, such as bylaws or ESG policies, function like judicial opinions, using precise language to establish who can decide — whether it’s a board approving a merger or a CEO setting strategic priorities. These documents reflect cultural priorities, such as profitability or social responsibility, shaping stakeholder trust and market behavior. For example, a 2025 Tesla policy on sustainable production might emphasize “long-term value creation,” signaling a cultural commitment to environmental accountability while reinforcing executive control. Here, law is culture, as corporate language embeds societal expectations into organizational norms; culture is law, as public values shape the language of corporate authority.
Micro-Organizational Dynamics: Power in Everyday Teams
At the micro-level within organizations, jurisdiction manifests in the language of everyday decision-making, shaping workplace culture. In a tech firm like xAI in 2025, a project manager’s use of terms like “agile methodology” or “deliverables” in team meetings asserts their authority to prioritize tasks, reflecting a culture of efficiency and innovation. Similarly, HR policies on remote work or DEI initiatives use legalistic language to define acceptable behavior, embedding cultural values of inclusivity or flexibility into daily operations. For instance, an xAI internal email outlining AI safety protocols might specify who can approve model deployments, using language to delineate jurisdictional boundaries within the team. This mirrors the Supreme Court’s use of language to limit judicial reach or Tesla’s corporate statements asserting strategic autonomy.
Conley and O’Barr’s framework underscores how such language mystifies power dynamics — terms like “team synergy” obscure hierarchical control while reinforcing cultural norms of collaboration (Conley and O’Barr, 144). These micro-level linguistic acts shape employee behavior, productivity, and organizational identity, demonstrating that jurisdiction is not confined to courtrooms or boardrooms but permeates everyday interactions. Law is culture, as workplace language constructs norms governing behavior; culture is law, as shared values inform who holds decision-making power.
Real-World Significance: Power, Culture, and Agency
The real-world significance of jurisdiction as a cultural framework is profound, bridging the macro and micro scales of human interaction. At the judicial level, Supreme Court decisions like Trump v. CASA shape national policy, public trust, and power distribution, embedding cultural values into governance. These rulings influence how society navigates contentious issues like immigration or federal authority, reinforcing or challenging cultural norms. In corporate contexts, language asserting jurisdictional authority impacts economic stability, employee morale, and public perception. Tesla’s relocation decisions, for instance, affect local economies and industry standards, reflecting cultural priorities of innovation or deregulation.
At the micro-level, workplace language shapes individual agency and organizational culture. xAI’s AI safety protocols, articulated through precise language, influence ethical AI development and workplace dynamics, with ripple effects on industry practices and societal views on technology. Across all levels, jurisdiction — enacted through language — determines who holds power and how it’s exercised, creating and reinforcing cultural structures that govern behavior. As Richland, Conley, and O’Barr argue, language is a tool of power, weaving law and culture into a seamless tapestry that defines societal, organizational, and individual realities.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction, as a cultural framework, reveals the intricate dance of law, language, and power across scales. From the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings to corporate strategies and workplace interactions, “juris-diction” shapes authority through language, embedding cultural values into legal and social structures. Law is culture, as language constructs norms that govern behavior; culture is law, as shared values inform the language of authority. This dynamic drives governance, corporate strategy, and individual agency, underscoring the profound significance of language as a force that binds power and culture, from the highest courts to the smallest teams.
References
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr. Just words: Law, language, and power. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Richland, Justin B. “Jurisdiction: Grounding law in language.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (2013): 209–226.
