Leon Petrazycki distinguished between forms of “official law,” which is supported by the state, and “intuitive law,” which consists of legal experiments, which in turn consist of a complex of psychological processes in the mind of the individual without reference to external authorities. [23] Petrazycki`s work dealt with sociological problems and his method was empirical, asserting that knowledge of objects or relationships could only be acquired through observation. However, he formulated his theory in the language of cognitive psychology and moral philosophy rather than sociology. Consequently, his contribution to the development of the sociology of law remains largely unknown. [24] Thus, Petrazycki`s “intuitive law” influenced not only the development of George Gurvitch`s concept of “social law” (see below), which in turn left its mark on the theorization of social law, but also the work of later scholars in social law. Among those who were directly inspired by Petrazykki`s work was Polish sociologist of law Adam Podgórecki. [25] Introductory sociological texts introduce the idea of law as a particular type of norm when discussing the broader concept of norms as structured rules or behavioural expectations (Farley 1998: 67). Thus, law, as social control, focuses on issues relating to the relationship between legal and social norms, while distinguishing between the law itself—rules issued and enforced by formal state institutions—and other social norms or codes of conduct. These other standards include customs and formal rules issued by non-governmental institutions, including grievance procedures established by U.S. corporations in response to postwar legislation and court decisions on the workplace and social welfare (Bohannan, 1965; Lempert and Sanders, 1986; Sutton et al., 1994; Dobbin and Sutton, 1998). As its name suggests, the sociology of law is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of law and sociology. The main conception of the sub-discipline is to understand the law from the point of view of society and the norms that compose it.
Laws cannot be designed or implemented – to be applicable in practice, they must exist in society. This is the challenge of the sociology of law. Since laws have no value if they do not respect social norms, it is important to include the role of society and the values and norms that exist within it in traditional legal studies. The Law, Criminology and Justice in Sociology program is more focused than the generalist sociology program and therefore offers a concentration of courses in this area. Learn more about the Bachelor of Arts in Sociology of Law, Criminology and Justice or the Bachelor of Science in Sociology of Law, Criminology and Justice. Another area of interest that developed at Oxford during this period was the sociology of professions. Robert Dingwall and Philip Lewis[71] have published an always interesting and theoretically diverse collection that brings together specialists in the sociology of law and medicine. However, the best-known study to date was published by the American scholar Richard Abel,[72] who used ideas and concepts from functionalist, Marxist and Weberian sociology to explain the high incomes and high status enjoyed by British lawyers for most of the twentieth century.
Interactionism had become popular in America in the 1950s and 1960s as a politically radical alternative to structural functionalism. Instead of viewing society as a system that regulates and controls the actions of individuals, interactionists have argued that sociology should be concerned with what people have done in certain situations and how they have understood their own actions. [66] The sociology of deviance, which included topics such as crime, homosexuality, and mental illness, became the focus of these theoretical debates. Functionalists have portrayed crime as a problem that must be managed by the legal system. In contrast, labeling theorists have focused on the process of legislation and law enforcement: how crime was constructed as a problem. A number of British sociologists and researchers in law schools have drawn on these ideas to write about law and crime. [67] This has been criticized by advocates of legal positivism such as jurist Hans Kelsen for distinguishing between “the law created by the state and the law produced by the organizational coercion of non-state social associations.” [20] According to Kelsen, Ehrlich had confused being (“is”) and “should”). [21] However, some have argued that Ehrlich distinguished between positive (or state) law, which lawyers learn and apply, and other forms of “law,” which Ehrlich called “living law,” which governs everyday life and generally prevents conflicts from reaching lawyers and courts. [22] In the sociology of law, there are no investigative methods developed specifically for research in social law. Instead, he uses a variety of social science methods, including qualitative and quantitative research techniques, to explore law and legal phenomena.
Positivist[63] and interpretive (e.g., discourse analysis) and ethnographic[64] approaches to data collection and analysis are used in the field of social law. [65] Provides an overview of the scientific and professional development of the sociology of law as a disciplinary discipline, with particular reference to its theoretical underpinnings and the increasing variation in empirical research topics. Legal culture is one of the central concepts of the sociology of law. At the same time, the study of legal cultures can be considered as one of the general approaches of the sociology of law. In summary, and consistent with the research reviewed in the section on law and inequality, depends exactly to what extent and how the law depends on a “variety of extra-legal factors” as well as formal and legal measures and institutions for social movements and for legal and social change (McCann 1998: 85). Litigation is most effective in bringing about social change when combined with broader political activities (Sabatier, 1975; McCann, 1998; Pedriana and Stryker, 2004). Kostiner (2003) points out that social change has several definitions. These include specific and measurable outcomes, the creation of mass movements, and the transformation of thoughts. Kostiner (2003) frames debates on law and progressive social change around the empirical question of how activists understand this relationship. She finds three general functional schemes: law as a means of acquiring concrete resources, law as empowerment, and a vision of social change as a transformation of thought – in which law plays a role, but marginal. The first section provides an introduction by discussing the classical legal theories and social change that continue to shape the field.
The second section deals with the question: What is the law? Sociologists with different answers to this question also ask different questions and have different ideas about how the law works in society. The third to fifth sections provide an overview of the most important contributions of legal sociologists in answering the fundamental questions that motivate sociology as a field of science: (1) Who does what, how and why? (2) Who gets what, how and why? Studies on the legitimacy of the law, legal culture and awareness, as well as legal mobilization and obedience to the law, answer the first question in particular. Studies on how legal rules/systems, resources and institutions reinforce or undermine economic and social inequalities are particularly relevant to the latter. Studies on how legal norms shape and are reshaped by social norms, as well as the causes, mechanisms and consequences of legal changes, answer both. Lawrence M. Friedman is one of the socio-lawyers who introduced the idea of legal culture into the sociology of law. For Friedman, legal culture refers to “the public`s knowledge, attitudes, and patterns of behavior toward the legal system.” [112] They can also be “bodies of habits that are organically linked to culture as a whole. [113] Friedman emphasizes the plurality of legal cultures and points out that legal cultures can be explored at different levels of abstraction, for example at the level of the legal system, state, country or community. Friedman is also known for introducing the distinction between “internal” and “external” legal culture.
The former refers to general attitudes and perceptions of the law among officials of the legal system, such as the judiciary, while the latter may refer to citizens` attitudes towards the legal system or public order in general. Since the beginning of the sociology of law, legal pluralism has occupied a central place in the theorization of social law. The sociological theories of Eugen Ehrlich and George Gurvitch were the first sociological contributions to legal pluralism. Moreover, for many decades it has been the most consistent subject of social law debates in the sociology of law and legal anthropology. [92] and received more than its share of criticism from proponents of the various schools of legal positivism. [93] Critics often ask, “How does the law differ from other normative systems from a pluralistic point of view? What makes a system of social rules legal? [94] The question “how and to what extent [social movements] can cope. McCann (1998:82) notes that “movements are anchored from the outset in a (more or less) legally constituted environment, not outside the law.” Large political movements of marginalized groups can be encouraged with a focus on legal rights, as activists mobilize legal norms to nominate, claim, charge, and recruit new activists (McCann 1998).
