Seminar 8- Sociological Approaches to Law

8/11/2019 Seminar 8- Sociological Approaches to Law

1/29

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SCHOOL OF LAW

MASTER OF LAWS PROGRAMME

COURSE CODE: GPR 601

JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY

SEMINAR 8 PRESENTATION

TOPIC: SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO LAW

COURSE INSTRUCTORS: DR. WINNIE KAMAU

DR. EDWIN ABUYA

DATE: Tuesday 18thJanuary, 2010

0


2/29

GROUP 8 MEMBERS

Name Registration

number

Signature

1. Bryan M. Khaemba

2. Davis Mawira N.

3. Derrick Khaemba Kuto4. Joash Ratemo

5. Dennis Bosire

6. Cosmas Ngeso


3/29

STRUCTURE

1. ntro!u"tion

2. #oun!ation o$ So"io%ogi"a% &''roa"(es To )a*

3. +e,e%o'ment o$ So"io%ogi"a% &''roa"(es To )a*

4. So"io%ogi"a% &''roa"(es To )a*- Using So"ia% S"ien"e +ata n

u!i"ia% Matters

/. So"io%og0 o$ )a*

. Re$eren"es an! Bi%iogra'(0.

SOCO)OGC&) &PPRO&CES TO )&

1. NTRO+UCTON

ocio!ogica! a""roach to !aw tries to integrate or merge the i#eas an#

conce"ts o$ !aw an# socio!ogy together an# to acknow!e#ge the $act that

!aw is a socia! rea!ity an# that it interre!ates with our socia! or every#ay

%


4/29

!i$e. &he common theme that runs through the socio!ogica! a""roach is

that !aw is an em"irica! "henomenon an# its nature can be un#erstoo#

on!y when it is viewe# in terms o$ its re!ationshi" to society.

&hese a""roaches to !aw #e"arts shar"!y $rom both the Natura! 'aw an#

(ostivism theories. Natura! 'aw an# (ostivism theories are viewe# as

theories o$ !aw) that is) they are "reoccu"ie# with the *uestion o$ +what is

!aw,. -t has however been argue# that a"art $rom the in*uiry o$ what is

!aw) uris"ru#ence a!so #ea!s with the $o!!owing *uestions/

ow #oes !aw evo!ve1

2hat is the $unction o$ !aw in society1

ow #oes !aw change1

ow is !aw trans$orme# $rom generation to the ne3t1

ocio!ogica! a""roaches to !aw attem"ts to #ea! with the above *uestions)

that is) it is a theory about !aw. -t is "art o$ com"arative uris"ru#ence.

2. #OUN+&TON O# SOCO)OGC&) &PPRO&CES TO )&

&he main $eature o$ the socio!ogica! a""roach to !aw is that !aw is

"erceive# to be a socia! "henomenon. 2hat this means is that !aw is

!inke# with the every#ay !i$e o$ "eo"!e in a society an# that !aw an#

socia! !i$e are mutua!!y in$!uencing an# interacting with one another. -t

$o!!ows there$ore that changes in the society wi!! have an im"act to the

!aw an# vice versa. &o take an e3am"!e) in 4merica #uring the !ate


5/29

780,s) southern state !egis!atures "asse# a !aw re*uiring se"aration o$

b!acks an# whites $rom "ub!ic trans"ortation. &his segregation "rinci"!e

was e3ten#e# to schoo!s) "arks an# even restrooms. 4 "erson might view

this as #iscriminatory but one has to bear in min# that most o$ the

southern states in 4merica $avore# s!avery #uring the 4merican Civi! 2ar

976:765;.

&he society 9the whites; at that time which was sti!! remin#$u! o$ the civi!

war sti!! "erceive# the b!acks to be in$erior an# une*ua!) an# this min#set

in$!uence# the


6/29

in$!uence# by the interest o$ "ersons or grou" so #e$ining them. 4 c!ear

e3am"!e o$ this is when 4#o!"h it!er assume# the tit!e o$ !ea#er)

chance!!or an# the chie$ army in ?ermany. 4#o!"h it!er ma#e !aws that

were o$ his interest an# to so!i#i$y his "ower) one o$ the !aws that he

ma#e was to make the Na@i (arty membershi" man#atory $or a!! higher

civi! servants an# bureaucrats) abo!ishe# a!! other "arties that was in

e3istence in ?ermany an# ma#e anti:Jewish !aw. 4s we can see the !aws

ma#e by 4#o!"h were o$ his interest an# the Na@i "arty in genera! on!y. -t

can be $air to say that those with "ower 9"o!itica!) economic) etc; have the

in$!uence in #etermining the rea!ity o$ !aw an# how it is sha"e#.

owever the tra#itiona! a""roach to !aw seeks to un#er!ine that !aws are

neutra!) $air) e*ua! an# $ree $rom bias. -t is the creation o$ "eo"!e with

wis#om. 'aws are neutra! because u#ges e3ercise !ogic in their #ecision)

but this conce"tion is $!awe# because a "erson are !ike!y i$ not a!ways

in$!uence# by $actors such as economic interest) racia! backgroun#)

gen#er) e#ucationa! backgroun# when #eci#ing a matter. &he tra#itiona!

a""roach views !aws as Aa !ogica! an# interna!!y coherent system in

which correct !ega! #ecisions can be #e#uce# by $orma! reasoning. -$

that is so) then how #o we e3"!ain such matters as the segregation !aw

that was once "ractice# in the


7/29

crimes 4ct) e3ua! $$ences 4ct) etc.

Bio#iversity 4ct was en$orce# as a resu!t o$ #eve!o"ments in the

Biotechno!ogy. Deve!o"ments in the $ie!# o$ me#icine have a!so given

rise to matters such as ma!"ractice an# the stu#y o$ me#ica! !aw. -t is

c!ear then that other $orms o$ #isci"!ine interact with !aw such as the

Me#ia !aw. ne has to bear in min# that the rea!ity an# $acts that !aw

#ea!s with are not conc!usive but are o"en to ana!ysis) it means that the

matters that !aw regu!ates are never $i3e# but vary #e"en#ing on each

given situation.'aw in essence shou!# not be !ooke# at in a restricte# manner con$ine#

on!y in its technica!ity or as an iso!ate# "henomenon but rather to

acknow!e#ge that it is interre!ate# with other as"ects o$ socia! !i$e

9cu!ture) be!ie$) environment) "erce"tion) etc.; an# changes that a$$ects a

society such as mo#erni@ation.

By !ooking at !aw in a wi#er "ers"ective one can seek to un#erstan# more

c!ear!y the ro!e o$ !aw in achieving socia! or#er) socia! contro! an# socia!

change. 2hether one is a #e"uty "ub!ic "rosecutor) u#ge) #ra$tsmen or

even a minister one shou!# a!ways be remin#$u! o$ this

&o this en#) socio!ogica! a""roaches to !aw regar# !aw as being nothing

more than a !iving re"resentation o$ socia! norms e3isting in societies. -t

ho!#s that !aw wi!! thus a#a"t to changes in society. 4ccor#ing to ir

Ere#erick (o!!ock Athere is no way by which mo#ern !aw can esca"e $rom

the scienti$ic an# arti$icia! character im"ose# on it by the #eman# o$

mo#ern societies $or $u!!) e*ua! an# e3act ustice.% 4ccor#ing to him

there$ore societa! #eman#s sha"es the character o$ !aw.

%?eorge C. Christie/ Juris"ru#ence) &e3ts an# Rea#ings on the (hi!oso"hy o$ 'aw9==5; (.7%7) 2est (ub!ishingCo.

6


8/29

ocio!ogica! a""roaches to !aw is thus concerne# with/

ow societa! changes wi!! "ro#uce changes in !aw.

ow changes in !aw in turn generate changes in society.

&he #ynamics o$ !aw rather than with meta"hysics o$ !aw.

ow socia! grou"s #ea! with !aw to govern their interests.

ow "ersons use or manu"i!ate !aw to achieve certain kin#s o$ en#s.

ow !aw is use# as an institution o$ "o!itica! we!$are.

ocio!ogica! uris"ru#ence thus a""roaches !aw $rom within the !aw itse!$

rather than outsi#e the !aw !ike "ostivists. -t e3amines the interaction o$

!aw with other as"ects o$ society) such as the e$$ect o$ !ega! institutions)

#octrines) an# "ractices on other socia! "henomena an# vice versa.-t is

a!so viewe# as an a""roach to a#u#ication that views !aw as a means to

"romote socia! we!$are) re*uiring !egis!atures an# u#ges who wi!! make

!aw in !ight o$ society,s constant!y evo!ving nee#s.

3. +E5E)OPMENT O# SOCO)OGC&) &PPRO&CES TO

)&

?enera!!y) socio!ogica! a""roaches to !aw) ust !ike 'ega! Rea!ism) was a

reaction to the so ca!!e# mechanical jurisprudence, that is) the

uris"ru#ence o$ $orma! a""!ication o$ strict !ega! conce"ts an# ru!es in

iso!ation o$ other e3terna! $actors.

htt"FFwww.wiki"e#ia.org.

8


9/29

ocio!ogica! a""roaches to !aw #eve!o"e# as a reection o$ a

Auris"ru#ence o$ conce"ts) the view o$ !aw as a c!ose# !ega! or#er.

Eurther) the "ro"onents were reecting the be!ie$ o$ natura!ism that an

u!timate theory o$ va!ues can be $oun#) they saw rea!ity as socia!!y

constructe# with no natura! gui#e to the so!ution o$ many con$!icts.

4!though socio!ogica! uris"ru#ence has roots in uro"ean !ega! thought

"articu!ar!y in the writings o$ Ru#o!$ Gon -nhering) ugen hr!ich an#

erman Kantorwit@) it is) in 4merica) most!y #e$ine# by Roscoe (oun#)

Dean o$ avar# 'aw choo! $rom =6:=6) an# Benamin Car#o@o)u#ge o$ the New Hork court.

-n or#er to un#erstan# the historica! #eve!o"ment o$ socio!ogica!

a""roaches to !aw) this "a"er wi!! attem"t to ana!yse the writings o$ the

above an# other great urists) socio!ogits) u#ges an# !awyers.

R. 5on(ering

e sees !aw as an instrument $or serving the nee#s o$ human society. e

argues that the success or otherwise o$ a !ega! "rocess was to be measure#

by the #egree to which it achieve# a "ro"er ba!ance between com"eting

socia! an# in#ivi#ua! interests.

Eugen E(r%i"(

is concern was to e3"oun# the socia! basis o$ !aw. 4ccor#ing to him)

!aw is #erive# $rom socia! $acts an# #e"en#s not on state authority but on

socia! com"u!sion.

e urgues that the rea! source o$ !aw is not statutes or re"orte# cases but

the activities o$ society itse!$. -t $o!!ows there$ore that accor#ing to

7


10/29

hr!ich) !aw changes with the changes in societa! activities an# that at any

given time) !aw shou!# re$!ect the socia! norms o$ the society.

e $urther states there e3ist the +!iving !aw, un#er!ying the $orma! ru!es o$

the !ega! system an# it is the task o$ the u#ge an# urist to integrate these

two ty"es o$ !aw.

hr!ich there$ore minimi@es the "!ace o$ !egis!ation as a $ormative

$actorm in !aw) $or instnce) commercia! !aw sim"!y $ormi!ises "ractices o$

the commercia! wor!#.

-n a#u#icating cases) he argues) u#ges shou!# give "riority to the !iving

!aw because ustice arises $rom the society.

e ca!!s u"on !awyers an# u#ges to un#erstan# the socia! $oun#ations o$

!ega! ru!es an# thereby #eve!o" them.

Criti"ism

is argument negects a criterion by which !ega! norms cou!# be

#istinguishe# $rom other socia! norms. e merges !aw with re!igion)

ethica! custom) mora!ity. Decorum) tact) $ashion an# eti*uette>.

e un#u!y be!itt!e# the "rimary ro!e o$ the !egis!ature in creating new

!aw.

Eurther) he $ai!s to a""reciate the sign$icant in$!uence that state !aw has

on sha"ing an# #eve!o"ment o$ !iving !aw.

Emi%e +ur6(eim

4ccor#ing to him) !aw was a measuring ro# o$ any society. 'aw

re"ro#uces the "rinci"a! $orms os socia! so!i#arity. e argue# that !aw is

>Ee!i3) Cohen) The Legal Conscience,9=60; (.78.

=


11/29

an in#icator o$ the mo#e o$ integration o$ a society. he states that in the

course o$ history) !aw un#ergoes a trans$ormation $rom re"ressive to

restitutive !aw. 4ccor#ing!y) in sim"!e societies) the !aw in e3istence is

"ena!9re"ressive; an# as the society moves $orwar# an# becomes

com"!e3) the !aw in e3istence is restitutive. e argues that restitutive !aw

o"erates in societies in which there is a high #egree o$ in#ivi#ua!

variation an# em"hasis on "ersona! rights an# res"onsibi!ities.

Ros"oe Poun!e is regar#e# as the $ather o$ socio!ogica! uris"ru#ence. -n #eve!o"ing

this theory) he was great!y in$!uence# by socia! scientists working in the

city o$ Chicago whi!e teaching at Northwestern


12/29

4ccor#ing to (oun#) socio!ogica! uris"ru#ence is concerne# with a

survey o$ socia! interest to which !aw shou!# give e$$ect) but not to

engage in !ogica! reconstruction o$ the meaning e3"resse# by !ega! te3ts.

&hese socia! interests inc!u#e/

a; ?enera! security in sa$ety) hea!th) "eace an# "ub!ic or#er)

ac*uisitions) an# transactionsI

b; ecurity o$ socia! institutions:$ami!y) re!igious) "o!itica! an#

economicI

c; ?enera! mora!sI#; Conservation o$ socia! resourcesI

e; ?enera! "rogress:economica!!y) "o!itica!!y) an# cu!tura!!yI

$; ocia! interest in in#ivi#ua! !i$e that each in#ivi#ua! be ab!e to !ive a

!i$e accor#ing to the stan#ar#s o$ the society.

e argue# that socio!ogica! uris"ru#ence is concerne# with socia!

engineering. e there$ore sees !aw as a too! $or socia! engineering.

e argue# that !aw cou!# not ust be un#erstoo# mere!y as ru!es or norms)

but rather as something #eve!o"e# an# inter"rete# an# in continuous $!u3.

4ccor#ing to (oun#) !aw is not mere!y a mo#e! o$ ru!es but a #octrina!

system in movement.

(oun# views !aw as $orm o$ socia! contro! in enab!ing ust c!aims an#

#esires to be satis$ie#. e argues thus that !aw shou!# be #eve!o"e# in

re!ation to e3isting socia! nee#s.

(oun# was "articu!ar!y concerne# with the e$$ects o$ !aw u"on society.

n this) he argues that !aw is an or#ering o$ con#uct so as to make the


13/29

goo#s o$ e3istence an# the means o$ satsis$ying c!aims go roun# as $ar as

"ossib!e with the !east $riction an# waste. e regar#s these c!aims as

interests.

e a!so argues that societa! va!ues shou!# be $actors which weigh u#icia!

#ecisions. &hey are basic assum"tions u"on societa! or#ering rests.

(oun# a!so sees !aw as a#usting an# reconci!ing con$!icting interests. e

states that !aw is an instrument which contro!s interests accor#ing to the

re*uirements o$ the socia! or#er.

e a!so argue# that !egis!ation ought to move !aw $orwar# in the !ight o$

mo#ern socia! nee#s. e taske# !awyers to be know!e#geab!e o$ sources

o$ community va!ues an# nee#s because they have a #uty o$ !ega!

#eve!o"ment.

4ccor#ing to (oun#) !aw is a !ega! e3"ression o$ the !i$e o$ the

community. 4ccor#ing!y) he argue#) !aw shou!# be use# as an instrument

$or rea!ising the #estiny o$ a given society an# a continous e3"ression o$

the changing "atterns o$ community !i$e.

Criti"im

Di$$icu!ty may be e3"erience# in #istinguishing the actua! #esires o$ the

"ub!ic or "articu!ar grou"s.

&here are interests not on!y in the sense o$ what "eo"!e want but in the

sense o$ whatmay be goo# $or them regar#!ess o$ their actua! #esires.

%


14/29

&he (oun#,s society is homogenous) static an# cohesive) one with share#

va!ues an# tra#itions an# a common cognition o$ rea!ity.

7uinne0argue# that !aw is the too! o$ the ru!ing c!ass. -t consists o$ the

interests o$ on!y s"eci$ic segments o$ the "eo"!e an# #o not re"resent a

com"romise o$ #iverse interests but rather su""orts some at the e3"ense

o$ others6.

ometimes c!ass interests) "ro$essiona! organisations an# interest grou"s

in$!uence "assage o$ !egis!ation rather than a consesus o$ #i$$erentinterests o$ the "eo"!e.

>.SOCO)OGC&) &PPRO&CES TO )&- USNG SOC&)

SCENCE +&T& N U+C&) M&TTERS.

4s #iscusse# herein above) the "ur"ose o$ !aw accor#ing to ocio!ogica!

a""roach is to give e$$ects to the #eman#s an# c!aims ma#e by the

society. &here$ore) be$ore "assing any !aw) the !egis!ature nee#s to be

in$orme# by stu#ies carrie# in the society to come u" with a !aw that

caters $or the interests o$ the society.

&he courts o$ !aw) being the institution man#ate# to inter"ret the !aw an#

give e$$ect to the same there$ore nee#s to be in the know o$ the tren#s in

the society so as come u" with obective u#gments.

-n the com"!e3ities o$ the a#vance# in#ustria! an# science base#

civi!i@ation) it has become increasing!y #i$$icu!t to trans$orm high !eve!

"o!icy into socia! "ractice. -nevitab!y those charge# with the

im"!ementation o$ !aw have turne# to scienti$ic e3"erts in socia!

66 uinney Crime and Justice 9=6=; (.%5


15/29

organi@ation an# "henomena an# to e3"erts on the way the !aw actua!!y

o"erates in society $or gui#ance in im"!ementation.

&here$ore) in arguing cases) !awyers have re!ie# on a metho# o$ "!ea#ing

in which in "!ace o$ or in a##ition to statutory an# case materia!)

substantia! amount o$ what is consi#ere# scienti$ic #ata about our society)

either genera! or "re"are# $or the "articu!ar case) are "resente# to court

common!y re$erre# to as Bran!eis Brie$s9

&he Bran#eis Brie$s was "ro"agate# in the case o$ Muller Vs Oregen

7

where e3tracts $rom the ninety re"orts o$ committees) bureaus o$ statistics

to the e$$ect that !ong hours o$ 'abour are #angerous $or women "rimari!y

because o$ their s"ecia! "hysica! organi@ation. -n their ru!ing) the court

he!# that the re"orts usti$y s"ecia! !egis!ation restricting or *ua!i$ying the

con#ition un#er which she shou!# be "ermitte# to toi!.

ocio!ogica! uris"ru#ence has been #irect!y an# o"en!y concerne# with

making #ecision making more e$$icient by incor"orating some o$ the

insights o$ the systematic stu#y o$ the society.

ocio!ogica! uris"ru#ence has come to re$er to *uite #i$$erent branches

o$ en#eavor. Eirst!y) the use o$ socio!ogica! techni*ues o$ in*uiry to

e3amine the institutions o$ the !aw themse!ves. econ#!y) the use o$

contem"orary socio!ogica! techni*ues by the institutions o$ the !aw as a

way o$ making their own e$$orts more e$$ective in changing or stabi!i@ing

#i$$erent sectors o$ socia! or#er.

owever) the court is the above cite# case he!# that it cannot sim"!y an#

uncritica!!y acce"t a!! the o"inions o$ socio!ogists since on many

89=07;%07 %) >=:%.

>


16/29

im"ortant "oints) socia! societies are not agree# among themse!ves. &his

then "ut the u#iciary in a tricky "osition on how to eva!uate the #ata)

how to #etermine the cre#ibi!ity o$ that #ata an# how to #ea! with the

a""arent contra#ictions between societies.

4 use o$ socio!ogica! #ata which "reci"itate# one o$ the maor revo!utions

in the %0thCentury 4merica was the u"reme Court,s a""arent re!iance

on a variety o$ socia! science conc!usions in ro!n Vs oard o"

#ducation$.

&hese were cases $rom Kansas) outh Caro!ina) Girginia an# De!aware

whereo$ the minors o$ Negro sought the ai# o$ the courts in obtaining

a#mission to "ub!ic schoo!s o$ their community on a non segregation

basis. &hey ha# been #enie# a#mission to the "ub!ic schoo!s atten#e# by

white chi!#ren un#er !aws re*uiring or "ermitting segregation accor#ing

to race. &he segregation was a!!ege# to #e"rive the "!ainti$$,s o$ e*ua!

"rotection o$ the !aws un#er the >thamen#ment.

; 7

5


17/29

the North) the b!acks ha# some e#ucation though in ru#imentary system.

-n reaching the #ecision) the court ha# this to sayI Ain a""roaching this

"rob!em) we cannot turn the c!ock back to =67 when the amen#ment

was a#o"te#. 2e must consi#er "ub!ic e#ucation in the !ight o$ its $u!!

#eve!o"ment an# its "resent "!ace in 4merica !i$e throughout the nation.

n!y in this way can it be #etermine# i$ segregation in "ub!ic schoo!s

#e"rive the "!ainti$$s o$ the e*ua! "rotection o$ the !aws.

&he u#ge summari@e# the im"ortance o$ e#ucation in the society. -tre!ie# on the #ata that ha# been "resente# be$ore it on the im"ortance

e#ucation as stu#ie# by socia! scientists. -t thus he!# that in the $ie!# o$

"ub!ic e#ucation) the #octrine o$ se"arate but e*ua! ha# no "!ace an#

there$ore over ru!e# the #ecision o$ the !ower court. &he u"reme Court

"reci"itate# a revo!ution in 4merican socia! organi@ation. -t "ur"orte# to

reach its #ecision by re!ying on the socia! science #ata invoke# be$ore it.

&he ru!ing generate# intense resistance among scho!ars many o$ whom

conten#e# that either the #ata on which the court "ur"orte# to re!y were

unsoun# or that in genera!) the re!iance on socia! science #ata ha# no

"!ace in !aw.

ne o$ such scho!ars was 2o!$ who ana!y@e# socia! sciences an# the

courts. e re!ie# in a##ition to the Brown,s caseI the Detroit choo!s

Case %radley &s' Milli(an)*

T(e $a"ts o$ t(e "ase are t(at in 4"ri! o$ =8) the Nationa! 4ssociation

$or the 4#vancement o$ Co!oure# (eo"!e 9N44C(; brought a !aw suit

be$ore a $e#era! #istrict court charging #e ure segregation within the

=(1971)338 f Supp 582 E.D Mich.

6


18/29


19/29

e3"!anations i!!ustrate the "rob!ems $ace# by courts in cases where

scienti$ic materia!s are o$$ere#. &here were some e3"!anations which

re*uire# a $air amount o$ know!e#ge o$ *uantitive techni*ues which some

u#ges #i# not have.

e argue# that a court is "oor c!assroom. -t is the on!y "!ace where we

can #eci#e i$ a man is gui!ty o$ mur#er but it is not a goo# "!ace to stu#y

the causes o$ homici#e. &he source o$ some o$ these "rob!ems is in the

very nature o$ the a#versary system. &he a#versaria! system in the

"resentation o$ evi#ence a!ways ten# to o$$en# the most basic notions o$scienti$ic in*uiry. Eor e3am"!e) i$ a #e$ence !awyer is su##en!y sur"rise#

by a "iece o$ evi#ence.

/. TE SOCO)OG: O# )&.

Eor much o$ the twentieth century) the socio!ogy o$ !aw was ec!i"se# by

socio!ogica! uris"ru#ence. Erom the =60,s the term ocio!ogica!

uris"ru#ence was use# !ess $re*uent!y an# what come to be known as

socia! !ega! stu#ies took its "!ace. 4#vocates o$ socia! !ega! stu#ies

em"hasi@e the im"ortance o$I:

9i; (!acing !aw in its socia! conte3t.

9ii;


20/29

&hough having short comings) it ha# consi#erab!e im"act on the !aw) on

!ega! e#ucation an# on !aw "ub!ishing. -t ke"t $orcus greater attention on

conce"ts !ike #iscretion) institutions such as tribuna!) an# #i$$erent

techni*ues o$ #ecision making an# con$!ict reso!ution such as a!ternative

#is"ute reso!ution.

ocio !ega! stu#ies were not without short comings. &hey were !acking in

any theoretica! un#er"inning. &he !aw an# the !ega! system were treate#

as #iscrete entities) as un"rob!ematic) an# as occu"ying a centra!

hegemonic "osition. &here was no attem"t to re!ate the !ega! system to

the wi#er socia! or#er o$ the state. -n or#er to a##ress these short

comings) re$orms were suggeste# that wou!# enab!e !ega! systems to

o"erate more e$$icient!y an# e$$ective!y. &he em"hasis was more on the

behaviour o$ institutions rather than on trying to un#erstan# !ega!

#octrine.

So"io%og0 o$ )a* !e$ine!.

ocio!ogy o$ !aw as e3"!aine# by Cam"be!! re$ers to a situation where

$orcus is no !onger on the !ega! system) known an# acce"te#) but on

un#erstan#ing the nature o$ socia! or#er through a stu#y o$ !aw. &he goa!

is not "rimari!y to im"rove the !ega! system) but rather to construct a

=


21/29

theoretica! un#erstan#ing o$ that !ega! system in terms o$ the wi#er socia!

structure.

Much o$ the $orcus in contem"orary writing is on this un#erstan#ing.

-m"ortant *uestions that emerges are) +shou!# !ega! #e$initions be

trans$orme# into socio!ogica! categories or shou!# socio!ogica! insights

be trans$orme# into !ega! conce"ts1, -$ the !aw has a !imite# socio!ogica!

un#erstan#ing o$ the wor!#) #oes socio!ogy have anything to o$$er the

urist to enab!e him better a""reciate it cho!ars have res"on#e#

#i$$erent!y to these *uestions. "inions o$ the $o!!owing scho!ars are

worth noting.

NE);EN$ee!s that there are #angers. e $ee!s that the intro#uction o$

#i$$erent sty!es o$ reasoning can have i!! a$$ects $or !ega! "ractice by

misun#erstan#ing an# thus threatening the integrity o$ !ega! "rocess or the

va!ues they embo#y. e $ee!s that the two shou!# be stu#ie# se"arate!y.

COTTERE)on the other han# $ee!s that the ocio!ogy o$ !aw is a tran:

#isci"!inary enter"rise an# as"iration to broa#en un#erstan#ing o$ !aw as

a socia! "henomenon. e em"hasi@es the centra!ity o$ the socio!ogy o$

!aw $or !ega! e#ucation an# !ega! "racticeI the metho#o!ogy o$

socio!ogica! un#erstan#ing o$ the !ega! i#eas is the #e!iberate e3tension in

%0


22/29

care$u!!y s"eci$ie# #irections o$ the #iverse ways in which !ega!

"artici"ants themse!ves think about the socia! wor!# in !ega! terms.

ocio!ogy) Cottere! argues) o$$ers insight into !ega! thinking an# can

trans$orm !ega! i#eas by inter"reting them. e uses the e3am"!e o$ a

"rivate "ur"ose trusts. e is aware that this cou!# !ea# to socio!ogy

recreating !aw in its own image. n the contrary) he argues that when

seen his way) it ceases to a""ear as the innovation o$ a com"eting

aca#emic #isci"!ine with the aim o$ co!oni@ing !aw. -t is rather a

necessary means o$ broa#ening !ega! un#erstan#ing the systematic an#

em"irica! un#erstan#ing o$ a certain as"ect o$ socia! !i$e which is

recogni@e# as !ega!.

&he cha!!enge to this thinking is weather socio!ogy can c!imb out o$ its

own skin an# get insi#e the !aw to un#erstan# an# e3"!ain the !aws truth.

B&N&;&R argues that !aw secures its #omination an# authority through

normative c!osure. e #enies the commona!ity o$ #iscourses o$ socio!ogy

o$ !aw. e argues that the sheer institutiona! strength o$ the !aw ham"ers

e3cess to em"irica! materia!. e *uestions the re!evance o$ socio!ogica!

insights into !ega! reasoning an# raises #oubt on the a#e*uacy o$

socio!ogy to "ro#uce a know!e#ge which trans!ates it to a rea!ity.

%


23/29

-n res"onse to the arguments ma#e by Banakar) Ne%6enargues that i$ we

are to bring socio!ogy o$ !aw u" against its !imits its #e"en#ence on

socio!ogy must be recogni@e#. 4n# it becomes necessary to e3amine

more care$u!!y how its re$!e3ivity an# that o$ !aw re!ate.

Cottere% on the other han# be!ieves that the !aw can "ro$it $rom

socio!ogica!!y ins"ire# reso!utions "articu!ar!y where !ega! #octrines are

ri$t by con$!icting "rece#ent. &his is true an# i$ wou!# be $oo!ish $or the

!awyer o$ to#ay to ignore socia! insights. But the intro#uction o$ such

insights a!so has the "otentia! to #istort or at !east change !ega! "ractices

rather than sim"!y he!" them to sort out se!$ in#uce# mu##!es.

-n s"ite o$ the strong "osition taken by Cottere! it is acce"te# among !ega!

socio!ogists that whatever socia! science can #o $or !aw) it cannot o$$er

obectivist groun#ing $or !ega! "o!icy.

+ON&)+ B)&C;

e "re#icts the #eve!o"ment o$ what he ca!!s ocio!ogica! !aw when

!awyers re$!e3ive!y interna!i@e the conc!usion that ocio!ogy is the best

gui#e to !ega! outcomes. 4ccor#ing to him) the socio!ogy o$ !aw entai!s

the a#o"tion o$ an observes "ers"ective. e argues that o$$icia! versions

o$ the intentions an# "ur"oses o$ "articu!ar statutes are not a grante#

automatic res"ect but are instea# subect to critica! scrutiny. &hat "eo"!e

%%


24/29

shou!# not ust acce"t written statutes without critica!!y scrutini@ing them.

o too are the conventiona! usti$ication o$ court "roce#ures an# the !ega!

re"resentation o$ c!ients.

&he socio!ogy o$ !aw even suggests new "ossibi!ities o$ mani"u!ating

!ega! systems #e!iberate!y in or#er to bring about #esire# resu!ts

techni*ues o$ socia! engineering !ike!y to become high!y controversia! as

we!! as high!y e$$ective. -t a!so "uts into "ers"ective many o$ the most

time honoure# nations o$ !awyers an# !ega! scho!ars. &hus #iscretion is

shown to be not ran#om an# ca"ricious but rather high!y regu!ar an#

"atterne# 9constraine# by the #ictates o$ socia! !aw; B!acks socio!ogy o$

!aw suggests a!so a #i$$erent un#erstan#ing o$ #iscrimination. e argues

that #iscrimination is not e3ce"tiona! but ubi*uitous) an# is not !imite# to

the e$$ect o$ socia! c!ass or race. -t is an as"ect o$ natura! behaviour o$

!aw as natura! as $!ying at bir#s or swimming o$ $ish.

Rea%isti" So"ia%


25/29


26/29

socia! "henomenon that must be un#erstoo#) ana!y@e# an# #iscusse#

which cou!# not begin or be carrie# $air without conce"tua! ana!ysis. -t is

rather recognition that #e$erra! "henomena $a!! un#er the conce"t o$ !aw.

'aw is a conce"t conventiona!!y a""!ie# to a variety o$ mu!ti$acete#)

mu!ti$unctiona! "henomena natura! !aw) internationa! !aw) "rimitive !aw)

re!igious !aw) customary !aw) state !aw) $o!k !aw) "eo"!es !aw an#

in#igenous.

e insists that there is no centra! case o$ !aw. e cites the e3am"!e o$

internationa! !aw which has its own integrity an# has been $unctioning as

a $orm o$ !aw $or at !east two centuries but which remains un#er

tra#itiona! conce"tua! ana!ysis as a bor#er!ine $orm o$ !aw. e is

concerne# that the centra! case a""roach to the conce"t o$ !aw $its an#

was the "ro#uct o$ the ascen#ancy o$ state !aw that accom"anie# the rise

o$ the state. is a!ternative conce"tua!i@ation o$ !aw is) he be!ieves better

ab!e to account $or the "ro!i$eration o$ #i$$erent kin#s o$ !aw than the

tra#itiona! monoty"ica!view o$ the conce"t o$ !aw. e o$$ers the

$o!!owing as ways o$ eva!uating wether one conce"t o$ !aw is better than

another.

%5


27/29

; &he conce"t must be coherent or ana!ytica!!y soun# in the sense

that it shou!# not contain interna! contra#ictions or have ga"s in

crucia! s"ots.

%; &he conce"t must be consistent with) or $it or be a#e*uate to the

rea!ity) "henomenon) or i#ea! it "ur"orts to "resent #escribe or

#e$ine.

; &he conce"t must have a use va!ue in the sense that it wi!! enhance

our un#erstan#ing or he!" us achieve our obectives.

&he ne3t *uestion that &amanaha a##resses is can a conce"tua!

uris"ru#ence have autonomy 9or at !east; re!ative autonomy $rom

em"irica! rea!ity. &o him) it cannot. &hus the overri#ing obective o$ his

socio !ega! theory is to bring into !ega! theory an in$usion o$ insights

$rom the socia! scienti$ic stu#y o$ !aw. ocio !ega! theory is a "ractice o$

theori@ing about !aw that incor"orates as"ects o$ both 9conce"tua! an#

socio !ega!; a""roaches to !ega! "henomena. ocio!ogica! in*uiries into

the "ractice that !ega! theories "ur"ort to ana!y@e an# e3"!ain 9an#

#escribe an# "rescribe; are essentia! to the enter"rise o$ !ega! theory that

wants to be goo# as it #oes. 'ega! theory however can neither be

subsume# within nor #ictate# by !ega! socio!ogy.

-n summary &amanaha,s rea!istic socio !ega! theory "rovi#es im"ortant

%6


28/29

"oints that are worth a""reciating. Most signi$icant!y) that !aw is a socia!

"ractice amenab!e to socia! scienti$ic stu#yI an# that !ega! theory an#

socio !ega! theory have a !ot to !earn $rom each other. -t has !ong been

recogni@e# that socio!ogica! thinking about !aw wou!# be consi#erab!y

ham"ere#) without the insights o$ ana!ytica! uris"ru#ence. But ana!ytica!

uris"ru#ence can !ook to socio!ogy as we!! an# as much to gain "rovi#e#

it uses the #ata a""ro"riate!y. &hus it is im"ortant $or those stu#ying the

conce"t o$ !aw to know why "eo"!e obey 9or #on,t obey; the !awI why

"eo"!e use e3tra !ega! norms an# "roce#ures to reso!ve #is"utes) how

other societies #ea! with #is"utes.

BB)OGR&P: &N+ RE#ERENCES

; Ereeman M.D.4. '!oy#,s -ntro#uction to Juris"ru#ence 8th e#)

'on#on) weet L Ma3we!!.

%8


29/29

%; Roger Cotterre!!) &he (o!itics o$ Juri"ru#ence) 4 critica! -ntro#uction

to 'ega! (hi!oso"hy) Butherworths) 'on#on an# e#inburgh) =7=.

; Christie) ?.C.) L Martin) (. .) Juris"ru#ence/ &e3t an# Rea#ings on

the (hi!oso"hy o$ 'aw) %n##.) t. (au!) Minn) 2est (ub!ishing Co.)

==5.

>; Reisman) M.2) L chreiber) M. 4) Juris"ru#ence/

Documents

Seminar 8- Sociological Approaches to Law