Sociology of Law: Theories and Concepts

Sociology of Law: Theories and Concepts Introduction The three classical thinkers of Sociology, Marx, Weber and Durkheim have one thing in common regarding the Sociology of Law; their theories were part and parcel of a more fundamental sociological perspective and theory of society. Marx will be the odd one among the three because, the work of Marx is on theoretical ground not evidently connected to the aspirations of sociology, but historically Marxs writings have informed a considerable body of sociological writings until this day. Marx made a contribution to social science by suggesting the instrumentalist theory of law in contributing to and justifying social inequality. Durkheims work orients around the key dimensions of social issues as involving both factual and normative dimensions of society. Whereas Weber is considered as the founding father par excellence of the modern sociology of law. When Weber observed that social life in the modern era had become more and more rationalized in a purposive-rational sense, he no only conte mplated the central role of economy, stat, and bureaucracy, but along with it also discussed the role of law as the basis of modern political authority. Weber specifically outlined the characteristics of a formally rationalized legal system that is primarily guided by the application of procedure. Sociology of Law The sociology of law is often described as a sub-discipline of sociology or an interdisciplinary approach within legal studies. While some socio-legal scholars see the sociology of law as necessarily belonging to the discipline of sociology, others see it as a field of research caught up in the disciplinary tensions and competitions between the two established disciplines of law and sociology. Yet, others regard it neither as a sub-discipline of sociology nor as a branch of legal studies and, instead, present it as a field of research on its own right within a broader social science tradition. For example, Roger Cotterrell describes the sociology of law without reference to mainstream sociology as the systematic, theoretically grounded, empirical study of law as a set of social practices or as an aspect or field of social experience. Irrespective of whether the sociology of law is defined as a sub-discipline of sociology, an approach within legal studies, or a field of research in its own right, it remains intellectually dependent mainly on mainstream sociology, and to lesser extent on other social sciences such as social anthropology, political science, social policy, criminology and psychology, i.e. it draws on social theories and employs social scientific methods to study law, legal institutions and legal behaviour. More specifically, the sociology of law consists of various sociological approaches to the study of law in society, which empirically examines and theorizes the interaction between law and legal institutions, on the one hand, and other (non-legal) social institutions and social factors, on the other. Areas of socio-legal inquiry include the social development of legal institutions, forms of social control, legal regulation, the interaction between legal cultures, the social construction of legal issues, legal profession, and the relation between law and social change. The sociology of law also benefits from and occasionally draws on research conducted within other fields such as comparative law, critical legal studies, jurisprudence, legal theory, law and economics and law and literature. The Classical Thinkers The roots of the sociology of law can be traced back to the works of sociologists and jurists of the turn of the previous century. The relationship between law and society was sociologically explored in the seminal works of both Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. The works of Karl Marx was not immediately influential in the development of the sociology of law as no direct historical path led from his thought to subsequent sociological schools of thought. Marxs work was later appropriated by critical sociologists who sought to break with the consensual thinking that they felt characterized much of mainstream sociology in the years after World War II. The writings on law by these classical sociologists are foundational to the entire sociology of law today. A number of other scholars, mainly jurists, also employed social scientific theories and methods in an attempt to develop sociological theories of law. Notably among these were Leon Petrazycki, Eugen Ehrlich and Georges Gurvitch. Marxs theory is not to be understood merely as a theory of the economy, for his analysis of capitalism is meant to provide the basis for an analysis of society. The economic organization of society is its material core from which all other social developments in matters of politics, culture, and law can be explained. This is summarized in Marxs famous dictum that the infrastructure of a society determines it superstructure. Thus, the division between the economic classes of owners and non-owners appears at the societal level as a class antagonism between the relatively small but powerful bourgeoisie and the relatively large but powerless proletariat. The bourgeoisie can articulate its economic power also at the political, cultural, and legal level because of its control over all important institutions of society, such as government, the legal system, art science, and education. The economic, according to Marx, only the destruction of capitalism in favor of a communist mode of product ion, whereby the workers collectively own and control the means of production, world ensure a successful revolution of society in to a more just social order. Marx did not develop a comprehensive perspective on law and his ideas on law are scattered throughout his writings. Marxs theory of the state provides the most useful entry into his perspective on law. Congruent with his materialist perspective, Marx asserts that the economic conditions of society determine what type of state will develop, which in a capitalist society implies that the state will be controlled by the bourgeoisie as an instrument to secure economic rights and to moderate class conflict. For him the capitalist state represents and secures the power of the dominant economic class which now also becomes the politically dominant class. Interestingly, Marx argues that the democratic republic, rather than being a more egalitarian form of the capitalistic state, for it totally disregards the property distinction that have arisen under capitalism. Marxs notion on law is instrumentalist, similar to that of his notion of state. He views the legal system in function of its role as an instrument of control serving bourgeois interests. Rather than abiding by a principle of the rule of law that holds that it is just for the law to be applied equally and fairly to all, Marx maintains that capitalist law actually enhances the conditions of inequality that mark capitalist society. Marx contends that the capitalist legal system contributes to inequality because capitalist law establishes and applies individualized rights of freedom, which benefit those who own while disfavoring those who are without property. The formal equality that is granted in law by treating the various parties that are in contract with one another or with the state as equal contributes to sustain and develop the economic inequalities that exist among legal subjects. Legal doctrine justifies the practices of capitalist law on the basis of a notion of justice claime d to be universally valid but which in actuality serves the interests of only the dominant economic class. The ideology of capitalist law is ultimately accepted widely even among those members of society who are economically disadvantaged and thus additionally subject to the inequalities brought about by the legal system. For Max Weber, a so-called legal rational form as a type of domination within society, is not attributable to people but to abstract norms. He understood the body of coherent and calculable law in terms of a rational-legal authority. Such coherent and calculable law formed a precondition for modern political developments and the modern bureaucratic state and developed in parallel with the growth of capitalism. Central to the development of modern law is the formal rationalisation of law on the basis of general procedures that are applied equally and fairly to all. Weber specifically outlined the characteristics of a formally rationalized legal system that is primarily guided by the application of procedures. His analysis of law is an intrinsic part of his sociology, in terms of both its perspective of the study of society and its theoretical propositions on the conditions of modern society. Modern rationalised law is also codified and impersonal in its application to specific cases. In general, Webers standpoint can be described as an external approach to law that studies the empirical characteristics of law, as opposed to the internal perspective of the legal sciences and the moral approach of the philosophy of law. Weber developed his perspective on law as part of a more general sociology. In the systematic nature and comprehensive scope of its contribution, Webers analysis is rivaled only by that of Emile Durkheim, whose sociology of law was likewise part and parcel of a more fundamental sociological perspective and theory of society. Emile Durkheim wrote in The Division of Labour in Society, that as society becomes more complex, the body of civil law concerned primarily with restitution and compensation grows at the expense of criminal laws and penal sanctions. Over time, law has undergone a transformation from repressive law to restitutive law. Restitutive law operates in societies in which there is a high degree of individual variation and emphasis on personal rights and responsibilities. For Durkheim, law is an indicator of the mode of integration of a society, which can be mechanical, among identical parts, or organic, among differentiated parts such as in industrialized societies. Durkheim also argued that a sociology of law should be developed alongside, and in close connection with, a sociology of morals, studying the development of value systems reflected in law. At sociologys heart is a concern for morality. For Durkheim, society cannot exist without moral bonds, whether these are bonds of shared belief or of mutual commitment reflecting the interdependence of individuals or social groups. Moral ideas are neither innate in the individual nor to be deduced from abstract first principles. They are inspired by the empirical conditions of social lie in particular times and places. To understand those conditions and the forces that shape social development is rationally to appreciate moralitys demands. Morality provides the normative framework of stable social relationships. In modern society these relationships are primarily domestic, economic and occupational and political relationship of citizenship. Morality expresses the requirements of living together in particular environments; the domain of the moral begins where the domain of the social begins (Durkheim, 1961:60). For Durkheim, Moral ideas are the soul (lame) of the law(1909:150). Law ex presses what is fundamental in any societys morality. So the study of law like that of morality is central to sociology. Conclusion Among the three classic thinkers Marx did not focus on law to any degree of intellectual satisfaction, while the sociological contributions of Weber and Durkheim are not only influential but foundational to the sociology of law.

The Legitimate Authority Theory Essay -- social influence, authority, a

Obedience is a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure. Already at an early age we are taught to obey authority figures within our social groups through influences such as parents, teachers or even religious establishments. The Agency Theory (Milgram 1963) supports the idea that a person will obey the Authority figure and work as an agent for this authority figure under the implied possibility of there being no consequences to their actions as either the authority figure will take on no liability or said authority figure has justified these action therefore they are acceptable. The strongest evidence supporting this theory was gained after researching WW2 German soldiers who were stationed at the labor and death camps. When asked why they committed these atrocities they simply responded â€Å"we were ordered to do this† (Mike Haralambos et al (2002) Psychology in Focus A Level). The Legitimate Authority theory (Milgram 1963) strongly links into the Agency theory. As stated beforehand one must recognize an individual or a collective of individuals as authority figures before acting on their behalf. This theory suggests that we obey those seen as authority figures as were are taught to do so from an early age. A legitimate authority figure can be individuals or organizations such as the government, the boss at work, a police officer or as demonstrated in Milgram’s study (1963) a scientist. The Gradual Commitment theory (Milgram 1963) expounds that an individual will willingly perform seemingly harmless, trivial tasks. Milgram’s participants were encouraged to obey the experimenter by the gradual steps they were directed to take. This was accomplished with increasi... ...rying out the orders. They were not supposed to take instructions by phone, let alone exceed the allowed dose. Works Cited Eysenck, M. and Flanagan, C. (2000) Psychology for AS level, Hove, Psychology Press Cox, E. (2008) AS Psychology, London, Philip Allan Updates Page 206 Mike Haralambos et al (2002) Psychology in Focus A Level, The Bath Press Page 144 The following studies were taken from this book: Hofling (1966) http://www.psychology4a.com/Social%20influence.htm November 11, 2013 http://aspsychologyblackpoolsixth.weebly.com/obedience.htmlNovember 11, 2013 http://aspsychology101.wordpress.com/social-psychology/November 11, 2013 http://atheism.about.com/od/warandmorality/a/jusadbellum_3.htmNovember 11, 2013 Coralie et.al 2013 www.coraliethirietpsychology.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/obedience-experiment-coralie-medisa-zahra-bryony-and-jesse/ 13 November 2013

How Do Gangs Affect Adolescent Behavior?

Since the early 1920s, researchers have closely studied the relations between the street gangs and violent crime froma variety of perspectives: criminological, sociological and psychological (Thomas, 2008). Whatever the underlying causes for gang membership, the resuls seems clear; members of street gangs admit to a far greater rate of serious crime, and to far more severe acts of of the same age, race, and socioeconomic background (Penly Hall, Thornberry & Lizotte, 2006) than non-gang members of the same age, race, and socioeconomic background (Battin-Pearson, Thornberry, Hawkins & Krohn, 1998).According to the Web site safetyouth. org (n. d. ) gang violence is certainly a cause for concern: Gang members are responsible for much of the serious violence in the United States . . . Teens that are gang members are much more likely than other teens to commit serious and violence crimes. For example, a survey in Denver found that while only 14% of teens were gang members, they were respon sible for committing 89% of the serious violent crimes. (n. p. ) Many researchers have come to the conclusion that gangs necessarily cause violence and deviant behavior.As a matter of policy then, it seems clear that the solution of a number of social ills is to break up, disrupt, or prevent the formations of gangs (Battin-Pearson, et al. , 1998). Yet, is this the solution? As George Thomas (2008) states, â€Å"The problem is complex, so the solutions cannot be complex† (p. 88). So what is the solution? According to the U. S. Department of Education (n. d. ), all factors of age, race, and socioeconomic background must be taken into consideration . . .

William Shakespeare s Julius Caesar Essay - 1609 Words

The topic of leadership in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar has been discussed and argued ever since the play was written. The most prevalent discussion of leadership in the play revolves around Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Marcus Brutus, and the cause of his downfall. According to Shakespeare critic James Bundy, â€Å"Brutus... is a man whose affections sway more than his reason, in whom there is this tragic confederacy of passion and imagination against reason† (qtd. in Palmer 402). Ernest Shanzer, however, says that Brutus is â€Å"by no means devoid of political shrewdness and practical wisdom†, but he is a â€Å"bad judge of character† (Shanzer 1). Although both critics’ descriptions of Brutus have merit, Brutus’ shortcoming, as well as the success of the opposing leader, Mark Antony, is more accurately explained using the observations of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince. In this book Machiavelli outlines the characteristics of a s uccessful leader. When using The Prince as a lens to read Julius Caesar, the correlation between a leader’s Machiavellianism and their success becomes very apparent. Marcus Brutus is undoubtedly an honorable and respectable man, but his morality prevents him from adhering to Machiavelli’s principles. Due to his lack of princely virtues, Brutus is doomed to fail, while Antony, a much more Machiavellian prince, successfully seizes power. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince is one of the most respected documents in existence regarding power, and for goodShow MoreRelatedWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar1082 Words   |  5 Pages â€Å"Et tu, Brutà ©? Then fall Caesar† (III.i 179). The fatal stabs of the conspirators did not kill the all-mighty Julius Caesar, for the sharp butcher of Brutus pierced his heart and condemned his life to cessation. This dramatic, mood changing affair serves as the pivotal platform in William Shakespeare’s, Julius Caesar. It is a compelling novel that recounts the unjust murder of Julius Caesar, an ancient Roman general. Oblivious to this conspicuous foreshadowing, Caesar fails to distinguish his trueRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar Essay1833 Words   |  8 Pages INTRODUCTION The seemingly straightforward simplicity of â€Å"Julius Caesar† has made it a perennial favourite for almost 400 years. Despite its simplicity, almost Roman in nature, the play is rich both dramatically and thematically, and every generation since Shakespeare’s time has been able to identify with some political aspect of the play. The Victorians found a stoic, sympathetic character in Brutus and found Caesar unforgivably weak and tyrannical. As we move into the twenty-first century, audiencesRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar Essay2414 Words   |  10 Pages Christa Kiesling AP Lang Block 1 Mr. Snider 6 Nov. 2016 RA1 William Shakespeare, in his historical play Julius Caesar, makes the characters Brutus and Antony utilize rhetorical strategies in order to win the favour of the Roman people for their own purposes. These two speakers try to convince the audience of different things: where Brutus, who speaks first, was trying to subdue the passions of the mob and use logic to win acceptance for his murderous actions, Antony, who had to follow Brutus, wasRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar760 Words   |  4 Pagespeople of Rome. In Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare, Brutus and Antony address the people over Caesar’s dead body. The body is brought to the town square shortly after he was murdered by the Senate. Brutus, one of the murderers, appeals to the people’s fear and patriotism. Antony speaks after and puts doubts of the justification of the murder and plays to the people’s hearts. Brutus addresses the crowd by using his reputation to support his reasons for killing Caesar. He starts his speechRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar804 Words   |  4 Pagesthe phenomenal, as well as tyrannical, Roman rulers throughout history, Julius Caesar is by far the most prominent. This fame is due in no small part to William Shakespeare and his play that bears the same name. However, although Caesar is the play’s namesake, the story’s central focus is on Brutus and Caius Cassius and their plot to assassinate Caesar. When discussing Antony’s fate in Act II scene 1 of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus argues against what he perceives as the unnecessary and brutalRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar919 Words   |  4 Pageschoices that eventually bring about their demise. At first glance, Caesar may appear to be the tragic hero, when the real tragedy actually lies in Brutus’s story in William Shakespeare s p lay The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. One tray a tragic hero must posses is that they are relatable. The play may be named for Caesar, but the reader simply knows more of Brutus and his motives, which help to make his story a tragedy more so than Caesar s. Brutus’ thoughts, actions, and history are made more apparentRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar1508 Words   |  7 Pages William Shakespeare’s play, â€Å"The Tragedy of Julius Caesar† was mainly based on the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar. â€Å"Julius Caesar† is a play based on rhetoric and politics. Rhetoric is the science of manipulation. Marcus Brutus, a Senate and a beloved friend of Caesar stood as the face among the conspirators leading the assassination of Julius Caesar. Aristotle said, â€Å"A man doesn’t become a hero until he can see the root of his downfall†. He defined a tragic hero as someone who is highlyRead MoreThemes Of William Shakespeare s Julius Caesar 2063 Words   |  9 Pages Theme, Mood and Conflict in Julius Caesar Savannah Baine â€Å"Come I to speak at Caesar’s funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me. But Brutus says that he was too ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man .† Mark Antony (Act 3,Scene 2,Line 85). â€Å"Julius Caesar† by William Shakespeare, is a classic play depicting the death of Caesar and the chaos that ensues afterwards. One theme in this play is fate vs. free will, the mood is seriousRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar1721 Words   |  7 Pagesusually stems from their own deep rooted hatred of a person and is often in some way personally benefiting to themselves. However, this is not the case of Brutus in Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar. Brutus’s plan to murder Julius Caesar does not make him a villainous man but a rather noble one. Despite his plot against Caesar, Brutus’s intentions were always one-hundred percent honorable. The first instance in the play where the reader learns of just how honorable a man Brutus is, is in Act 1, SceneRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar1201 Words   |  5 PagesDellinger English II 4/18/17 Julius Caesar There are many people you may have heard of that lived during 100 B.C.- 10 A.D. in Rome. Some of those people include Marcus Brutus, Cleopatra, Mark Antony, and Julius Caesar. In this paper I will be talking about Julius Caesar. And while doing so I will be talking about his early/personal life, his career, and his assassination. Julius Caesar was born July 12. B.C. as Gaius Julius Caesar, to Aurelia Cotta, and Gaius Julius Caesar. Julius was born with the Neurological