A common description of the sociology of law, legal sociology, or law and society is that it is an interdisciplinary field under legal studies or a sub-discipline of sociology.[1] While some believe that the sociology of law is “necessarily” a subfield of sociology, others generally regard it as a subject of study that lies between sociology and law.[3]
Some others view it as an independent area of study within the larger social scientific tradition rather than as a subfield of sociology or a subset of legal studies. As such, it might be defined as “the systematic, theoretically grounded, empirical study of law as a set of social practices or as an aspect or field of social experience” without referring to mainstream sociology.*[4]
Irrespective of the definition, sociology of law is still an intellectually dependent field that draws primarily from the traditions, methods, and theories of sociology proper, criminology, administration of justice, and processes that define the criminal justice system.
It also draws to a lesser extent from other social sciences like political science, social policy, psychology, geography, and social anthropology. In order to investigate law, legal institutions, and legal behavior, it therefore takes into account social theories and applies social science methodologies.(6) As a result, the social study of law views jurisprudence from several angles. These viewpoints are theoretical, historical, and analytical or positive.(7)
Intellectual origins of Sociology of Law
The writings of jurists and sociologists from the turn of the 20th century serve as the foundation for the sociology of law. Max Weber and Émile Durkheim both wrote influential books that sociologically examined the connection between society and the law.
The foundation of modern law sociology is laid by the legal writings of these ancient sociologists.11] To create sociological conceptions of law, a number of other academics—mostly jurists—also used social science theories and methodologies. Among them were Leon Petrazycki, Eugen Ehrlich, and Georges Gurvitch, who were notable figures.
For Max Weber, abstract standards rather than individuals are responsible for a so-called “legal rational form” of dominance in society.In [12]
The formal rationalization of law on the basis of universal procedures that are applied equally and fairly to everyone is fundamental to the development of modern law. The rationalized law of today is likewise impersonal and codified in how it applies to particular situations.
Generally speaking, Weber’s perspective differs from the internal viewpoint of the legal sciences and the moral approach of the philosophy of law in that it is an exterior approach to law that examines the empirical features of law.In [14]
Theodore Durkheim
In The Division of Labour in Society, Émile Durkheim observed that as society develops more complicated, criminal rules and penalties are subordinated to the body of civil law, which is largely concerned with restoration and compensation.In [15]
Sociological approaches to the study of law
Modern sociology of law
After World War II, the sociology of law emerged as a distinct academic discipline with a strong emphasis on empirical study.After World War II, sociologists did not focus primarily on studying law, though several eminent scholars did write about the function of law in society. For example, Talcott Parsons views the law as a crucial tool for social control in his writing.33] Other sociological viewpoints on law emerged in response to the objections leveled about functionalism.
Critical sociologists have developed the view that the law is a tool of power [34]. Other sociologists of law, like Philip Selznick, contended that moral considerations had to be taken into account as modern law grew more responsive to the demands of society.(35)
The focus of sociology of law, as a “pure science,” is not on criminals but rather on the causes or effects of disorder, violence, and criminality, which are viewed as byproducts of the social and physical environment that is shaped by morality, education, law, and all other forms of social organization.36]
Therefore, given the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the study of causes and effects, particularly in matters related to crime, contemporary sociologists focus their attention on identifying and analyzing risk factors (such as those that turn children and youth into potential offenders) and protective factors (such as those that tend to bring about “normal” personalities and “good” community members).
This is because applied science is focused on finding solutions to concrete problems.(37) Autopoietic systems theory is similar in scope but distinct once again.
In contrast to Luhmann, social philosopher Jürgen Habermas contends that the law can serve as a “system” institution more effectively if it more accurately represents the interests of common people in the “lifeworld.”
The theory of Pierre Bourdieu and his adherents, which views law as a social field where players compete for cultural, symbolic, and economic capital and thereby establish the reproductive professional habitus of the lawyer, is yet another sociological explanation of law and lawyers.(41)
The 1960s and 1970s saw a significant development in empirical sociology of law study in a number of continental European nations. The work of Adam Podgórecki and his colleagues, who were frequently influenced by Petrazycki’s theories, was particularly noteworthy in Poland; around this time, empirical study in the sociology of law was conducted in Sweden.
Law and Society
A group of American sociologists with a strong interest in the study of law took the initiative to start the Law and Society movement following World War II.43] Lawrence Friedman sums up the Law and Society movement’s reasoning in two succinct words: “Law is a massive vital presence in the United States.” It is too significant to be handled by attorneys.”
In [44] Its founders were of the opinion that the “study of law and legal institutions in their social context could be constituted as a scholarly field distinguished by its commitment to interdisciplinary dialogue and multidisciplinary research methods” .45] Therefore, “this work’s basic assumption is that law is not autonomous, that is, independent of society.” In contrast, “traditional legal scholarship”
According to one perspective, the primary distinction between Law and Society and the sociology of law is that the latter attempts to incorporate knowledge from all social science fields rather than theoretically or methodologically restricting itself to sociology.49]
“Not only does it provides a home for sociologists and social anthropologists and political scientists with an interest in law, it also tries to incorporate psychologists and economists who study law.”50] From an alternative perspective, sociology of law and Law and Society, despite the former’s unique connections to sociological methodologies, theories, and traditions, ought to be viewed as multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary endeavors.51]
Law and Society researchers carried out a number of innovative empirical investigations on during the 1970s and 1980s.
Sociological jurisprudence
Typically, sociological jurisprudence and the sociology of law are separated. The latter, as a kind of jurisprudence, is more actively involved in legal theory and practice discussions than it is in making direct contributions to social science.
The focus of sociological jurisprudence is on the social origins and consequences of legal concepts as well as the diversity of legal institutions and practices. In order to comprehend changing regulatory forms and the cultural meaning of law, it clearly draws on social scientific research while also utilizing intellectual resources from social theory.53]
It was created in the United States by Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound in its original version.54, 55, 56 The work of early legal sociologists, like the Russian-French scholar Eugen Ehrlich and the Austrian jurist Eugen Ehrlich, had an impact on it.
Socio-legal studies
The growth of “socio-legal studies” in the UK can be attributed mostly to law schools’ encouragement of multidisciplinary legal studies.In [59] Whether it is considered a methodological approach, a sub-discipline, or an emergent discipline, its relationship to and oppositional function within law is frequently taken into consideration.60]
Therefore, it should not be mistaken with the Law and Society research in the US or the legal sociology of many West European nations, which have far deeper disciplinary linkages with the social sciences.
It has previously been criticized for being atheoretic and empiricist and portrayed as the practical field of sociology of law.(61) Max Travers considers socio-legal studies to be a branch of social policy that is primarily focused on influencing.
Symbolic interactionism and Marxism
In the 1950s and 60s, interactionism gained popularity in America as a politically radical substitute for structural-functionalism. Sociologists who understood interactionist theory maintained that sociology should focus on what people were doing in specific contexts and how they perceived their own actions, rather than seeing society as a structure that governs and controls human behavior.In [67]
The focus of these theoretical discussions shifted to the sociology of deviance, which covered subjects like mental illness, criminality, and homosexuality. Criminality was portrayed by functionalists as an issue that the legal system should handle. On the other hand, labeling theorists concentrated on how laws were made and enforced, specifically how crime was framed as an issue. These concepts have been utilized by some British sociologists as well as researchers at law schools .
Marxism, however, was the most influential sociological theory of the time. It emphasised the struggle of various groups for material gain over value-consensus and claimed to provide a scientific and comprehensive understanding of society as a whole, much like structural-functionalism. In addition to piqueing the interest of many left-leaning legal students, this strategy produced some intriguing empirical research.
These included historical research on the ways in which specific statutes were applied to further the objectives of dominant economic groups, as well as Pat Carlen’s eminent ethnography [69], which integrated Marxist and interactionism’s analytical tools—particularly Erving Goffman’s sociology—in its writing about magistrates’ courts.
The Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies
Because Donald Harris purposefully set out to create the conditions for a constructive dialogue between attorneys and sociologists at the University of Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, the 1980s were also a fruitful period for empirical sociology of law in Britain.
A number of young and talented social scientists were recruited by him, including Doreen McBarnet, who became somewhat of a cult figure on the left after publishing her doctoral thesis, which advanced a particularly vigorous and clear Marxist analysis of the criminal justice system, and J. Maxwell Atkinson and Robert Dingwall, who were interested in ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and the sociology of the professions [70]. This review has not previously addressed ethnomethodology, which many reviewers choose to ignore.
Devising a sociological concept of law
The sociology of law does not typically consider and define the law as a system of rules, doctrine, and decisions that exist independently of the society out of which it has formed, in contrast to the traditional notion of law (see the separate section on law). While the rule-based perspective on law is undoubtedly significant, it does not offer a sufficient foundation for characterizing, evaluating, and comprehending law within the framework of society.(81)
Legal sociology therefore views law as a collection of institutional practices that have formed over time in connection to and via interactions with institutions and structures that are cultural, economic, and socio-political. Since law is a contemporary social structure, it undertakes work to establish and maintain its independence from other social structures and systems.
Social evolution has transformed law into a powerful—possibly the most significant—reference of civilized existence by replacing customary relationships based on identities of “blood” or territory with a new kind of subordination that is explicitly voluntary and lawful between equal and free agents.
As laws and legal concepts become more abstracted, the system gains autonomy and mastery over its own processes, enabling the normative order of society to function independently of religious authority and customary law.