¹ For background information on Ekholm's personal traits, his relations with the neighbours, the Council, etc., see Möller, Lotta, “Brottet mot en trädgårdkultur” (1993) Sydsvenska Dagbladet, 4 juniGoogle Scholar; and Alcala, Jesus, “Hovrätten som fastighetsmäklare” (1993) Sydsvenska Dagbladet, 15 juli.Google Scholar

² For detailed presentations of Gurvitch's life and work, see Bosserman, Phillip, Dialectical Sociology: An Analysis of the Sociology of Georges Gurvitch (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1968)Google Scholar, and McDonald, Pauline, “The Legal Sociology of Georges Gurvitch” (1979) 6 British Journal of Law and Society 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ See McDonald, supra note 2.

⁴ See Hunt, Alan, “The Sociology of Law of Gurvitch and Timasheff: A Critique of Theories of Normative Integration” (1979) 2 Research in Law and Sociology 169–204Google Scholar, Belley, Jean-Guy, “Georges Gurvitch et les professionnels de la pensée juridique” (1986) 4 Droit et Société 353–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Carbonnier, Jean, “Gurvitch et les juristes” (1986) 4 Droit et Société 347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Hunt, supra note 4 at 189.

⁶ See Noreau, Pierre and Arnaud, André-Jean, “The Sociology of Law in France: Trends and Paradigms” (1998) 25 Journal of Law and Society 258–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Gurvitch, Georges, Sociology of Law (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd, 1947).Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. at 9.

⁹ Ibid. at 41.

¹⁰ Ibid. at 156.

¹¹ For a detailed presentation of “kinds of law” and “layers of law” see Gurvitch, supra note 7 at 166–181. For a diagram demonstrating how the types of law (organised/unorganised sociality) are correlated to “levels of depth” and layers of law, i.e. law fixed in advance, flexible law and intuitive law, see Hunt, supra note 4 at 187.

¹² McDonald, supra note 2 at 39.

¹³ Gurvitch, supra note 7 at 39.

¹⁴ Ibid. at 41.

¹⁵ Ibid. at 159.

¹⁶ Ibid. op. cit.

¹⁷ See Beck, Ulrich et al. , Reflexive Modernisation (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. I (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Moore, Sally Falk, Law as Process (London: Routledge and Kegan 1976).Google Scholar

²⁰ Gurvitch, Georges, L'idée du droit social (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1932)Google Scholar and Dialectique et sociologie (Paris: Flammarion, 1962).

²¹ Ibid. at 17.

²² McDonald, supra note 2 at 32.

²³ See Dahrendorf, Ralf, “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis” (1958) 64 American Journal of Sociology 115–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berger, Peter and Luckmann, ThomasThe Social Construction of Reality (London: Allen Lane, 1967)Google Scholar; and Giddens, Anthony, reprint The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986).Google Scholar

²⁴ Gurvitch, supra note 7 at 41.

²⁵ Ibid. at 41–41.

²⁶ Ibid. at 41–42.

²⁷ Ibid. at 1.

²⁸ See Geertz, C., “From the Natives point of View: on the Nature of Anthropological Understanding” in McCutcheon, Russell T., ed., The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion (Cambridge: Polity Press 1999).Google Scholar For Geertz (op. cit. at 38–50) the perspectives of the insider (or the subject) is “experience-near” and different from that of the outsider (an analyst) which is “experience-distant.” However, the difference between these two perspectives is one of degree, i.e. they are not polar opposites (op. cit. at 51).

²⁹ See Hunt, Alan, Explorations in Law and Society: Toward a Constitutive Theory of Law (New York: Routledge, 1993).Google Scholar Hunt is one of the few socio-legal scholars who have addressed the role played by forms of this dichotomy (or what he also calls “shared dualism”) in the theoretical studies of law. According to Hunt contemporary theoretical studies of law exhibit a parallelism by conceptualising the law with a help of “a shared dualism” the general form of which is to be found between “coercion” and “consent.” Hunt points out that the conceptualisation of this shared dualism may take “a variety verbal forms” (Hunt, op. cit. at 62).

³⁰ Pound, Roscoe, “The Limits of Effective Legal Action” (1917) 27 International Journal of Ethics 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar Orig. publ. 1982.

³² See Barton, Thomas D., “Troublesome Connections: The Law and Post-Enlightenment Culture” (1998) 47 Emory Law Journal 163–236.Google Scholar

³³ Luhmann, Niklas, “The Self-Reproduction of Law and its Limits,” in The Dilemma of Law in the Welfare States. Edited by Teubner, Günther (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986).Google Scholar

³⁴ Black, Donald, “The Boundaries of Legal Sociology” (1972) 81 Yale Law Journal 1086–1100 at 1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ The investigation into the gap between the ideal and the reality of the law gave rise to a number of original empirical studies of contractual relations. See Aubert, Vilhelm et al. , En lov i søkelyset (A Law In the Searchlight), (Oslo: Akademisk forlag, 1952)Google Scholar, Macaulay, Stewart, “None-Contractual Relations in Business” (1963) 28 American Sociological Review 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kurczewski, Jacek and Frieske, K. “Some Problems in the Legal Regulation of the Activities of Economic Institutions” (1977) 11 Law and Society Review 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Theoretically sophisticated enquiries into this problem are to be found in Trubek, David, “Complexity and Contradiction in the Legal Order” (1977) 11 Law and Society Review 524–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Unger, R. M., Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory (New York: Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar

³⁶ Tamanaha, Brian Z., Realistic Socio-Legal Theory: Pragmatism and a Social Theory of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1997) at 101–3 and 117–8.Google Scholar Also see Nelken, David, “The Gap Problem in the Sociology of Law: A Theoretical Review” (1981) 1 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 35–61.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ehrlich, Eugen, The Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1936).Google Scholar Orig. publ. 1913.

³⁸ Hunt, supra note 29 at 64.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Gurvitch, supra note 7 at 241.

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996) at 66.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Nelken, David, “Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law” (1998) 25 Journal of Law and Society 407–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Banakar, Reza, “Reflections on the Methodological Issues of the Sociology of Law” (2000) 27 Journal of Law and Society 273–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁴ Flood, John A., Barristers' Clerks: The Law's Middlemen (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Aubert et al, supra note 35.

⁴⁶ Banakar, Reza, The Doorkeepers of the Law (Aldershot: Dartmouth; Brookfield, Vt: Ashgate, 1998).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Flood, supra note 44 at 37.

⁴⁸ Ibid. at 131.

⁴⁹ Ibid. at 55.

⁵⁰ Ibid. at 54.

⁵¹ Ibid. at 55–56.

⁵² Ibid. at 132–133.

⁵³ Ibid. at 132–133.

⁵⁴ Halliday, Terence C., Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crises, and Professional Empowerment (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Flood, supra note 44 at 50.

⁵⁶ ibid. at 47.

⁵⁷ Aubert, Vilhelm, Sociology of Law (London: Penguin, 1977) at 117.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid. at 116–117.

⁵⁹ Ibid. at 118.

⁶⁰ Sumner, W. Graham, Folkways (New York: New American Library Edition, 1960)Google Scholar (First ed. 1906).

⁶¹ Sverdrup, Tone “Mellom ektenskapskontrakt og lønnskontrakt” Rapport fra nordisk forskerkurs i kvinnerett, Skrift nr 3 från Institut for offentlig rett (1982)Google Scholar, cited and discussed in Mathiesen, Thomas, Rätten i samhället (Göterborg: Bokförlaget Korpen, 1985).Google Scholar

⁶² See Gilligan, supra note 31.

⁶³ See Banakar, supra note 46.

⁶⁴ See Habermas, supra note 42.

⁶⁵ Gurvitch, supra note 7 at 241.

⁶⁶ Ibid.