Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T16:07:25.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Having one's cake and eating it: the paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2011

Reza Banakar
Reza Banakar
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Westminster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traditional doctrinal scholarship provides an important service to practising lawyers by analysing legal rules and decisions, clarifying ambiguities within rules, structuring them in a logical and coherent manner and describing their interrelationship (Chynoweth, 2008). The systematisation and formulation of the law in terms of doctrine creates a conceptual basis for constructing a legal context that helps to determine which rules should be applied in a particular situation. In this sense, doctrinal studies emerge out of the study of legal texts (or black-letter law), which are generated by legislature, courts and other legal authorities, and feed back in to legal practice once they are used in deciding cases. The method of doctrinal research, being functional to legal practice, dominates academic law and legal education. Notwithstanding its role in supporting legal practice, the doctrinal approach is criticised for conveying a normatively closed image of law (Cotterrell, 1995, pp. 50–53), for constructing the legal context narrowly, for presenting the legal system as a body of rules which can be studied in isolation from the broader societal context of the legal system by the exegesis of authoritative texts (Bradney, 1998, p. 76; Vick, 2004), for ‘not being self-conscious about its assumptions’ (Twining, 1999, p. 44) and for cultivating what Geoffrey Samuel (2009) calls the ‘authority paradigm’. Internally, i.e. from the standpoint of the legal system and its functionaries, this paradigm (or legal context) is produced by way of self-reference and normative closure, continually reaffirming the authority of legal sources such as legal texts, previous legal decisions and/or legislation, and prioritising definitions and methods based on what William Twining called the ‘practical insider attitudes’ (Twining, 2000, p. 129; for a discussion, see Banakar, 2003, p. 8). Externally, i.e. from the standpoint of policy-makers and citizenry, it is upheld through the threat of violence against non-compliance, backed by the authority of the modern state. The authority paradigm's normative closure and its dependency on coercion encourage ‘rigidity and introspection rather than an open-minded attitude to academic methods and pursuits’ (Samuel, 2009, p. 432). It fosters an understanding of the law as a system, which exists independently of societal forces. In order to escape the intellectual constraints of the authority paradigm, many academic lawyers turn to social theory and social sciences, which in contrast to law are based on the ‘perspective of enquiry’ (Samuel, 2009; see also Banakar, 2009b). These scholars place the law in the broader sociocultural context of the legal system and study legal phenomena in relation to societal forces, which are the prerequisite for the existence of the legal system and the production of the narrow legal context of the law. However, such an evasive strategy often comes at a price.

Type
Review essay
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 487 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, Richard (1980) ‘Redirecting Social Studies of Law’, Law & Society Review 14: 805–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, Robert (2000) ‘On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin's Critique’, Ratio Juris 13: 138–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John (1985 [1832]) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Rumble, W. E. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banakar, Reza (2003) Merging Law and Sociology: Beyond the Dichotomies in Socio-Legal Research. Berlin and Wisconsin, Galda + Wilch.Google Scholar
Banakar, Reza (2008) ‘Whose Experience is the Measure of Justice?’, Legal Ethics 10: 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banakar, Reza (2009a) ‘Law through Sociology's Looking Glass: Conflict and Competition in Sociological Studies of Law’, in Denis, Ann and Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah (eds), The ISA New Handbook in Contemporary International Sociology: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. London: Sage, 58–73.Google Scholar
Banakar, Reza (2009b) ‘Power, Culture and Method in Comparative Law’, International Journal of Law in Context 5: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banakar, Reza (ed.) (2010) Rights in Context: Law and Justice in Late Modern Society. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Barton, Thomas D. (1998) ‘Troublesome Connections: The Law and Post-Enlightenment Culture’, Emory Law Journal 47: 163–236.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bradney, Anthony (1998) ‘Law as a Parasitic Discipline’, Journal of Law and Society 25: 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradney, Anthony (2003) Conversations, Choices and Changes: The Liberal Law School in the Twenty-First century. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Burke, Peter (2002) ‘Context in Context’, Common Knowledge 8: 152–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chynoweth, Paul (2008) ‘Legal Research’, in Knight, Andrew and Ruddock, Les (eds), Advanced Research Methods in The Built Environment. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell, 28–38.Google Scholar
Constable, Marianne (2005) The Limits and Possibilities of the Modern Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger (1995) Law's Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger (2003) The Politics of Jurisprudence, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger (2006) Law, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cownie, Fiona (2004) Legal Academics: Culture and Identities. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Douzinas, Costas and Gearey, Adam (2005) Critical Jurisprudence: The Political Philosophy of Justice. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Eugen (1936 [1913]) Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1985) Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1987) The Legal System. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. (2002) American Law in the 20th Century. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) ‘Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change’, Law & Society Review 9: 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, John (1986) ‘What is Legal Pluralism’, Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 24: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurvitch, Georges (1947) Sociology of Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kubal, Agnieszka M. (2010) Socio-Legal Integration of Polish Post-2004 EU Enlargement Migrants into the United Kingdom. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Law, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Kurkchiyan, Marina (forthcoming) ‘Perceptions of Law and National Order: A Cross-National Comparison of Collective Legal Consciousness’, Wisconsin International Law Journal.Google Scholar
Lacey, Nicola (2004) A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (2004) Law as a Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, Neil (1981) H. L. A. Hart. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Menski, Werner (2007) ‘Beyond Europe’, in Örücü, Esin and Nelken, David (eds), Comparative Law: A Handbook. Oxford: Hart, 189–216.Google Scholar
Nelken, David (2009a) Beyond Law in Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Nelken, David (2009b) ‘Comparatists and Transferability’, reprinted in David Nelken, Beyond Law in Context.Google Scholar
Norrie, Alan (2005) Law and the Beautiful Soul. London: GlassHouse Press.Google Scholar
Petrazycki, Leon (1955) Law and Morality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podgórecki, Adam (1991) A Sociological Theory of Law. Milano, Dott: A. Giuffre Editore.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe (1917) ‘The Limits of Effective Legal Action’, International Journal of Ethics 27: 150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1980) The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, Geoffrey (2009) ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?’, Journal of Law and Society 36: 431–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin (2000) ‘Pain, Powerlessness, and the Promises of Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship: An Idiosyncratic, Autobiographical Account of Conflict and Continuity’, Windsor Year Book of Access to Justice 18: 187–212.Google Scholar
Selznick, Phillip (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan S. (2005) ‘After Legal Consciousness’, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 1: 323–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, Carol (1995) Feminism and the Power of Law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Soifer, Aviam (1988) ‘Beyond Mirrors: Lawrence Friedman's Moving Pictures’, Law and Society Review 22: 995–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjernquist, Per (1950) Föreningsfirmans funktion. Lund: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Stjernquist, Per (2000) Organised Cooperation Facing Law: An Anthropological Study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Stjernquist, Per and Widerberg, Karin (1985) Rätten I Samhällsbyggandet, 2nd edn.Stockholm: Nordstedt.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. (1993) ‘The Folly of the “Social Scientific” Concept of Legal Pluralism’, Journal of Law and Society 20: 192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tönnies, F. (1955) Community and Association (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tuitt, Patricia (2004) Race, Law, Resistance. London: GlassHouse Press.Google Scholar
Twining, William (1999) Law in Context. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Twining, William (2000) Globalisation and Legal Theory. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Vick, Douglas W. (2004) ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law’, Journal of Law and Society 31: 163–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus (eds). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Sally and Thomas, Phil (2002) ‘Socio-Legal Studies’, in Hayton, David J. (ed.), Law's Future(s): British Legal Developments in the 21st Century. Oxford: Hart, 267–79.Google Scholar
Winch, Peter (1958/1990) The Idea of the Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London, Routledge.Google Scholar