Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-8tjh8 Total loading time: 0.253 Render date: 2021-10-18T05:44:42.599Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

Abstract

Through the mid-twentieth century, jurisprudents considered sociological jurisprudence to be one of the most influential theories of law in the United States. By end of the century, however, it had virtually disappeared. The publication of Roger Cotterrell’s Sociological Jurisprudence: Juristic Thought and Social Inquiry (2018) provides an occasion to examine what this theory of law was about, why it disappeared, and its prospects for revival. The topics covered in this essay are the circumstances surrounding the origin of sociological jurisprudence, the tenets of sociological jurisprudence, the successes of sociological jurisprudence, its relationship with sociology of law, its relationship with legal realism, its place in contemporary jurisprudence, and finally, the need to keep jurisprudence open.

Type
Review Symposium: Law and Society Meets Jurisprudence
Copyright
© 2019 American Bar Foundation

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

Albertsworth, E. F.Program of Sociological Jurisprudence.” American Bar Association Journal 8 (1922): 393–97.Google Scholar
Aronson, Moses J.Cardozo’s Doctrine of Sociological Jurisprudence.” Journal of Social Philosophy 5 (1938): 544.Google Scholar
Baxter, Hugh.Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Autopoietic Legal Systems.” Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 9 (2013): 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, Joseph H. “The Necessity for a Study of Legal System.” AALS Proceedings (1914): 31–45.Google Scholar
Bigelow, Melville.A Scientific School of Legal Thought.” Green Bag 17 (1905): 116.Google Scholar
Bix, Brian.Jurisprudence: Theory and Context, 7th ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Black, Donald.The Behavior of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Campbell, C. M., and Wiles, P.. “The Study of Law and Society in Britain.” Law and Society Review 10 (1976): 547–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardozo, Benjamin N.The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1921.Google Scholar
Cohen, Felix.The Legal Conscience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press (1960).Google Scholar
Cohen, Morris R.Jus Naturale Redivivum.” Philosophical Review 6 (1916): 761–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colt, LeBaron.Law and Reasonableness.” American Law Review 17 (1903): 657–76.Google Scholar
Cook, Walter Wheeler.Unpublished Chapter of the Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws.” Illinois Law Review 37 (1943): 418–24.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger.The Sociology of Law: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger.The Politics of Jurisprudence, 2d ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger.Sociological Jurisprudence: Juristic Thought and Social Inquiry. London: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
Deflem, Mathieu.Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John.My Philosophy of Law.” In My Philosophy of Law—Credos of Sixteen American Scholars, Julius Rosenthal Foundation, 7385. Boston: Boston Law Book Co., 1941.Google Scholar
Duxbury, Neil.Patterns of American Jurisprudence. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald.Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Edwards, Harry T.The Growing Disjunction between Legal Education and the Legal Profession.” Michigan Law Review 91 (1992): 3478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Eugen.Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Translated by Moll, Walter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, [1913] 1936.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore.The Origins, Nature, and Promises of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns.” University of Illinois Law Review 2011 (2011): 1714–38.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. Advice and Consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Erlanger, Howard, Garth, Bryant, Larson, Jane, Mertz, Elizabeth, Norse, Victorian, and Wilken, David. “Is It Time for a New Legal Realism?Wisconsin Law Review 2005 (2005): 335–63.Google Scholar
Finnis, John.Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Fischman, Joshua B.Reuniting Is and Ought in Empirical Legal Scholarship.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2013): 117–68.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome.Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1930.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.Law and Society Movement.” Stanford Law Review 38 (1986): 763–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.Coming of Age: Law and Society Enters an Exclusive Club.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (2005): 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, Thomas G.Some Remedies for Judicial Recall.” American Law Review 50 (1916): 801–14.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc.Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering, and Indigenous Law.” Journal of Legal Pluralism 19 (1981): 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garth, Bryant, and Sterling, Joyce. “From Legal Realism to Law and Society: Reshaping Law for the Last Stages of the Social Activist State.” Law & Society Review 32 (1998): 409–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, Gilbert.Sociology and Sociological Jurisprudence: Admixture of Lore and Law.” Kentucky Law Journal 52 (1963): 267–93.Google Scholar
Glick, H. R.Courts, Politics, and Justice. New York: McGraw Hill, 1983.Google Scholar
Green, Leon.Innocent Misrepresentation.” Virginia Law Review 9 (1933): 242–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Leslie.The Forces of Law: Duty, Coercion, and Power.” Ratio Juris 29 (2016): 164–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Thomas C.Modern American Legal Thought.” Yale Law Journal 106 (1996): 493517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, John.What Is Legal Pluralism?Journal of Legal Pluralism 24 (1986): 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurvitch, Georges.Major Problems of the Sociology of Law.” Journal of Social Philosophy 6 (1941): 197215.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A.The Concept of Law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell.The Path of the Law.” Boston Law School Magazine 1, no. 4 (1897): 118.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell.The Common Law. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, [1881] 2005.Google Scholar
Hunt, Alan.The Sociological Movement in Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhering, Rudolph von.Law as a Means to an End. Translated by Husik, Isaac. Boston: Boston Book Co., [1883] 1913.Google Scholar
Jhering, Rudolph von.The Struggle for Law. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, [1872] 1979.Google Scholar
Johnston, James Scott.The Dewey-Hutchens Debate: A Dispute over Moral Teleology.” Educational Theory 61 (2011): 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalman, Laura.In Defense of Progressive Historiography.” Law and History Review 36 (2018): 1021–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Walter B.Pragmatism as a Philosophy of Law.” Marquette Law Review 9 (1924): 6377.Google Scholar
La Follette. “Introduction.” In Our Judicial Oligarchy, Roe, Gilbert E., vi–vii. New York: Huebsch, 1912.Google Scholar
Lewis, William Draper.Social Sciences as the Basis of Legal Education.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 61 (1913): 531–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl.Some Realism about Realism—Responding to Dean Pound.” Harvard Law Review 44 (1931a): 1222–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl.Legal Tradition and Social Sciences Method.” In Essays on Research in the Social Sciences. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1931b.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl, and Hoebel, Adamson. The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1941.Google Scholar
LoPucki, Lynn M.Dawn of the Discipline-Based Law Faculty.” Journal of Legal Education 65 (2016): 506–42.Google Scholar
Lurton, Horace H. 1911. “A Government of Law or a Government of Men?North American Review 193 (1911): 925.Google Scholar
Lustig, Jeffrey R.Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern Political Theory, 1890–1920. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw.Crime and Custom in Savage Society. Totowa: NJ: Helix Book, [1926] 1985.Google Scholar
McCrary, Justin, Milligan, Joy, and Phillips, James. “The Ph.D. Rises in American Law Schools, 1960-2011: What Does It Mean for Legal Education?Journal of Legal Education 65 (2016): 543–79.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle.Legal Pluralism.” Law & Society Review (1988): 869–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Sally Falk.Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject.” Law & Society Review 7 (1973): 719–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelken, David.Law in Action or Living Law? Back to the Beginning in Sociology of Law.” Legal Studies 4 (1984): 157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Edwin W.Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law. Brooklyn, NY: Foundation Press 1953.Google Scholar
Patterson, Edwin W.Some Reflections on Sociological Jurisprudence.” Virginia Law Review 44 (1958): 395408.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Do We Need a Philosophy of Law?Columbia Law Review 5 (1905): 339–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.” The American Lawyer 14 (1906): 445–51.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.The Need of a Sociological Jurisprudence.” Annual Reports A.B.A. 30 (1907): 911–25.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Common Law and Legislation.” Harvard Law Review 21 (1908a): 383407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Mechanical Jurisprudence.” Columbia Law Review 8 (1908b): 605–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Law in Books and Law in Action.” American Law Review 44 (1910): 1236.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. I.” Harvard Law Review 24 (1911a): 591619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. II.” Harvard Law Review 24 (1911b): 140–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. III.” Harvard Law Review 25 (1912): 489516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Interpretations of Legal History. New York: Macmillan Company, 1923.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Contemporary Juristic Theory. Claremont, CA: Ward Richie Press, 1940.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.My Philosophy of Law.” In My Philosophy of Law—Credos of Sixteen American Scholars, Julius Rosenthal Foundation, 249–62. Boston: Boston Law Book Co., 1941.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.Sociology of Law and Sociological Jurisprudence.” University of Toronto Law Journal 5 (1943a): 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe.A Survey of Social Interests.” Harvard Law Review 57 (1943b): 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priban, Jiri.A Sociology of Legal Distinctions: Introducing Contemporary Interpretations of Classical Socio-Legal Concepts.” Journal of Law and Society 44 (2017): 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priban, Jiri.Roger Cotterrell: Sociological Jurisprudence: Juristic Thought and Social Inquiry.” Journal of Law and Society 45 (2018): 330–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabban, David M.Law’s History: American Legal Thought and the Transatlantic Turn to History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph.The Authority of Law, 2d ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy.The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Ross, Edward.Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Social Order. New York: Macmillan, 1906.Google Scholar
Rostow, Eugene V.American Legal Realism and the Sense of the Profession.” Rocky Mountain Law Review 34 (1961): 123–49.Google Scholar
Roughan, Nicole, and Halpin, Andrew. In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumble, Wilfred E.Legal Realism, Sociological Jurisprudence and Mr. Justice Holmes.” Journal of the History of Ideas 26 (1965): 547–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin.A Prophecy of Possibility: Metaphorical Explorations of Postmodern Legal Subjectivity.” Law and Society Review 29 (1994): 615–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin, and Silbey, Susan. “The Pull of the Policy Audience.” Law & Policy 10 (1988): 97166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlegel, John Henry.American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Theodore.Social Justice and the Courts.” Yale Law Journal 22 (1912): 1929.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip.The Sociology of Law.” Journal of Legal Education 12 (1959): 521–31.Google Scholar
Seron, Carol, Coutin, Susan Bibler, and White Meeusen, Pauline. “Is There a Canon of Law and Society?Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9 (2013): 287306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Scott.Legality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silbey, Susan, and Sarat, Austin. “Critical Traditions in Law and Society Research.” Law & Society Review 21 (1987): 165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen, Engel, Stephen M., and Ackerman, Bruce. The Progressives’ Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Julius.The Province and Function of Law: Law as Logic, Justice, and Social Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.The Mounting Evidence against the Formalist Age.” Texas Law Review 91 (2014): 1667–84.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.Legal Realism in Context.” In The New Legal Realism: Translating Law-and-Society for Today’s Legal Practice, Vol. 1, edited by Mertz, Elizabeth, Macaulay, Steward, and Mitchell, Thomas W., 146–68. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.A Realistic Theory of Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.The Promise and Conundrums of Pluralist Jurisprudence.” Modern Law Review 82 (2019): 159–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Seymour D.Government by Lawyers.” American Law Review 30 (1896): 672701.Google Scholar
Trubek, David M.Back to the Future: The Short, Happy Life of the Law and Society Movement.” Florida State University Law Review 18 (1990): 155.Google Scholar
Trubek, David M., and Esser, Jon P., “‘From Scientism without Determinism’ to ‘Interpretation without Politics:’ A Reply to Sarat, Harrington and Yngvession.” Law & Social Inquiry 15 (1990): 171–80.Google Scholar
Vinogradoff, Paul.Introduction to Historical Jurisprudence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1920.Google Scholar
Wacks, Ramond.Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory, 3d ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Warren, Charles.The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol. 3. New York: Little Brown, 1937.Google Scholar
West, Robin.Normative Jurisprudence: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. Edward.From Sociological Jurisprudence to Realism: Jurisprudence and Social Change in Early Twentieth Century America.” Virginia Law Review 58 (1972) 9991028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
In re Debs, 158 U.S. 594 (1895).Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Google Scholar
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).Google Scholar
Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895).Google Scholar
United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895).Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *