Social Legal Theory Deals with

The partial failure of the welfare state, which relies on legal intervention to facilitate social change, has attracted considerable attention from contemporary social law scholars. For proponents of autopoiesis theory, it is not surprising that the law appears relatively ineffective when used to achieve various economic or social policy objectives, since the law cannot intervene directly or even communicate with these systems. Teubner proposes that the limits of regulation be defined by the limits of self-reproduction: «A regulatory measure is effective only to the extent that it maintains a self-producing internal interaction of the elements of regulatory systems, law and policy, which is at the same time compatible with the self-producing internal interactions in the regulated system» (Teubner, 1984: 386, emphasis deleted). If regulation does not meet the conditions for the structural coupling of law, policy and society, it inevitably leads to regulatory failure. The right to regulate is ineffective because it transcends the inherent limits of the regulatory process: the self-referential elements of systems are threatened. Regulation can fail in three ways: an important dimension in the emergence of a formal, secular, general and autonomous legal system is a kind of codification of norms under principles that are not directly moral or religious (although they generally remain based on religion), and the formalization of procedural rules that define the situations in which judgments must be rendered on a societal basis. in particular by the courts (Parsons, 1964a: 353). From an analytical point of view, the legal system should not be seen as a political or religious phenomenon that deals with fundamental problems of orientation of values that involve fundamental decisions for the system as a whole. However, behind due process and the proper empowerment of legislative bodies lie the deeper questions of ultimate legitimacy, namely a system of values. Law is a focal point for the relationship between religion and politics, as well as for other aspects of society (Parsons, 1962: 62, 72). In fact, Parsons notes the high level of involvement of lawyers at all levels of government, including the legislature, meaning that they interact with the system of power and its coercive sanctions (Parsons, 1976: 118-19). This is still true today: the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his wife Michelle are both lawyers. Parsons also admits that the distinction between secular government and religious organization has been unequal, even in the modern world.

He cites the example of the United States as the site of the most distant example of secularization, indicated by the legal obligation to separate church and state. Nevertheless, some US states retain the death penalty as a criminal sanction that reflects fundamentalist Judeo-Christian values and a pre-modern level of social development. Leon Petrazycki distinguished between forms of «official law,» which is supported by the state, and «intuitive law,» which consists of legal experiments, which in turn consist of a complex of psychological processes in the mind of the individual without reference to external authorities. [23] Petrazycki`s work dealt with sociological problems and his method was empirical, asserting that knowledge of objects or relationships could only be acquired through observation. However, he formulated his theory in the language of cognitive psychology and moral philosophy rather than sociology. Consequently, his contribution to the development of the sociology of law remains largely unknown. [24] Thus, Petrazycki`s «intuitive law» influenced not only the development of George Gurvitch`s concept of «social law» (see below), which in turn left its mark on the theorization of social law, but also the work of later scholars in social law. Among those who were directly inspired by Petrazykki`s work was Polish sociologist of law Adam Podgórecki. [25] According to Parsons, every society faces four subsystem problems: adaptation, goal achievement, model integration and maintenance, or latency (AGIL). In this scheme, law functions as an integration mechanism: «The primary function of the legal system is integrative» (Parsons, 1962:58; and see 1978:32-5, 52).

The law mitigates conflict and facilitates social interactions; It regulates the relationships of the differentiated parts with each other. Only by adhering to a system of rules can social interaction take place without erupting into open and chronic conflicts. Given the high degree of structural differentiation and pluralism in modern societies, the legal system acquires particular importance because it «can mediate between the normative and cultural orders that have become so important in a complex society and the vast complex of economic and political interests in particular that are at the centre of centrifugal pressures» (Parsons, 1976:119). The fact that the law is inclusive means that it must have relationships, interactions and exchanges with the other subsystems. Legal culture is one of the central concepts of the sociology of law. At the same time, the study of legal cultures can be considered as one of the general approaches of the sociology of law. According to Roger Cotterrell, «Luhmann. treats theory as the basis for all general sociological analyses of social systems and their interrelations. [108] But their theoretical claims to the autonomy of law are very powerful postulates presented before (and perhaps even instead) the kind of detailed empirical study of social and legal changes that comparatists and most legal sociologists probably prefer. The postulates of autopoiesis theory do not so much guide empirical research, but conclusively explain how to interpret everything that this research can discover.

[109] After the Second World War, the sociology of law clearly established itself as an academic field of learning and empirical research. [31] After World War II, the study of law was no longer central to sociology, although some well-known sociologists wrote about the role of law in society. In the work of Talcott Parsons, for example, law is understood as an essential mechanism of social control. [32] In response to the criticism developed against functionalism, other sociological perspectives of law have emerged. Critical sociologists[33] have developed a perspective of law as an instrument of power. However, other theorists of the sociology of law, such as Philip Selznick, have argued that modern law increasingly meets the needs of a society and must also be approached morally. [34] Still other researchers, especially the American sociologist Donald Black, have developed a resolutely scientific theory of law based on a paradigm of pure sociology.