One of the founding father of modern sociology of law was the German sociologist Max Weber. When Weber observed that in modern era the social life became more rationalized, he not only closely looked at the central role of the state, economy and bureaucracy, but also talked about the role of law being the basis of political authority. The distinguishing feature of his work is that he outlined the characteristics of formally rationalized law that are guided by the application of procedures.
Weber’s sociology mainly depends on the idea that the society is made up of social relations or human interactions. He explains that an interaction takes place because of the motives and intentions of the actors involved. According to him, the main task of sociology is
…show more content…
It is formal and abstract. Further there is an increase in the formal qualities of law. To be formally rationalized, law must be codified, impartial and impersonal. As a further explanation, Weber also talks about the move from status to purposive contracts. He believes that purposive contacts are more formally rationalized because it gives the freedom to the parties to calculate the legality of their actions. Weber also observed that formal rational law is more suitable for a capitalist society, but he argues that a complex relation exist between modern law and capitalism.
Weber’s contribution to the sociology of law is indispensable. His theories about rationalization of law and the function of law have provided relevance to the subject matter of sociology of law. He related the development of modern rationalized law to economic and political factors. He explained the complexities of the modern law system and related rationalized law to both the working of a state and also a free market economy. Thus, he maintains that in a modern society, law takes up a central role and influences both economy and
Three thinkers form the foundations of modern-day sociological thinking. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Each developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function, and how we are determined by society. This essay will focus on the contrasts and similarities of Durkheim and Weber’s thought of how we are determined by society. It will then go on to argue that Weber provides us with the best account of modern life.
Law is a system of rules that are implemented throughout social establishments to govern behavior. A principle for judging acts as reasonable or unreasonable and they may seem objective, universal, and knowable, which dispositions are guide. Our function is rational activity, and our rational nature gives us dispositions when we are naturally disposed to seek to know, understand, and be
As a positivist, Hart believes that there should be a firm distinction between ‘law as it is’ and ‘law as it ought to be’, specifically law and morality. According to positivists, whether a law is valid or not is not dependant on the justification of said law, but rather that it is recognized as enforceable by tests that are enforced by an efficacious legal system. To better understand this theory, one must look at Hart’s definition of a legal system and the separation of primary and secondary rules. The former refers to rules that are socially acceptable in a society and regulate the behaviour of persons in a society by creating obligations and therefore creating social pressure to follow these obligations. It is, however, insufficient for a legal system to contain only primary rules and because of this secondary rules come into play. Secondary rules enforce primary obligations in the form of law.
...types of social facts, and focused on nonmaterial social facts, which is defined as cultural and social institutions. Karl Marx, G.W.F. Hegel and Feuerbach are all part of the German core of sociologists. Included in this group is Max Weber and Georg Simmel. Marx’s focus on economics led him to his labor theory of value. He observed the basic nature of people and believed that their productivity was a way for them to express their natural needs. His believe that capitalism subverts this basic structure. Max Weber expressed himself in the Kantian tradition, believing in the cause-and-effect theory. Georg Simmel concerned himself with the money economy and the emerging world of money. Unfortunately, women sociologists are mostly excluded from sociological thinking, and their work is not included in the development and early history of the classical theorists.
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
While sociologists have often studied social change, Max Weber was particularly focused on understanding the progression of rationalization. Many of his works detail his analysis of the growth of rationality in the Western world, as well as the development of bureaucracies as a sign of this process. Although his argument that the modern world is marked by an increase in both does provide a valuable and multifaceted view, it does have its problems. Namely, Weber’s conceptualization of rationality fails to properly separate the different forms, which weakens his subsequent argument on the growth of rationality. In contrast, Weber is highly effective in determining the characteristics of bureaucracies, which allows for a strong discussion on increasing bureaucratization.
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the motivation of an individual as such. In this respect, Black?s theory is blind for social life, which is beyond the behavior of law.
Max Weber thought that "statements of fact are one thing, statements of value another, and any confusing of the two is impermissible," Ralf Dahrendorf writes in his essay "Max Weber and Modern Social Science" as he acknowledges that Weber clarified the difference between pronouncements of fact and of value. 1 Although Dahrendorf goes on to note the ambiguities in Weber's writings between factual analysis and value-influenced pronouncements, he stops short of offering an explanation for them other than to say that Weber, being human, could not always live with his own demands for objectivity. Indeed, Dahrendorf leaves unclear exactly what Weber's view of objectivity was. More specifically, Dahrendorf does not venture to lay out a detailed explanation of whether Weber believed that the social scientist could eliminate the influence of values from the analysis of facts.
In sociology, there are three names you will always hear, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. Each are successful sociologist, they have made many significant contributions to the development of sociology. While all being enlightenment thinkers, each of them have their own distinguish perspective and focuses in their respective theories. Durkheim, a structural functionalist, argued everything in society exist for a purpose, and that society are bounded together by ideas and social unity, social solidarity. Weber focused on rationality and bureaucracy, he believes they are key element to modern society and he is interested to understand how people feel. Marx is primarily study society with economic perspectives, focused heavily on inequality among classes
Law is in place as a basis of a type of rule to govern the behaviour between people, offering a structure for society to ensure the protection of the rights of every individual. The absence of the law in place there would be an absence of order and stability in the society. With the development of a complex legal system, the law is not only rules, but is embedded with an akin of moral concepts in the society. On the other hand, lawyers are professions who ‘exercise their power in court by manipulating the thoughts and opinions of others through the skilful use of language’. I see lawyers as an exponent in upholding justice in society: as to how rights should be respected and protected, how the moral perceptions are ingrained and manifested through law. What aspires me to become a criminal lawyer is my receptivity to the juxtaposed relationship of moral and law. I agree that criminal law aids the establishment of ‘a moral imperative in civilized society’, enhancing the moral development in society through the
Law is the foundation of central structures of social life on which society’s integrity depends, which is why Petrazycki, Ehrlich and Habermas perceive it to be a key steering mechanism in society,
In this case, power has been given to the police to arrest people and investigate into their cases hence Weber called this process a social action. For Max Weber, social action has been a way to bring people together. “Weber claims that subjective attitude constitutes social action only so far as they oriented to the behavior of others. For example, religious behavior is not social if it is simply a matter of contemplation or solitary prayer. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: Univ. of California Pr. He claimed that people can be in the closet to perform their religious act which will not hinder anyone and at the same time can be in a public to perform the same act which will hinder people. He was trying to explain how certain actions and conditions
To Quote Anthony Giddens: "Sociology is the study of human social life, groups and societies. It is a dazzling and compelling enterprise, having as its subject matter our own behaviour as social beings. The scope of sociology is extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of passing encounters between individuals in the street up to the investigation of world-wide social processes“(1989). Gidden’s statement describes sociology as a study that helps us understand our own behaviour as human beings in a social word. Sociologist study everything from the interaction between people in the street to the interaction between different countries. Sociologists aim to study how societies have changed over, how societies are structured and organized, the norms of society. It’s also important to understand that not all sociologists agree with each other, Sociologists often debate with one another to prove/disprove certain theories and concepts. By studying Sociology is it helps us analyze social conflicts on a micro and macro scope. Through a macro level, we can study large-scale social organization and large social categories it also examinees social processes and patterns society as a whole. We can analyze individuals much deeper on a micro level. This way we study a human by face-to face interactions. Its important as humans to understand the way our society came together and the reasons to how elements work and function together. Sociology gives us a deeper
Hughes, J. & Martin, P. & Sharrock, W. (1997) Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber and Durkheim. London: Sage