Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:42:34.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Afterword: Change and Structure in Dispute Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1975

Robert L. Kidder
Robert L. Kidder*
Affiliation:
Temple University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One need only thumb through the back issues of this journal to sense that the material presented in these two special issues on litigation represents a change of some sort. The post-World War II revival of social scientific interest in law has been characterized by a strong programmatic or policy orientation which has tended to assign a peripheral position to the issues raised in these pages (cf. Black and Mileski, 1973, 3-5). The revival of this interest, which gave birth to this journal, received much of its impetus from concern with questions of social control. Broadly speaking, the question was: “To what extent can legal institutions be used to achieve legally mandated objectives?” The legal impact study's search for the effects of legal acts has expanded to include the conditions which shape those effects. This search has sometimes been informed by theoretical consideration of the organizational processes affecting legal functionaries as they deal with the problems of putting legal doctrine into practice. In many ways, we have learned how legal actions become transformed by their encounter with the “real world.” The law, we repeatedly discover, does not always have its “intended effects.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 9 , Issue 2: Litigation and Dispute Processing: Part II , Winter 1975 , pp. 385 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 The Law and Society Association

References

BLACK, Donald (1973) “The Boundaries of Legal Sociology,” in Black, Donald and Mileski, Maureen (eds.), The Social Organization of Law. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
BLACK, Donald and Maureen, MILESKI (1973) “Introduction,” in Black, Donald and Mileski, Maureen (eds.), The Social Organization of Law. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
BOHANNAN, Paul (1969) “Ethnography and Comparison in Legal Anthropology,” in Nader, Laura (ed.), Law in Culture and Society. Chicago: Aldine, 401.Google Scholar
DURKHEIM, Emile (1964, 1933) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
EHRLICH, Eugen (1936) Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1973) “Functions of Trial Courts in the Modern World” (Unpublished Paper). A paper presented at the Conference on the Sociology of the Judicial Process held at the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung at the University of Bielefeld, F.R.G., September 24-29, 1973. To appear in Jahrbuch für Rechrsoziologie un Rechtstheorie (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
GLUCKMAN, Max (1969) “Concepts in the Comparative Study of Tribal Law,” in Nader, Laura (ed.), Law in Culture and Society. Chicago: Aldine, 349.Google Scholar
MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw (1962, 1926) Crime and Custom in Savage Society. Paterson: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, Richard D. (1973) “Getting a Paradigm Together,” 7 Law & Society Review 323.Google Scholar
TOHARIA, Jose (1973) “Economic Development and Litigation: The Case of Spain,” a paper presented at the Conference on the Sociology of the Judicial Process held at the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung at the University of Bielefeld, F.R.G., September 24-29, 1973. To appear in Jahrbuch für Rechtsoziologie und Rechtstheorie (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1954, 1925) On Law in Economy and Society (Max Rheinstein, ed.). Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar