Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:03:26.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Sally Falk Moore
Sally Falk Moore*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
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.

In our highly centralized political system, with its advanced technology and communications apparatus, it is tempting to think that legal innovation can effect social change. Roscoe Pound perceived the law as a tool for social engineering (1965: 247–252). Some version of this idea is the current rationale for most legislation. Underlying the social engineering view is the assumption that social arrangements are susceptible to conscious human control, and that the instrument by means of which this control is to be achieved is the law. In such formulations “the law” is a short term for a very complex aggregation of principles, norms, ideas, rules, practices, and the activities of agencies of legislation, administration, adjudication and enforcement, backed by political power and legitimacy. The complex “law,” thus condensed into one term, is abstracted from the social context in which it exists, and is spoken of as if it were an entity capable of controlling that context. But the contrary can also be persuasively argued: that “it is society that controls law and not the reverse …” (Cochrane, 1971: 93–4). This semantic morass is partly the result of the multiplicity of referents of the terms “law” and “society.” But both ways of describing the state of affairs have the same implication for the sociological study of law. Law and the social context in which it operates must be inspected together. As Selznick has said, there is no longer any need “to argue the general interdependence of law and society” (1959: 115). Yet although everyone acknowledges that the enforceable rules stated and restated in legal institutions, in legislatures, courts and administrative agencies, also have a place in ordinary social life (Bohannan, 1965), that normal locus is where they are least studied. (See, for example, the emphasis on the study of official behavior in the recent Chambliss and Seidman, 1971, and on dispute settlement in much of the recent anthropological literature, cf., Moore, 1969. A significant exception is the emphasis on “law-in-society” in Friedman and Macaulay, 1969.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Summer 1973 , pp. 719 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © The Law and Society Association, 1973.

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I acknowledge with gratitude a grant from the Joint Committee on African Studies and the Social Science Research Council given me in 1968 and 1969 which made this fieldwork possible. I also wish to thank Professor Max Gluckman for his helpful comment on this paper.

References

BAILEY, F.G. (1960) Tribe, Caste, and Nation. Tribe, Caste, and Nation: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
BARTH, Fredrik (1966) “Models of Social Organization,” Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper No. 23. London.Google Scholar
BIENEN, Henry (1967) Tanzania, Party Transformation and Economic Development. Tanzania, Party Transformation and Economic Development: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
BOHANNAN, Paul (1965) “The Differing Realms of the Law” in Law The Ethnography of, Laura, NADER (ed.). Special publication of the American Anthropologist, Part 2, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
CHAMBLISS, William J. and Robert, SEIDMAN (1971) Law, Order and Power. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
COCHRANE, Glynn (1971) Development Anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DROR, Yehezkel (1968) “Law and Social Change,” in The Sociology of Law, Rita James, SIMON (ed.). San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., pp. 663–680.Google Scholar
FALLERS, Lloyd A. (1969) Law Without Precedent. Chicago.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M., and Stewart, MACAULAY (eds.) (1969) Law and the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co.Google Scholar
GARBETT, G. Kingsley (1970) “The Analysis of Social Situations,” Man, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GLUCKMAN, Max (1967) The Judicial Process Among the Barotse. The Judicial Process Among the Barotse: Manchester University Press (first published 1955). Second edition, 1967.Google Scholar
GLUCKMAN, Max (1965) The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence. The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
GULLIVER, Philip (1963) Social Control in an African Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
GULLIVER, Philip (1969) “Dispute settlement without courts: the Ndendeuli of Southern Tanzania,” in Culture, Law in and Society, , Laura, NADER (ed.). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
HOEBEL, E. Adamson (1954) The Law of Primitive Man. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOHFELD, Wesley N. (1964) Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Fundamental Legal Conceptions: Yale University Press. (First printing 1919).Google Scholar
LITWAK, Eugene, and Henry J., MEYER (1966) “A balance theory of coordination between bureaucratic organizations and community primary groups,” 11 Administrative Sciences Quarterly 31. Reprinted in FRIEDMAN and MACAULAY (above) pp. 231–246.Google Scholar
LUPTON, Tom, and Sheila, CUNNISON (1964) “Workshop behavior,” in Systems, Closed and Minds, Open, Max, GLUCKMAN (ed.). Chicago: Aldine, pp. 103–128.Google Scholar
MACAULAY, Stewart (1963) “Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study,” 28 American Sociological Review 55. Reprinted in FRIEDMAN and MACAULAY (above) pp. 145–164.Google Scholar
MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw (1926) Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
MIDDLETON, John, and David, TAIT (eds.) (1958) Tribes Without Rulers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
MITCHELL, J. Clyde (1969) Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
MOORE, Sally Falk (1969) “Law and anthropology,” in Biennial Review of Anthropology, Bernard J., SIEGEL (ed.). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, pp. 252–300.Google Scholar
MOORE, Sally Falk (1970) “Politics, procedures and norms in changing Chagga law,” Africa, Vol. XL, No. 4, pp. 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAINE, Robert (1969) “In Search of Friendship: an Exploratory Analysis in ‘Middle-class’ Culture,” Man, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POSPISIL, Leopold (1971) Anthropology of Law. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
POUND, Roscoe (1965) “Contemporary juristic theory,” in Dennis, LLOYD (ed.) Introduction to Jurisprudence. London: Stevens and Sons. Second edition, pp. 247–252.Google Scholar
SCHAPERA, Isaac (1970) Tribal Innovators. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
SELZNICK, Philip (1959) “The sociology of law,” Sociology Today, H.K. MERTON and L.S. COTTRELL (eds.). New York: Basic Books, pp. 115–127.Google Scholar
SMITH, M.G. (1966) “A structural approach to comparative politics,” in Varieties of Political Theory, David, EASTON (ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
TURNER, Victor W. (1957) Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Schism and Continuity in an African Society: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
VAN VELSEN, J. (1967) “The extended case method and situational analysis,” in Anthropology The Craft of Social, A.L., EPSTEIN (ed.). London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 129–152.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1954) On Law in Economy and Society. Max, RHEINSTEIN (ed.), translated by Max, RHEINSTEIN and Edward, SHILS. New York: Simon and Schuster, a Clarion Book.Google Scholar