Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:29:38.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critique of Habermas's Contribution to the Sociology of Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Klaus Eder
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 his discussion of modern society, Habermas begins with Weber's thesis of a universal rationalization process within which the rationalization of law plays a central part. Thus his starting point is the classical thesis of the formal rationalization of law as advanced by Weber (1960; Schluchter, 1979). Habermas tries to show that Weber's theorizing is deficient because he underestimates the specific historical role of the materialization of law (1981, Vol. 1: 332). Additionally, such theorizing does not allow us an adequate grasp of some recent developments that proceduralize law (Teubner, 1983, 1984; Eder, 1986). From the perspective of Weber's theory of formal rationalization, the processes that materialize and proceduralize law appear to be aberrations from the normal path of modern legal development. Habermas suggests that, far from being deficient, these processes are necessary forms of law in the process of modernization. The appearance of deficiency proceeds from Weber's attempt to separate morality from law and to conceptualize a moral-free law, a corollary of Weber's plea for a value-free science. Habermas concludes that formal rationalization is an inadequate model of law operating in the modern welfare state. Thus a new model is in order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , 1988 , pp. 931 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 The Law and Society Association.

References

BOURDIEU, Pierre (1986) “La force du droit. Elements pour une sociologie du champ juridique,” 64 Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 3.Google Scholar
BOURDIEU, Pierre (1984a) Homo Academicus. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
BOURDIEU, Pierre (1984b) The Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
DENNINGER, Erhard (ed.) (1977) Freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung. Materialien zum Verfassungsverständnis und zur Verfassungswirklichkeit in der Bundesrepublik (2 vols.). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
EDER, Klaus (1987) “Die Autorität des Rechts. Eine soziale Kritik prozeduraler Rationalität,” 8 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 1.Google Scholar
EDER, Klaus (1986) “Prozedurale Legitimität. Moderne Rechtsentwicklung jenseits von formaler Rationalisierung,” 7 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 1.Google Scholar
EDER, Klaus (1981) “Zur Rationalisierungsproblematik des modernen Rechts,” in Sprondel, W. and Seyfarth, C. (eds.), Max Weber und die Rationalisierung sozialen Handelns. Stuttgart: Enke, pp. 157–167.Google Scholar
FRANKENBERG, Güntes (1987) “Der Ernst im Recht,” 20 Kritische Justiz 281.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1987) “Legitimität durch Legalität?,” 20 Kritische Justiz 1.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1986) “Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität. Eine Stellungnahme zur Diskussion über 'Stufe 6,'” in Edelstein, W. and Nunner-Winkler, G. (eds.), Zur Bestimmung der Moral. Philosophische und sozialwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Moralforschung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 291–318.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1983) Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. (2 Vols.). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; English translation (1984): The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1976) Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; English translation (1979): Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1971) “Naturrecht and Revolution,” in J. Habermas, Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 89–127.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jürgen (n.d.) Recht und Moral. Zwei Vorlesungen. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
KOHLBERG, Lawrence (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, Niklas (1985) “Einige Probleme mit 'reflexivem Recht',” 6 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 1.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, Niklas (1983) Rechtssoziologie, 2nd Ed. Rechtssoziologie, 2nd Ed: A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, Niklas (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
MAUS, Ingeborg (1986a) “Perspektiven ‘reflexiven Rechts’ und Deregulierungstendenzen,” 19 Kritische Justiz 390.Google Scholar
MAUS, Ingeborg (1986b) Rechtstheorie und politische Theorie im Industriekapitalismus. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
MILLER, Max (1986) Kollektive Lernprozesse. Grundlegung einer soziologischen Lerntheorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
RAWLS, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHLUCHTER, Wolfgang (1979) Die Entwicklung des okzidentalen Rationalismus. Eine Analyse von Max Webers Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
TEUBNER, Gunther (1985) Legal Autopoiesis and Legal Evolution, EUI Colloquium Papers. Doc. IUE 332/85 (Col. 85). Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
TEUBNER, Gunther (1984) “Verrechtlichung. Begriffe, Merkmale, Grenzen, Auswege”, in Zacher, H.F., Simitis, S., Kübler, F.K., and Teubner, G. (eds.), Verrechtlichung von Wirtschaft, Arbeit und sozialer Solidarität. Vergleichende Analysen. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 289–344.Google Scholar
TEUBNER, Gunther (1983) “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” 17 Law & Society Review 239.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1960) Rechtssoziologie. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1956) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar