Year by year, law seems to penetrate ever larger realms of social, political, and economic life, generating both praise and blame. Nonet and Selznick's Law and Society in Transition explains in accessible language the primary forms of law as a social, political, and normative phenomenon. They illustrate with great clarity the fundamental difference between repressive law, riddled with raw conflict and the accommodation of special interests, and responsive law, the reasoned effort to realize an ideal of polity.To make jurisprudence relevant, legal, political, and social theory must be reintegrated. As a step in this direction, Nonet and Selznick attempt to recast jurisprudential issues in a social science perspective. They construct a valuable framework for analyzing and assessing the worth of alternative modes of legal ordering. The volume's most enduring contribution is the authors' typology -- repressive, autonomous, and responsive law. This typology of law is original and especially useful because it incorporates both political and jurisprudential aspects of law and speaks directly to contemporary struggles over the proper place of law in democratic governance.In his new introduction, Robert A. Kagan recasts this classic text for the contemporary world. He sees a world of responsive law in which legal institutions -- courts, regulatory agencies, alternative dispute resolution bodies, police departments -- are periodically studied and redesigned to improve their ability to fulfill public expectations. Schools, business corporations, and governmental bureaucracies are more fully pervaded by legal values. Law and Society in Transition describes ways in which law changes anddevelops. It is an inspiring vision of a politically responsive form of governance, of special interest to those in sociology, law, philosophy, and politics.
2 有用 伦神门下走狗 2015-11-30 11:48:33
他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还... 他援引的Chayes在他写这篇文章之前就开始对回应型法律提出一种悲观的看法,再往前Marc Galanter也提出同样的想法。想一想第一版出版的同一年UC REGENT V. BAKKE 中Powell的Plurality意见对后来Croson以及Parent Involved的影响直接杀死racial-subordination doctrine,他在终章问的那个问题:回应型法律的尽头是什么,还是蛮让人唏嘘的。 (展开)
1 有用 Tacitus 2017-04-03 04:27:54
最好看的还是第一章关于方法论的讨论,作者认为通过从定义性展开对“法律是什么”的探索对于探寻法律的本质无甚裨益,而从奥斯丁到凯尔森哈特以降法理学似乎都在侧重以对法律某一面向的特征或功能的描述而忽视了其它面向(或不得不尴尬地说若严格依照某定义某规范体系不是法律体系),由此作者认为正确的方法论是区分不同的法律管治模式(压迫型、自治型、反馈型)然后用经验研究分析模式之间的转化关系;第二好看的是指出压迫及自... 最好看的还是第一章关于方法论的讨论,作者认为通过从定义性展开对“法律是什么”的探索对于探寻法律的本质无甚裨益,而从奥斯丁到凯尔森哈特以降法理学似乎都在侧重以对法律某一面向的特征或功能的描述而忽视了其它面向(或不得不尴尬地说若严格依照某定义某规范体系不是法律体系),由此作者认为正确的方法论是区分不同的法律管治模式(压迫型、自治型、反馈型)然后用经验研究分析模式之间的转化关系;第二好看的是指出压迫及自治型法律都有built-in的内在矛盾将管治模式向更高阶段推进,在这方面充分体现作者马克思阶级斗争推进社会演进理论打底;最后对反馈型法律的论述有点太离地,若能用六七十年代民权运动具体案例分析支撑可以更好,对于关键问题—机构能力(institutional competence)着墨太少啦 (展开)
0 有用 木子李 2024-12-30 10:39:05 北京
重要的是第一章对研究方法的讨论,后面的压制型——自治型——回应型法范式也不错,就是有点老了,凑个论文脚注和理论背景~
0 有用 Antonio Ko 2020-10-28 17:42:06
越来越感觉到,以(political) legitimacy作为切入点来观察和解释法律可能是很受限的—尤其是当作者批评以往法哲学研究视角过窄时,这种局限感就显得更为突出了。 ps:我简直无法想象当年课上是怎么在没读过这本书的情况下去读托伊布纳反身型法那篇论文的……那时我还一度对这门课寄予厚望—毕竟在金玉其外的sjtu法理学科里,那位老师已经算得上是妥妥的清流了。结果就是除了失望,啥都没有。如今自己... 越来越感觉到,以(political) legitimacy作为切入点来观察和解释法律可能是很受限的—尤其是当作者批评以往法哲学研究视角过窄时,这种局限感就显得更为突出了。 ps:我简直无法想象当年课上是怎么在没读过这本书的情况下去读托伊布纳反身型法那篇论文的……那时我还一度对这门课寄予厚望—毕竟在金玉其外的sjtu法理学科里,那位老师已经算得上是妥妥的清流了。结果就是除了失望,啥都没有。如今自己在各个领域都是半瓶水晃悠,回想起硕士期间上的那些水课,对sjtu教学水平的情绪正在逐步从遗憾转变成愤怒…… (展开)