Law and social theory
Sociology has been linked with the way people live their daily lives. Many scholars have tried to explain the relationship between law and social theory. The most widely known scholars or sociologist who attempted to create a relationship between law and social theory would be. Marx who came with what has commonly come to be referred to Marxism and then mark weber who was a well-known sociologist. Their works had similarities and differences, but their aim in trying to figure out the relationship between law and social relations was similar.Max weber
Conferring to weber work in his book economy and society that was later translated by the California press (1978), the form of legal actions that calls for obedience and respect is bureaucratic rule. When there is a lot of bureaucracies there is the response in terms of respect and the will to follow the desired legal procedures Albrow, 1975. Weber refers to the institution such as churches, armies, political parties and economic enterprises and how their bureaucratic rule make them stand out than the systems that do not use bureaucratic control. Weber argues out that what makes bureaucratic rule to be so efficient and successful is the fact that there is use of knowledge.
The fact that the bureaucracy uses knowledge to be rational, makes it incline the type of rule to one side that has the knowledge about the bureaucracies. Weber views government as a chance for someone to achieve his or awn will even if others resist Albrow, 1975. Weber had the idea that people who ruled used the fact that they ruled to their advantage. The ones are in the government used what he referred to as dominance to decide for the other people. The rulers were considered to be of a higher class than the ones who they ruled over
In the dominance, weber noted that there would be acceptance even if when one did not want. In the dominance, the rules would impose their laws on the ones they rule and there would utmost submission by the ordinary people. Weber notes that dominance is not only used in federal governments but other types of relationships. For instance, in parent-child relationships, employer- employee relationship and student-teacher relationship. Weber argues even though there are many dominance types of rule, the most common accepted forms of government would be a political and the family types of a dominant position.
Weber takes different stands about the types of a dominant position. He says there is authority, and there is power and also rule. According to weber, authority is a form of dominance that has unique features in that it was generally accepted as a type of government by the ones who are being dominated. The fact that the authority is a legitimate form of government according to the subordinates doesn't mean that it is right or ethical. Weber views the legitimacy of the fact that the subordinates accept the dominance and does not consider it as an exploitation Albrow, 1975.
Weber then goes on to try and describe legal authority. He also refers to legal authority as being a rational kind of power. Legal authority uses its rationalism to raise some people into power. Legal authority then gives this type of people to issue their will inform of commands. The subordinates are expected under law to respect the said authorities. Weber approaches of legal authority as the accepted way of dominance by both the class that is in power and the class that were the subordinates. Legal authority when used, is considered not to be legitimate but legal. In that, the subordinates accept the dominance of the law except them to accept the dominance. To the subordinates, the dominance is legal and supported by the law.
Those in power then use the knowledge by the subordinates to issue their commands to the subordinates and expect the commands to be followed. Weber however takes note of the fact that legal authority can be twisted b those in power to exploit the subordinates mainly in the political front. The politicians may come up with laws that are not favorable to the ordinary man and impose them. The subordinates would have no otherwise, but to follow the set rules which were mainly based on class.
Bestowing to Martin Albrow (1975), Weber's comparison of sociology is based on questions of how people in power relate to other people in society with the law in mind. In his article Albrow is tried to research actually the mind of Weber when he talks about the development of the law and the effect of this development on the social nature of people. According to Albrow (1975), there are many aspects of the society and how people relate to each other. But also there was a big difference when they have the law in mind in a sociological point of view. Albrow views Weber as a prisoner.
Weber was an exquisite lawyer who had been involved in many litigation cases. But what interested weber so much was the sociology and politics that surrounded the people at that time. By referring to Weber as a prisoner, Albrow meant that Weber was imprisoned by his thoughts and the relations that he thought or wanted to occur between law and sociologyKarl Marx
Karl Marx, who developed the Marxist theory, disagrees with max weber to a certain extent. Karl views law as the best thing that was invented to keep the society in check. In a corporation there are different social classes and people are considered according to their social class. There categorizing of categories in the society that separates the society in terms of levels brings a lot of conflicts. The law is thus developed to make sure that the conflicts between the different classes of the society are kept on the level. But then low cannot work for itself, it needs a force that makes sure that the law is followed to the letter.
The argument that the law needs enforcers brings in a supporting argument for having people in power that ensure that the law was followed in accordance with the specifications. Order was, thus, maintained in a given society because there is a force of making sure that the law is followed.
Rendering to Karl Max the society is divided into two categories the bourgeois and the proletarians. In his arguments, Marx the bourgeois as being the oppressors in society. It can be argued out that when a society allows the bourgeois to make the laws then the society is allowing the level class to be oppressed. The conventional rule was based on ownership of private property and also it makes them create laws that can be deemed to be oppressive. Through the bourgeois being in power, there is the unequal distribution of rights and resources.
The conventional rule is subjective in that, it inclines to those who are wealthy and of a high class in a society. On the other hand, oppresses those who are considered to be poor in a corporation. Bourgeois rule can be likened to the capitalism state of law. Engels who was a very vociferous supporter of the Marxist law argues out that in a capitalist rule of law regime. There is a lot of revolts as the people who feel oppressed take issues with the class that is favored by the capitalism state of law.
There was lots of criminal acts by those in the lower classes in contempt of how the bourgeois are allowed to make the rules or how the rules just tend only to favor them alone. Engel blames the society for lawlessness as it is encouraged from the higher ranks. Those in low classes are just doing what they think those of higher levels are doing, and that is the crime.
The squabble of Marx poses a problem but also to his case he provides a solution to those who were oppressed. Marx gives those that are oppressed the option to overthrow the bourgeois and then take over the power and then this will make the proletariats come into power. When the proletariats come into power, it means that the working class will be given the mandate to make the laws that govern the land. The Marxist theory thus supports the rule of law that favors the working class and eliminates inequality in the state of law. The working class were the majority of the people in a society Cain, 1974. The working class can be said to be the people that lead to the development or fall of a corporation.
They were, consequently, the ones who know how they society is like and may care about each other in society. Marx views the working class as the only people who can collaborate to bring to an end the capitalist rule of law. As long as the working class is struggling with a common goal that would lead to equality then they can overcome a capitalist state of law.
The overthrowing of the bourgeois would mean the emergence of the proletariat form of rule of law. A proletariat rule would lead to equality. It will give rise to an equal distribution of resources, and there will be no oppressive nature of political dominance. The society will be well informed and thus it would be so hard for a society to be exploited again. The society in a proletariat rule are aware of their rights, and they are conscious of the avenues that were provided in case their rights are stepped. Marx views the introduction of the proletariat rule of law eliminates the need for morality and any other sources of law like religion.
It eliminates the complexity in the code in that it provides one moral base or one law referral point that acts as a law for the society Cain, 1974. The one law is the basis for every kind of regulations be it concerning rights of different people, the laws of the land or the judgments made in case the laws are broken.
As much as there have been differences in the approaches of law by Marx and Weber, there are some sense of similarities between their arguments. For instance, their argument about power being used as a tool for dominance. Marx when talking about bourgeois rule of law states that the one in power uses the power to their favor to dominate the subordinates. In a similar opinion, Weber argues out that power gives one authority. The power is used to exert dominance over the subordinates. According to Weber, the one in power can make sure that the subordinates do what he/she wishes them to do. Both the two agree that the law is a form of order between the different classes of people the only difficult situation arises on the law is used by the people in power Cain, 1974.
In conclusion, the two sociologist had different views about how laws affect the social nature of persons and the society. The known scholars or sociologist who endeavored to produce a relationship between law and social theory would be have been given further details exceeding. By illustration, Marx who came with what has commonly come to be referred to Marxism and then mark weber who was a well-known sociologist. He, and others talked about how law affects the actions of people. The difference of the two is in the way they argue their points, but not in what they argue about. They argued about the same thing. Their idea is to show how law affects the way people relate to one other or how law can be used to change how people relate to a society.
Reference List
ALBROW, M. (1975). Legal positivism and bourgeois materialism: Max Weber’s view of the sociology of law. British Journal of Law & Society.
CAIN, M. (1974). The Main Themes of Marx’ and Engels’ Sociology of Law. British Journal of Law & Society.
COTTERRELL, R. (1995). Legality and Political Legitimacy in the Sociology of Max Weber’ in Law’s Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
FINE, R. (n.d.). Chapter 5. In Marxism and the social theory of law. B&T.
PHILLIPS, P. (1980). Marx and Engels on Law and Laws. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
WEBER, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
