2001
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244676.001.0001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
93
0
12

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 316 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
93
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…We agree with Chambliss and Seidman that it is futile to search for an ''essence'' of law, a single definition that is correct for all purposes (see Tamanaha 2001). Law is best seen as a ''family resemblance'' concept (Wittgenstein 2009, §67;Pirie 2013: 8), covering phenomena linked by a network of similarities rather than a single defining characteristic.…”
Section: Legal Pluralism and The Concept Of Lawmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…We agree with Chambliss and Seidman that it is futile to search for an ''essence'' of law, a single definition that is correct for all purposes (see Tamanaha 2001). Law is best seen as a ''family resemblance'' concept (Wittgenstein 2009, §67;Pirie 2013: 8), covering phenomena linked by a network of similarities rather than a single defining characteristic.…”
Section: Legal Pluralism and The Concept Of Lawmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…For instance, the opposition between monocentric and polycentric law is derived from Nordic scholarship which uses this terminology and which, as Hanne Petersen has illustrated, has a specific relevance to feminist legal thought (Petersen 1997). 7 The opposition between law as singular or monistic and law as plural is commonly found in the legal pluralism literature, where 'pluralism' refers sometimes to multiple systems of law co-existing in the one space (Griffiths 1986), sometimes to multiple concepts of law (Tamanaha 2001) and sometimes to the inherent pluralism of state law (Manderson 1996;Kleinhans and Macdonald 1997;Davies 2006). And of course Foucault's lectures on power and knowledge are the source for the distinction between top-down and decentred forms of power (Foucault 1980, pp.…”
Section: Two Expressions Of Lawmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In substantive approaches, the content is evaluated of the 'product' whose legitimacy should be determined (cf., e.g., Shapiro's 1981 approach, insofar as consent is based on the content of a court's decision). Tamanaha (2001) casts doubt on the very value of the legitimacy enterprise, which he describes as the project to provide a legal system with some kind of justification. Tamanaha's critical comments with respect the socalled 'evolutionary myth' and 'mirror thesis' regard the implausibility of the assumption that the norms and values of a society are reflected in positive law.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%