Beyond Mirrors: Lawrence Friedman's Moving Pictures

Soifer, Aviam

doi:10.2307/3053649

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Friedman introduces theoretical categories and perceptive analysis of legal reform and legal culture to legal history scholars. Friedman also assumes the strength of an essentially healthy society if temporarily beset by trouble (Soifer, 1988(Soifer, , pp. 995-1016.…”

Section: Paradoxical Relations: Multiculturality and Social Reintegra...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Istiqra al-manwi; multicultural judicial reasoning

Isman

Yahya²

2022

Ijtihad : Jurnal Wacana Hukum Islam dan Kemanusiaan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers the istiqra’ al-ma’nāwī as multicultural-based judicial reasoning to answer the gap between the monocultural pattern of norms required by the codification of law and the multicultural based social-structure of Indonesian society. By using a legal philosophy approach, this study concludes that istiqra’ al-ma’nāwī is oriented to balance the interests (al-wasīlah) and the needs (al-ghāyah) as the basic framework for distinguishing relative and absolute values of law. The judicial reasoning style offered by istiqra’ al-ma’nāwī can be operationalized through moderating ethical contestation and formulating justice and legal certainty based on multiculturality. The operationalization is carried out through three stages: The first is konstatiring stage, where the judges use social reintegration as an optic to see if there is disrupted social risk, like identity superiority motives. The second is separating the original from the derivative goals. The original legal goal is to protect the rights of marginalized communities and equality, while the derivative legal goal is access to welfare and the rights of impunity. The third is konstituir stage, by considering the significance of social control outside the legal aspect.

show abstract

Section: Paradoxical Relations: Multiculturality and Social Reintegra...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Istiqra al-manwi; multicultural judicial reasoning

Isman

Yahya²

2022

Ijtihad : Jurnal Wacana Hukum Islam dan Kemanusiaan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aviam Soifer sums up Friedman's understanding of law and society in the following way: ‘Repeatedly, in forceful metaphors, Friedman argues that society–the puppeteer–pulls the strings and law responds. Law may be a dialect, but social and economic forces create and develop the language for law's development.’ (1988, p. 998)…”

Section: Part IImentioning

confidence: 99%

Having one's cake and eating it: the paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research

Banakar

2011

International Journal of Law in Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional doctrinal scholarship provides an important service to practising lawyers by analysing legal rules and decisions, clarifying ambiguities within rules, structuring them in a logical and coherent manner and describing their interrelationship (Chynoweth, 2008). The systematisation and formulation of the law in terms of doctrine creates a conceptual basis for constructing a legal context that helps to determine which rules should be applied in a particular situation. In this sense, doctrinal studies emerge out of the study of legal texts (or black-letter law), which are generated by legislature, courts and other legal authorities, and feed back in to legal practice once they are used in deciding cases. The method of doctrinal research, being functional to legal practice, dominates academic law and legal education. Notwithstanding its role in supporting legal practice, the doctrinal approach is criticised for conveying a normatively closed image of law (Cotterrell, 1995, pp. 50–53), for constructing the legal context narrowly, for presenting the legal system as a body of rules which can be studied in isolation from the broader societal context of the legal system by the exegesis of authoritative texts (Bradney, 1998, p. 76; Vick, 2004), for ‘not being self-conscious about its assumptions’ (Twining, 1999, p. 44) and for cultivating what Geoffrey Samuel (2009) calls the ‘authority paradigm’. Internally, i.e. from the standpoint of the legal system and its functionaries, this paradigm (or legal context) is produced by way of self-reference and normative closure, continually reaffirming the authority of legal sources such as legal texts, previous legal decisions and/or legislation, and prioritising definitions and methods based on what William Twining called the ‘practical insider attitudes’ (Twining, 2000, p. 129; for a discussion, see Banakar, 2003, p. 8). Externally, i.e. from the standpoint of policy-makers and citizenry, it is upheld through the threat of violence against non-compliance, backed by the authority of the modern state. The authority paradigm's normative closure and its dependency on coercion encourage ‘rigidity and introspection rather than an open-minded attitude to academic methods and pursuits’ (Samuel, 2009, p. 432). It fosters an understanding of the law as a system, which exists independently of societal forces. In order to escape the intellectual constraints of the authority paradigm, many academic lawyers turn to social theory and social sciences, which in contrast to law are based on the ‘perspective of enquiry’ (Samuel, 2009; see also Banakar, 2009b). These scholars place the law in the broader sociocultural context of the legal system and study legal phenomena in relation to societal forces, which are the prerequisite for the existence of the legal system and the production of the narrow legal context of the law. However, such an evasive strategy often comes at a price.

show abstract

On the Paradox of Contextualisation

Banakar

2014

Normativity in Legal Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond Mirrors: Lawrence Friedman's Moving Pictures

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Istiqra al-manwi; multicultural judicial reasoning

Istiqra al-manwi; multicultural judicial reasoning

Having one's cake and eating it: the paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research

On the Paradox of Contextualisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About