Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law
Is there a danger that sociological approaches to law end up creating law in their own image? Can they set their own limits? Could they help further rather than hinder the process by which law becomes more technocratic? Continuing a debate with Roger Cotterrell, this paper offers an examination of C...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law and society 1998-09, Vol.25 (3), p.407-426 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 426 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 407 |
| container_title | Journal of law and society |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Nelken, David |
| description | Is there a danger that sociological approaches to law end up creating law in their own image? Can they set their own limits? Could they help further rather than hinder the process by which law becomes more technocratic? Continuing a debate with Roger Cotterrell, this paper offers an examination of Cotterrell's suggestion, in the last issue, that these dangers can be avoided provided that sociological interpretation of legal ideas recognizes an allegiance to law rather than to academic sociology. By contrast, I propose a reflexive strategy intended to invite sociology to examine the ways in which its discourses and practices are both similar to but also different from those of law. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1467-6478.00098 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61575136</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1410626</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1410626</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j358t-38279fda144ca71811aa3a2731de2ba80fd269c46c115002c71a000aa815c6593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0E1Lw0AQBuBFFKzVsxcPexIvqTv7nYOIFj8KAUEreAvrZtNuSbI1m6r990YrHu1cBmYeXoZB6BjICPo6By5VIrnSI0JIqnfQ4G-yiwaESpYwyl720UGMi54AU3qALq4r3xS-meFJE_1s3sVLPJ07nPnadxGHEhv86MrKffp3h5-C9aEKs_X3IjMfh2ivNFV0R799iJ5vb6bj-yR7uJuMr7JkwYTuEqapSsvCAOfWKNAAxjBDFYPC0VejSVlQmVouLYAghFoFpr_QGA3CSpGyITrd5C7b8LZysctrH62rKtO4sIq5BKEEMLkdEsWZonorZFqCZIT28OxfCIRJQYT8yTzZ0EXsQpsvW1-bdp0DByL7938BJTh7Zw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1036505628</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Nelken, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Nelken, David</creatorcontrib><description>Is there a danger that sociological approaches to law end up creating law in their own image? Can they set their own limits? Could they help further rather than hinder the process by which law becomes more technocratic? Continuing a debate with Roger Cotterrell, this paper offers an examination of Cotterrell's suggestion, in the last issue, that these dangers can be avoided provided that sociological interpretation of legal ideas recognizes an allegiance to law rather than to academic sociology. By contrast, I propose a reflexive strategy intended to invite sociology to examine the ways in which its discourses and practices are both similar to but also different from those of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0263-323X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-6478</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1467-6478.00098</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLSOD7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Blackwell Publishers</publisher><subject>Applied sociology ; Attorneys ; Law ; Lawyer client communication ; Methodological Problems ; Publishing industry ; Reflexivity ; Social law ; Social reflexivity ; Social sciences ; Social theories ; Sociology ; Sociology of Law ; Sociology of religion ; Theoretical Problems ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Journal of law and society, 1998-09, Vol.25 (3), p.407-426</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1998 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1410626$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1410626$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,33752,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nelken, David</creatorcontrib><title>Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law</title><title>Journal of law and society</title><description>Is there a danger that sociological approaches to law end up creating law in their own image? Can they set their own limits? Could they help further rather than hinder the process by which law becomes more technocratic? Continuing a debate with Roger Cotterrell, this paper offers an examination of Cotterrell's suggestion, in the last issue, that these dangers can be avoided provided that sociological interpretation of legal ideas recognizes an allegiance to law rather than to academic sociology. By contrast, I propose a reflexive strategy intended to invite sociology to examine the ways in which its discourses and practices are both similar to but also different from those of law.</description><subject>Applied sociology</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Lawyer client communication</subject><subject>Methodological Problems</subject><subject>Publishing industry</subject><subject>Reflexivity</subject><subject>Social law</subject><subject>Social reflexivity</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Social theories</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of Law</subject><subject>Sociology of religion</subject><subject>Theoretical Problems</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0263-323X</issn><issn>1467-6478</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0E1Lw0AQBuBFFKzVsxcPexIvqTv7nYOIFj8KAUEreAvrZtNuSbI1m6r990YrHu1cBmYeXoZB6BjICPo6By5VIrnSI0JIqnfQ4G-yiwaESpYwyl720UGMi54AU3qALq4r3xS-meFJE_1s3sVLPJ07nPnadxGHEhv86MrKffp3h5-C9aEKs_X3IjMfh2ivNFV0R799iJ5vb6bj-yR7uJuMr7JkwYTuEqapSsvCAOfWKNAAxjBDFYPC0VejSVlQmVouLYAghFoFpr_QGA3CSpGyITrd5C7b8LZysctrH62rKtO4sIq5BKEEMLkdEsWZonorZFqCZIT28OxfCIRJQYT8yTzZ0EXsQpsvW1-bdp0DByL7938BJTh7Zw</recordid><startdate>19980901</startdate><enddate>19980901</enddate><creator>Nelken, David</creator><general>Blackwell Publishers</general><scope>C18</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980901</creationdate><title>Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law</title><author>Nelken, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j358t-38279fda144ca71811aa3a2731de2ba80fd269c46c115002c71a000aa815c6593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Applied sociology</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Lawyer client communication</topic><topic>Methodological Problems</topic><topic>Publishing industry</topic><topic>Reflexivity</topic><topic>Social law</topic><topic>Social reflexivity</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Social theories</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of Law</topic><topic>Sociology of religion</topic><topic>Theoretical Problems</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nelken, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Humanities Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of law and society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nelken, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law</atitle><jtitle>Journal of law and society</jtitle><date>1998-09-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>407</spage><epage>426</epage><pages>407-426</pages><issn>0263-323X</issn><eissn>1467-6478</eissn><coden>JLSOD7</coden><abstract>Is there a danger that sociological approaches to law end up creating law in their own image? Can they set their own limits? Could they help further rather than hinder the process by which law becomes more technocratic? Continuing a debate with Roger Cotterrell, this paper offers an examination of Cotterrell's suggestion, in the last issue, that these dangers can be avoided provided that sociological interpretation of legal ideas recognizes an allegiance to law rather than to academic sociology. By contrast, I propose a reflexive strategy intended to invite sociology to examine the ways in which its discourses and practices are both similar to but also different from those of law.</abstract><pub>Blackwell Publishers</pub><doi>10.1111/1467-6478.00098</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0263-323X |
| ispartof | Journal of law and society, 1998-09, Vol.25 (3), p.407-426 |
| issn | 0263-323X 1467-6478 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61575136 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts |
| subjects | Applied sociology Attorneys Law Lawyer client communication Methodological Problems Publishing industry Reflexivity Social law Social reflexivity Social sciences Social theories Sociology Sociology of Law Sociology of religion Theoretical Problems United Kingdom |
| title | Blinding Insights? The Limits of a Reflexive Sociology of Law |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T05%3A34%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Blinding%20Insights?%20The%20Limits%20of%20a%20Reflexive%20Sociology%20of%20Law&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20law%20and%20society&rft.au=Nelken,%20David&rft.date=1998-09-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=407&rft.epage=426&rft.pages=407-426&rft.issn=0263-323X&rft.eissn=1467-6478&rft.coden=JLSOD7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1467-6478.00098&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1410626%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1036505628&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1410626&rfr_iscdi=true |