nach oben

Qualitative Sociology

Erschienen in:

16.02.2019

Judicial Social Theorizing and Its Relation to Sociology

Erschienen in: Qualitative Sociology | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The scope and structure of social theory are often analyzed as part of or preamble to theorizing proper. This paper takes an indirect approach to the metatheoretical question, “what does social theory look like in terms of scope and structure?” by analyzing a form of social theory that sociologists tend not to think of as social theory: namely, judge-made law produced in Federal appellate courts. We argue that judges engage in social theorizing on a routine basis, and that they arrive at some of their theoretical claims through a process of theorizing that has features in common with sociological theorizing. The social theorizing of judges holds up a mirror to our own. By recognizing and examining judicial social theorizing as a form of structured, social theorizing, we aim to facilitate a clearer understanding of the social conditions enabling (and constraining) the production of social theory within sociology.

Vorheriger Artikel Publisher Correction to: “I’ve Always Wanted a Gay Family Member!”: Straight Ally Girls and Gender Inequality in a High School Gay-Straight Alliance

Nächster Artikel The Ease of Hard Work: Embodied Neoliberalism among Rocky Mountain Fun Runners

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

In some ways the position of law within contemporary U.S. sociology resembles the position of religion, as described by Philip Gorski (2005). Religion and law were, of course, the central targets of Marxist critique. Within mainstream U.S. sociology, religion has arguably made a greater recovery, in the sense that it can now be included as an explanatory factor in sociological theories of historical change, as, for example, in Gorski’s own work (2003). Law, in the sense of actual legal doctrine, has yet to make this recovery, at least in U.S. sociology. The theoretical framework of recursivity, as advanced by Halliday and Carruthers (2007, 2009), opens up a space for this recovery, as does Richard Swedberg’s (2003, 2006) advocacy for an economic sociology of law.

Pub. L. No. 96–212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A)). This statutory definition reproduces the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267, available at http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html (accessed Nov. 15, 2018). For a brief overview of the legislative background, see Anker 2018, 1–3.

“The characteristics of being a ‘young woman’ and a ‘member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe’ cannot be changed. The characteristic of having intact genitalia is one that is so fundamental to the individual identity of a young woman that she should not be required to change it” (In re Kasinga, BIA 1996, WL 379826, 366, discussed with negative qualification in Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1198–1200 (10th Cir. 2005)). See also Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2010); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013).

“The basic premise of particularity is that the proposed groups ‘have particular and well-defined boundaries.’ If the description of the proposed group is ‘too amorphous,’ and ideas of what the relevant terms mean are likely to vary, the applicant has failed to provide an ‘adequate benchmark for determining group membership” (Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 648–649 (10th Cir. 2012)).

See Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 649 (10th Cir. 2012); Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2012).

See Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 652 (10th Cir. 2012); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2013). Compare Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) and Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009), which reject the BIA’s “social visibility” standard on the grounds that it does imply visibility “because of your appearance, gait, speech pattern, behavior or other discernable characteristic” (Ramos, 589 F.3d at 430). See also Soucek 2010.

See Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964, 973 (6th Cir. 2011); Meged v. Gonzales, 141 Fed.Appx. 698, 701 (9th Cir. 2005); Bucur v. INS, 109 F.3d 399, 404 (7th Cir. 1997).

In re Acosta has been overruled, but on other grounds, and its discussion of immutability remains to some extent a touchstone in asylum jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA has repeatedly attempted to refine its “particular social group” criteria. See, e.g., Rivera-Barrientos, 666 F.3d 641, 647–53 (10th Cir. 2012).

8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(4)(B) & 1252(b)(4)(D), our emphasis.

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, Sept. 27, 2012. Case number 11–1989. Available at http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov (accessed Nov. 16, 2018).

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 16:17 (approx..).

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 3:48.

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 53:05.

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 1:02:26.

Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 2:45.

Abbott, Andrew. 1995. Things of boundaries. Social Research 62 (4): 857–882.

Abbott, Andrew. 2010. Varieties of ignorance. The American Sociologist 41 (2): 174–189.CrossRef

Abend, Gabriel. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory. Sociological Theory 26 (2): 173–199.CrossRef

Anker, Deborah. 1989. The law of asylum in the United States: A manual for practitioners and adjudicators. Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Anker, Deborah. 2011. Law of asylum in the United States. Fourth edition. New York: Thomson Reuters.

Anker, Deborah. 2018. Law of asylum in the United States. Eleventh edition. New York: Thomson Reuters.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal 38: 805–853.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Translated by Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7 (1): 14–25.CrossRef

Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1991. The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Translated by Richard Nice. New York: De Gruyter.

Brubaker, Rogers. 2016. Trans: Gender and race in an age of unsettled identities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Cotterrell, Roger. 1984. The sociology of law: An introduction. London: Butterworths.

Cotterrell, Roger. 1986. Law and sociology: Notes on the constitution and confrontation of disciplines. Journal of Law and Society 13 (1): 9–34.CrossRef

Cotterrell, Roger. 1995. Law’s community: Legal theory in sociological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cotterrell, Roger. 1998. Why must legal ideas by interpreted sociologically? Journal of Law and Society 25 (2): 171–192.CrossRef

Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the Mirror of social theory. Burlington: Ashgate.

Frankfurter, Felix. 1960. Felix Frankfurter reminisces. New York: Reynal.

Gephart, Werner. 2015. Law, culture, and society: Max Weber’s comparative cultural sociology of law. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Gieryn, Thomas. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gorski, Philip S. 2003. The disciplinary revolution: Calvinism and the rise of the state in early modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Gorski, Philip S. 2005. The return of the repressed: Religion and the political unconscious of historical sociology. In Remaking modernity: Politics, history, and sociology, ed. Julia Adams, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff.

Gulati, G. Mitu and Richard Posner. 2015. “The Management of Staff by Federal Court of appeals judges.” University of Chicago Public Law Working Paper No. 531; Duke Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Series No. 2015–17. Available https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2590179.

Halliday, Terence C., and Bruce G. Carruthers. 2007. The recursivity of law: Global norm making and National Lawmaking in the globalization of corporate insolvency regimes. American Journal of Sociology 112 (4): 1135–1202.CrossRef

Halliday, Terence C., and Bruce G. Carruthers. 2009. Bankrupt: Global lawmaking and systemic financial crisis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Joas, Hans. 1996. The creativity of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kennedy, Duncan. 2005. The disenchantment of logically formal legal rationality: Or, max Weber’s sociology in the genealogy of the contemporary mode of Western legal thought. In Max Weber’s economy and society: A critical companion, ed. Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubek. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kim, Diana. 2012. The story of the tattooed lady: Scandal and the colonial state in British Burma. Law and Social Inquiry 37 (4): 969–990.CrossRef

Lamont, Michèle, and Virag Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.CrossRef

Levi, Edward. 1970[1948]. An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Liu, Sida. 2015. Law’s social forms: A powerless approach to the sociology of law. Law & Social Inquiry 40 (1): 1–28.CrossRef

Martin, John Levi. 2015. Thinking through theory. New York: Norton.

Merton, Robert. 1968a. On sociological theories of the middle range. In Social theory and social structure, 39–53. New York: Free Press.

Merton, Robert. 1968b. The bearing of sociological theory. In Social theory and social structure, 139–155. New York: Free Press.

Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. The language of law school: Learning to “think like a lawyer”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Parker, John N., and Ugo Corte. 2017. Placing collaborative circles in strategic action fields: Explaining differences between highly creative groups. Sociological Theory 35 (4): 261–287.CrossRef

Parsons, Talcott. 1968[1937]. The structure of social action. Volume one. New York: Free Press.

Popper, Karl. 2002[1935]. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.

Posner, Richard. 1993. What do judges and justices maximize? (the same thing everybody Else does). Supreme Court Economic Review 3 (1): 1–41.CrossRef

Posner, Richard. 1995. ‘Judges’ writing styles (and do they matter?). University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1421–1449.CrossRef

Posner, Richard. 2013. Reflections on judging. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew Penner. 2012. Racial fluidity and inequality in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 118 (3): 676–727.CrossRef

Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew Penner. 2014. Beyond the looking glass: Exploring fluidity in racial self-identification and interviewer classification. Sociological Perspectives 57: 186–207.CrossRef

Schauer, Frederick. 2009. Thinking like a lawyer: A new Introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scheppele, Kim Lane. 1994. Legal theory and social theory. Annual Review of Sociology 20: 383–406.CrossRef

Selg, Peeter. 2013. The politics of theory and the constitution of meaning. Sociological Theory 31 (1): 1–23.CrossRef

Shamir, Ronen. 1993. Formal and substantive rationality in American law: A Weberian perspective. Social & Legal Studies 2: 45–72.CrossRef

Silbey, Susan. 1991. Loyalty and betrayal: Cotterrell’s discovery and reproduction of legal ideology. Law and Social Inquiry 16 (4): 809–833.CrossRef

Silbey, Susan. 2005. After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1: 323–368.CrossRef

Soucek, Brian. 2010. Social group asylum claims: A second look at the new visibility requirement. Yale Law and Policy Review 29: 337–345.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 2001. When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Swedberg, Richard. 1988. Max Weber and the idea of economic sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Swedberg, Richard. 2003. The case for an economic sociology of law. Theory and Society 32 (1): 1–37.CrossRef

Swedberg, Richard. 2006. Max Weber's contribution to the economic sociology of law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 61–81.CrossRef

Swedberg, Richard. 2014. The art of social theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Telles, Edward, and Tianna Paschel. 2014. Who is black, white, or mixed race? How skin color, status, and nation shape racial classification in Latin America. American Journal of Sociology 120 (3): 864–907.CrossRef

Treiber, Hubert. 2008. Max Weber and Eugen Ehrlich: On the Janus-headed construction of Weber’s ideal type in the sociology of law. Max Weber Studies 8 (2): 225–246.CrossRef

Turner, Bryan S. 2009. Introduction: A new agenda for social theory? In The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 1–16. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

Turner, Stephen, and Regis Factor. 1994. Max Weber: The lawyer as social thinker. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Wald, Patricia. 1992. Some real-life observations about judging. Indiana Law Review 26 (1): 173–186.

Wald, Patricia. 1995. The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1371–1419.CrossRef

Weber, Max. 1968a[1922]. Economy and society. Volume one. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weber, Max. 1968b[1922]. Economy and society. Volume two. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weber, Max. 2012[1904]. The ‘objectivity’ of knowledge. In Max Weber: Collected methodological writings, ed. Hans Henrik Bruun and Sam Whimster , 100–138. Oxford: Routledge.translated by Hans Henrik Bruun

Whitehead, Alfred North. 1967[1926]. Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

Angov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir., 2013).

Benitez Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir., 2009).

Bucur v. INS, 109 F.3d 399 (7th Cir., 1997).

Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (S.Ct., 1932).

Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir., 2003).

Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (S.Ct., 1984).

Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396 (3rd Cir. 2003).

Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3rd Cir., 1993).

Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir., 2012).

Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir., 2009).

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (S. Ct., 1987).

Lwin v. INS, 144 F.3d 505 (7th Cir., 1998).

Meged v. Gonzales, 141 Fed.Appx. 698 (9th Cir., 2005).

Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, (9th Cir., 2005).

Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir., 2009).

Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641 (10th Cir., 2012).

Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir., 2011).

Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir., 2010).

In re Kasinga. 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, WL 379826 (BIA, 1986).

Matter of Acosta. 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, WL 56042 (BIA, 1985).

Matter of A-M-E & J-G-U-. 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, WL 274141 (BIA, 2007).

Titel: Judicial Social Theorizing and Its Relation to Sociology
Publikationsdatum: 16.02.2019
Erschienen in: Qualitative Sociology / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0162-0436
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7837
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9409-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

“I’ve Always Wanted a Gay Family Member!”: Straight Ally Girls and Gender Inequality in a High School Gay-Straight Alliance

The Alternative Public Sphere in China: a Cultural Sociology of the 2008 Tainted Baby Milk Scandal

The Ease of Hard Work: Embodied Neoliberalism among Rocky Mountain Fun Runners

“Younger People Want to Do it Themselves” - Self-Actualization, Commitment, and the Reinvention of Community

The Broken Ethnography: Lessons from an Almost Hero

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research