Law Relationships with the Concepts of Politics, State and Economy - Essay Example

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW AND POLITICS, LAW AND ECONOMICS AND LAW AND THE IN SOCIOLOGY OF MAX WEBER 2005 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW AND POLITICS, LAW AND ECONOMICS AND LAW AND THE STATE IN SOCIOLOGY OF MAX WEBER Introduction German sociologist Max Weber (1864 - 1920) is considered to be a founding father of modern sociology and one of few theorists who provided the ever-greatest contribution for its development. Weber himself is believed to be a “Leonardo da Vinci” of sociology and his sociological contribution is often recognized as the “Weberian Renaissance” due to his impacts on further advances in this science (Bendix, 1960). In fact, most sociologists of post-Weberian periods may in a greater or lesser degree admit themselves to be his followers. A founder of the so-called “understanding sociology” and a theory of social action, Weber reconsidered traditional understanding of such concepts as politics, authorities, religion, economy and state. Weber reconsidered the roles of common people and mechanisms of their activity and function in society. The basic theories of Max Weber constitute the fundament of modern sociology, particularly the theories of social action and motivation, social stratification, sociology of religion, theory of bureaucracy, political science, social law and economy, etc. Among the other concepts of Max Weber his reflections on law have particular interests for this study. This idea is one of the central in researcher’s terminology and it sounds reasonable as Weber received his first degree in law and legal systems. The classic “triumvirate” in Weber’s social theory is constituted by three major concepts, i.e.: politics, state and economy (Beetham, 1985). These three concepts are pervaded by another pivotal idea for Max Weber, i.e.: the law. This paper is dedicated to the analysis of relationships between (i) law and politics, (ii) law and economics and (iii) law and state in sociological theory of Max Weber. The issue of law in sociology of Max Weber It is impossible to provide an analysis of Weberian sociology without an insight into his idea of law and related concepts, particularly the order and social order. The idea of law is one of Weber’s “basic sociological terms”, along with the other pivotal concepts of action and social action, social relationships and organization. In Weber’s theory the concept of law is strongly associated with the development of other social phenomena and processes. Observing Weber, law is a system of order achieved in a result of social convention between the members of society. Weber believed that contemporary law is primarily a result of “formal rationalization in lawfinding” or, in the other words, legal rationalization of law on the part of legally interested parties. Though law is traditionally analyzed in the area of legal practice, observing Weber, it is a pure sociological concept. Max Weber rejected Marxists evolutionary law of class society and Durkheim’s idea of sustained law of moral society (Schluchter, 2002). Instead, he established the “understanding sociology” focusing on action and interaction as well as their meaning. Weber believed that there is no universal law of society at least in the meaning of physical or chemical laws; it is the law of the history that determines the principles of social order in society (Schluchter, 2002). Respectively, Weber did not seek for the analysis of established laws in politics, economy and religion. He instead attempted to find the interrelationships between law and other social processes and phenomena and give them social meaning. In the other words, Weber attempted to understand how social law contributed to the development of politics and state, economy and religion as well as a number of other important social phenomena. According to Weber the primary purpose of law is to regulate the flow of human interaction (Rheinstein, 1954). Moreover, the law becomes a law when people give it the respective subjective meaning. As the law mainly functions to create the ground and provide the regulations for people’s interactions, its other important role is to make the behavior of interaction partakers more predictable (Wallace, Roberson, & Steckler, 1994). Weber analyzed how law, economy politics and state embody in a common process of rationalization. The sociologist looked for causal interconnections between these phenomena: The state in its origin requires certain legal principles and economic conditions; The politics requires certain law in order to separate the powers and procure subordination to the authorities Each economy is based on the certain norms and traditions shared by the members of each certain society (Cotterell, 1990) Weber has developed his sociology of law and linked the ideas of law with such concepts as economy, state and politics (chart 1). Chart 1. Weber’s sociology of law and links between law and related concepts (Schluchter, 2002) The chart above will serve the framework for my further analysis. For the purpose of further study it is also important to define the major ideas of Weber in respect to the issue of law. First of all, as briefly mentioned above Weber believed that the law does not exist as literally a “thing in itself” (Cotterell, 1990). Instead, law is interrelated with and dependent from conventional norms and ethics of society. This differentiates laws of the states with divergent ethics and norms. Second, no one society possesses a single law; rather there are several laws that may conflict with one another and produce a “battle of orders”. This battle represents different visions of social actors on the issues of better laws in their subjective meaning. Third, laws regulate only limited number of processes and actions. Also they create a ground and rules for social processes in some cases the “law gaps” occurs (Schluchter, 2002). It often takes places in politics when one party breaks conventional laws and usurps the power (e.g.: Hitler, Stalin and others). Relationships between law and politics in Weberian sociology Weber believed that politics is extremely broad phenomenon that may be best defined as the independent leadership in action. Respectively, he sought to understand politics as the leadership or political association, particularly a state. In Weberian thought politics relies on pressure and influence and “the essence of politics is struggle”. Observing Weber, politics means “striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state” (Weber, 1958). According to Weber, the concept of politics is not only difficult to describe but also tortuous to define sociologically. Instead, the concepts of law and legality and their relationships with politics make it more favorable concept for sociological analysis. In fact, the concept of political legitimacy is central in weberian sociology. In this paradigm an entity has political legitimacy if, and only if, it is morally justified in exercising political power (Weber, 1958). Also Weber focused his primary attention on definition of the types of the authority or the state (reviewed further in this project) he as well defines the mechanisms of law and politics interaction. He believed that to analyze the relationships between these two concepts we need to shift the focus from the “protagonists” of political processes (politicians) to the auxiliary recourses they dispose and the way politics finds its realization – political legitimacy (Weber, 1958; Cotterell, 1990). In Weberian paradigm political legitimacy is identified as the support that power can mobilize in society for its reign among the people. Realization of politics or, in the other words, legitimization of power attempts to convince suppressed people that the power of authorities is sacred, rational, just and by all means necessary. Thus, legitimization of power always implies social pressure. Further this legitimization functions as self-justification for the administrative apparatus of government (Trubeck, 1972). Weber believed that politics is based on continuous administration and subordination and those who dictate people politics (authorities) require legal fundaments for assuming the rights to rule society as a whole. In his later works Weber assumed that regardless dramatic differences in the ways the politics are realized in different states, the mechanism for its development is universal for all cultures. In all societies the politics developed through monopolization of legitimate physical pressure and development of social hierarchy. Weber assumed that politics does not emerge “in abstracto” as a thing-in-itself. Instead, it is socially determined and emerges in a result of legal social convention between the parties. The society is not a homogenous and harmonic unity; it is developed in a result of struggle and convention and the main objective of this struggle is to impose own politics to another party. It is the universal pattern of politics’ development in all societies (Peukert, 2004). This process according to Weber has the following pattern "An imperatively coordinated corporate group will be called “political” if and in so far as the enforcement of its order is carried out continually within a given territorial area by the application and threat of physical force on the part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political association with continuous organization...will be called a “state” if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." (Weber, 1947 p.154) Weber’s attitudes to politics have been best described in his theory of legitimate authority according to which law is both the ground on which politics functions and a mechanism that enables such functioning. With the decline of natural law, the legal system as a whole was transposed from the external to the internal postulate of justice (Schluchter, 2002). It means that development of politics in society was simultaneous with the changes in the original meaning of law and development legal system. Relationships between law and economics in Weberian sociology The sociological interpretation of the relationships between the state and the law is best provided in Weber’s classic “The Economy and the Orders” as well as in the “Sociological categories of economic action” written between 1919 and 1920 (Weber, 1978). Weber’s theoretical approach to economy is often regarded as his last statement on method and theory. In fact, in his last papers Weber created a brand different theoretical fundament for reinterpretation of the relationships between law and economics. He provided a milestone for modern economic sociology and created a strong basis for a heterodox economic paradigm (Peukert, 2004). While his predecessors believed that economy may be either market driven (liberal approach) or planned (Marxist approach) Weber suggested the alternative principle (the Third Way) stating that economy strictly dependence on society. This principle is known as the “economic sociology”. This sociological reinterpretation of economy’s laws and derogation of its role in society serve the reasons for Weber’s anathema by economists. Weber showed that even pure economic laws are driven by societies and cultures: they are literally contextualized into our cultures. Cultural background provides a basis for economy and its functioning. This, according to Weber, explains different types of economies in different states. Thus, it is not the economy that is primary, but rather the social attitudes (conventions) to the economy. That it why some societies had industrialized and transformed into the society of mass consumption and the others remained on the primeval level (Peukert, 2004). Another key concern of Weber in respect to the law and economics is sociologists’ denegation of the fact that economy is an independent and all-sufficient sphere with its unique laws pertaining exclusively to this very sphere. Weber believed that as well as the other social spheres economy shares the common laws and principle and functions almost the same way and under the same principles as politics, religion and state. Sociological view of Max Weber also reconsidered the value of economy in society. He found out that economy is the important but not the pivotal aspect of social-political reality as the economy is a derivative of society, not its fundament. Respectively, Max Weber believed that there are several “laws” of economy, i.e.: the factors that contribute to its development in society. They are culture, nationality, ethnicity, state, religion, society, geography, history and a number of others (Weber, 1978; Peukert, 2004). Weber verbalized several major ideas that may be best explained as “laws of economy”: The type of economics and its system is dependent on the type of society (its history, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc.) and governed by society; There is a need to find a balance between the economic freedom of particular agents and the means of social regulation. The nature and character of this balance is not voluntary but depends on historical and cultural precedents immanent to a certain type of society; Economic model of society must be analyzed as the function of its sociological model; The function of law in the sphere of economics is to find the balance between the fight and stagnation. It may be particularly the balance on the state or national level; Regionalization of economics, its adaptation to a certain geographical and national environment (Peukert, 2004). Thus, the major contribution of Weber to economy is his finding that economy is dependent on society – the law of “sociological economy”. Relationships between law and state in Weberian sociology The issues of law and state were other key concerns in Weberian sociology. Weber believed that among the other aspects related to the problem of state the laws of power and authority are the central ones. As well as economy, the state is not a “thing in itself”: it does not emerge from nowhere and by itself. Instead, it is the society that determines its development. Giving the issue of law a central importance in the social processes and overall social formation, Weber conceptualized that the law is a key mechanism that ensures development and existence of the state. The state in its turn is defined as the “monopoly of legitimized (legal) violence”. The logics of the relationships between the law and state in Weberian paradigm embodies in separation for administers and subordinates. This separation is, however, based on the violence “legalized” in society. To prove his ideas Weber wrote that “the rule of law entails that the actions of government in general...are constrained by authoritative sources of law such as statutes and common law precedents. The rights and entitlements specified by the law therefore exist apart from the arbitrary will of government officials who interpret and administer the law. Government officials must obey the law in carrying out government activities” (Price, 1989). In the other words, the power of the state is exercised according to the principles of the law that exist in a certain society. Traditions of state formation then engrave in society and dominate in the ensuing periods. Weber strongly believed that the fundamental values of certain societies determine the type of a state. The rational western societies result in the legal states while patriarchal societies of the east produce the ground for traditional states (Weber, 1947). The concept of legitimate authority is another central concept in weberian paradigm that throws the light on the relationships between the law and politics. The legitimate authority (or the authority based on conventional law) is the type of authority acknowledged by all members of a certain society. It implies the system of expectations and demands shared by all members of a certain society. According to this system those who subordinate recognize the power of those who dominate (Weber, 1958). People’s acknowledgement of power-subordinate relationships underlies Weber’s idea of the state. Weber, however, differentiated between the de facto and de-jure legitimacy. De facto legitimacy (actual legitimacy) is people’s acknowledgement of the authority and this acknowledgement is the most difficult to obtain. Just on the contrary, de jure legitimacy is only a formal fixation of the power and it is the easiest for authorities to obtain. The state itself is, hence, dependent on these models of legitimate authorities shared by the members of certain community. Respectively, the state may embody in different forms that may vary from democracy to totalitarianism, from autocracy to anarchy. As well as with economy, the society defines the type of its state; the process of state development also includes such variables as culture, history, traditions, mentality and the other ones. The legal environment in each certain society results in a specific type of a state (legitimate authority), i.e.: Rational state (rational authority or “social treaty” states) are characterized with the reliance of power on the legality and fair-dealing. The law is the key principle that underlies the rational state and people obey rather to the laws than politicians (e.g.: the UK, the US, European States). Traditional state (traditional authority) is on the contrary based on the natural and common law and faiths in the sainthood of the authorities. Regardless the rational state, traditional state is not based on social convention between people and authorities; instead the authority here is based on the everlasting laws (e.g.: Patriarchal states: czarist Russia, emperor Germany). Charismatic state (charismatic authority) is based on the allegiance to the charisma of a leader. Dislike traditional state based on the everlasting natural laws, charismatic authority relies rather on the intuitive laws. There are no defined laws in this type of the state. Instead, it functions irrationally and intuitively and the “laws” are rather situational and may change from time to time (Nazi Germany, USSR under Stalin) (Weber, 1947). Weber showed that development of each of these types of states (authorities) depends on the society and its norms, ethics, traditions and mentality. Conclusions The issue of law and its relationships with the concepts of politics, state and economy is central in Weberian sociology. Dislike many of his predecessors Weber believed that neither the state not the economy are the “things-in-themselves”. Instead they are socially-determined and rely on certain principles of law (legitimacy). In terms of politics legitimacy functions as the fundament for “negotiations” between the parties in society. Weber’s attitudes to politics have been best described in his theory of legitimate authority according to which law is both the ground on which politics functions and a mechanism that enables such functioning. Development of politics in society was simultaneous with the changes in the original meaning of law and development legal system. Max Weber revolutionized the idea of economy by suggesting his theory of “economy sociology”. Criticizing his predecessors of both liberal and Marxist approaches Weber assumed that economy is a socially-constructed process that completely depends upon a type of a society, its traditions, history, mentalities of people, geography and other variables. Respectively, economy functions according to the social laws. Besides, Weber suggested few “laws” of economy that provide insight into its processes from sociological perspective. Eventually, the key concept in Weberian theory reveals the relationships between law and the state (authority). Weber believed that as well as economy, the state is a typically social phenomenon based on certain laws. He found out that there are three types of states that are based on different types of legitimization, i.e.: legitimate state, traditional state and charismatic state. Each of these types has its own legal principles and mechanisms of function. Bibliography: Beetham D. (1985), Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, Cambridge, Polity Press. Bendix R. (1960). Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1960. Cotterell, R. (1990). The Sociology of Law: An Introduction. London: Butterworths Peukert, Helge (2004). Max Weber: precursor of economic sociology and heterodox economics? In: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.: November Price, D. A. 1989. Taking Rights Cynically: A Review of Critical Legal Studies. In: Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 48 (July), pp. 271-301. Rheinstein, M. (1954) Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Trubeck, D. (1972), Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism. In: Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 720-753. Wallace, H., Roberson, C., & Steckler, C. (1995). Fundamentals of police administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Weber, Max (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. A translation by Talcott Parsons of volume 1 part one of “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft”. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Weber, Max (1958). Politics as a Vocation In: Gerth and Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Weber, Max (1978). Sociological Categories of Economic Action. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol. I. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp.63-206. Read More