Debating Sociological Jurisprudence: A Reply

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12264
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019

© 2019 The Author. Ratio Juris © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Ratio Juris. Vol. 32 No. 4 December 2019 (521–528)

Debating Sociological Jurisprudence:

A Reply

ROGER COTTERRELL

1. Introduction

The concept of sociological jurisprudence has not been prominent in recent jurispru-

dential debate. When invoked, at least in modern Anglophone literature, it has often

indicated a theoretical approach derived from—even synonymous with—Roscoe

Pound’s work. But my book Sociological Jurisprudence does not try to follow or build

on Pound. It aims to set a new agenda avoiding Pound’s theoretical approaches, treat-

ing them as in many ways outdated—even in important respects counterproductive.

It attempts to detail a new outlook and new methods to avoid the well-recognised

(e.g., Wigdor 1974, 283–7) vagueness, imprecision, and conservatism associated with

Pound’s theories, and especially to reflect the fundamentally changed conditions of

law, legal philosophy, and the social sciences as they exist today.

If the book has a central claim, it is that the socio-political world in which juristic

work is now being done is one in which systematic, empirical knowledge of law’s so-

cial contexts is not just desirable but essential as part of the jurist’s analytical toolbox.

Jurists may have entirely understandable concerns about relying on knowledge pro-

duced through theoretical and empirical social research, but they cannot close them-

selves off from this kind of knowledge—especially in the light of changes occurring

in law itself and its ever more diverse regulatory tasks. Most importantly, my book

tries to show that the new juristic outlook demanded by changing socio-legal contexts

should not cause apprehension: It does not ask jurists to become sociologists; only to

cultivate an awareness of resources of knowledge that are currently underused.

With these aims, the book focuses on both “jurisprudence” and the “sociolog-

ical”—the linked terms in its title. It advocates a rigorous reconceptualization of

jurisprudence—distinguishing it from both legal philosophy and sociology of law,

and treating it not as a demarcated disciplinary research field but as a broad, open

theoretical endeavour oriented in all its aspects towards the needs of juristic prac-

tice. Jurisprudence demands philosophical sensitivity but also engagement with the

empirical and theoretical resources of contemporary social sciences. And the “socio-

logical” does not indicate an academic discipline beyond law to which jurists should

become subservient; instead it refers to any systematic and empirical social research

that can enlighten juristic work.

The book faces, Janus-like, towards legal philosophy on one side and socio-legal

theory and research on the other. It examines the relations of jurisprudence with