Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T18:09:01.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poverty of Evolutionism: A Critique of Teubner's Case for “Reflexive Law”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Erhard Blankenburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of “reflexive law” contains two mutually contradictory elements: a doctrine of legal restraint and the notion that restraint can be achieved by procedural rather than substantive regulation. This critique argues that new procedures have historically not replaced substantive regulation but instead have repeatedly introduced more substantive and more formal regulations. Teubner's thesis that “reflexive law” manifests an “evolutionary tendency” is refuted, just as is the claim that his thesis could be inferred from sociological theories such as those of Luhmann or Habermas. As is so often the case in legal theory, “evolutionism” is used as a mask for the legitimation of presumably “progressive” legal ideas.

Type
Commentary and Debate
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , 1984 , pp. 273 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was prepared for the German-American Conference on “Reflexive Law and the Regulatory Crisis,” July 1983, in Madison, Wisconsin. I am deeply indebted to David Trubek, who facilitated this meeting as well as the written version of my contribution. Cathy Menschievitz and Richard Lempert helped to bring it into decent English.

References

BENNIS, Warren (1973) Beyond Bureaucracy: Essays in the Development and Evolution of Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
BLANKENBURG, Erhard, Ralf, ROGOWSKI and Siegfried, SCHONHOLZ (1979) “Phenomena of Legalization: Observations in a German Labour Court,” in Blegvad, B. M., Campbell, C. M. and Schuyt, C. J. (eds.), European Yearbook in Law and Society 1978. The Hague/Boston/London: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
BRAKEL, Samuel J. (1978) American Indian Tribal Courts: The Costs of Separate Justice. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
CLASTRES, Pierre (1974) La Société contre l'Etat: Recherches d'Anthropologie Politique. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
FALKE, Josef, HOLAND, Armin, RHODE, Barbara and Gabriele, ZIMMERMANN (1982) Kündigungspraxis und Kündigungsschutz in derBundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn: Bundesminister Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Report 47.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1975) The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
FROMMEL, Monika (1981) Die Rezeption der Hermeneutik bei Karl Larenz und Josef Esser. Ebelsbach: Gremer.Google Scholar
GIBBS, John C. and Keith F., WIDAMAN (1982) Social Intelligence: Measuring the Development of Socio-Moral Reflection. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
HABERMAS, Jurgen (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
HORWITZ, Morton J. (1977) The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAHN-FREUND, Otto (1972) Labour and the Law. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
KOHLBERG, Lawrence (1981) “From Is to Ought,” in The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
KOSELLEK, Reinhart (1975) Preussen zwischen Reform und Restauration. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
LEE, Richard and DeVORE, Irven (eds.) (1968) Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, Niklas (1972) Rechtssoziologie. Reinbeck: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
MACAULAY, Stewart (1983) “Private Government.” DPRP, Working Paper 1983-6. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.Google Scholar
MAIR, Lucy (1962) Primitive Government. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
MUHLMANN, Wilhelm (1938) Staatsbildung und Amphiktyonen in Polynesien. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
NONET, Philippe and Philip, SELZNICK (1978) Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Octagon.Google Scholar
OSHERSON, Daniel N. (1974) Logical Abilities in Children. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
PIAGET, Jean (1954) Le Jugement Moral Chez l'Enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
POPITZ, Heinrich (1968) Prozesse der Machtbildung. Tubingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
PUCHTA, G. F. (1841/1869) Pandekten. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
ROBERTS, Simon (1979) Order and Dispute: An Introduction to Legal Anthropology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
SELZNICK, Philip (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
SIGRIST, Christian (1967) Regulierte Anarchie. Olten: Walter.Google Scholar
SINZHEIMER, Hugo (1930/1976) “Rätebewegung und Gesellschaftsverfassung,” reprinted in Arbeitsrecht und Rechtssoziologie. Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
TEUBNER, Gunther (1983) “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” 17 Law & Society Review 239.Google Scholar
TREIBER, Hubert (1983) “Implementation of Regulatory Law.” Working Paper. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.Google Scholar
TURIEL, Elliot, Carolyn Pope, EDWARDS and Lawrence, KOHLBERG (1978) “Moral Development in Turkish Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults,” 9 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 75.Google Scholar
TURNBULL, Colin M. (1961) The Forest People. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1921/1953) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tubingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
WEEKES, Brian, MELLISH, Michael, DICKENS, Linda and John, LLOYD (1975) Industrial Relations and the Limits of Law: The Industrial Effects of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
WINDSCHEID, Bernhard (1862) Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. DUsseldorf: Buddeus.Google Scholar
WITTFOGEL, Karl A. (1957) Omental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar