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.

中文翻译：

---

司法社会理论化及其与社会学的关系

社会理论的范围和结构通常作为适当理论化的一部分或序言进行分析。本文对元理论问题采取了一种间接的方法，即“社会理论在范围和结构方面是什么样子的？” 通过分析一种社会学家往往不认为是社会理论的社会理论形式：即联邦上诉法院制定的法官制定的法律。我们认为，法官在常规基础上进行社会理论化，并且他们通过与社会学理论化具有共同特征的理论化过程得出他们的一些理论主张。法官的社会理论化为我们自己树立了一面镜子。通过承认和检验司法社会理论化作为一种​​结构化的社会理论化形式，