ABSTRACT In Nobody’s Law (2018), Marc Hertogh introduced the notion of legal alienation as part of a ‘secular’ approach to legal consciousness, i.e. one that does not assume law’s hegemonic power in everyday life. This approach has been criticised, with it being suggested that it does not refute claims about law’s hegemonic power but partly explains resistance to it. I argue here that critical discussion of legal alienation is hampered by the employment of different definitions of the ‘legal’ in legal consciousness studies: from legality as an ongoing social structure to positive/State law. Using the example of administrative justice studies, I demonstrate that this definitional divergence results in confusion about the role of law as a variable in legal consciousness research designs. Is the law what is to be explained, or does the law explain another outcome? In the interest of achieving meaningful and clear analytical constructions of the ‘legal’ in this context, I argue that legal consciousness and legal alienation are concepts that shall be conceived as embodying two different conceptions: ‘identification/non-identification’ and ‘relevance/irrelevance to behaviours, processes or outcomes’. Acknowledging this conceptual distinction is integral to bridging the theoretical and methodological divide between social-scientific and legal approaches to legal consciousness research.

中文翻译：

---

界定“法律”：行政司法研究中的法律意识和法律异化两个概念

摘要 在《无人法》（2018 年）中，Marc Hertogh 引入了法律异化的概念，作为法律意识“世俗”方法的一部分，即不承担法律在日常生活中的霸权权力的方法。这种方法受到批评，有人认为它没有反驳关于法律霸权的主张，而是部分解释了对它的抵制。我在这里认为，法律异化的批判性讨论受到法律意识研究中对“法律”的不同定义的阻碍：从作为持续社会结构的合法性到实证/国家法律。使用行政司法研究的例子，我证明了这种定义上的分歧导致了法律在法律意识研究设计中作为变量的作用的混淆。法律是不是要解释，还是法律解释了另一种结果？为了在这种情况下对“法律”进行有意义和清晰的分析，我认为法律意识和法律异化是应被视为体现两个不同概念的概念：“认同/非认同”和“相关性/与行为、过程或结果无关”。承认这种概念上的区别对于弥合社会科学和法律方法之间的理论和方法论鸿沟是不可或缺的。“识别/非识别”和“与行为、过程或结果的相关性/不相关性”。承认这种概念上的区别对于弥合社会科学和法律方法之间的理论和方法论鸿沟是不可或缺的。“识别/非识别”和“与行为、过程或结果的相关性/不相关性”。承认这种概念上的区别对于弥合社会科学和法律方法之间的理论和方法论鸿沟是不可或缺的。