Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Social Theorizing and Its Relation to Sociology

  • Published:
Qualitative Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In some ways the position of law within contemporary U.S. sociology resembles the position of religion, as described by Philip Gorski (2005). Religion and law were, of course, the central targets of Marxist critique. Within mainstream U.S. sociology, religion has arguably made a greater recovery, in the sense that it can now be included as an explanatory factor in sociological theories of historical change, as, for example, in Gorski’s own work (2003). Law, in the sense of actual legal doctrine, has yet to make this recovery, at least in U.S. sociology. The theoretical framework of recursivity, as advanced by Halliday and Carruthers (2007, 2009), opens up a space for this recovery, as does Richard Swedberg’s (2003, 2006) advocacy for an economic sociology of law.

  2. Pub. L. No. 96–212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A)). This statutory definition reproduces the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267, available at http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/basic/3b66c2aa10/convention-protocol-relating-status-refugees.html (accessed Nov. 15, 2018). For a brief overview of the legislative background, see Anker 2018, 1–3.

  3. “The characteristics of being a ‘young woman’ and a ‘member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe’ cannot be changed. The characteristic of having intact genitalia is one that is so fundamental to the individual identity of a young woman that she should not be required to change it” (In re Kasinga, BIA 1996, WL 379826, 366, discussed with negative qualification in Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1198–1200 (10th Cir. 2005)). See also Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2010); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013).

  4. “The basic premise of particularity is that the proposed groups ‘have particular and well-defined boundaries.’ If the description of the proposed group is ‘too amorphous,’ and ideas of what the relevant terms mean are likely to vary, the applicant has failed to provide an ‘adequate benchmark for determining group membership” (Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 648–649 (10th Cir. 2012)).

  5. See Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 649 (10th Cir. 2012); Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2012).

  6. See Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641, 652 (10th Cir. 2012); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2013). Compare Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) and Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009), which reject the BIA’s “social visibility” standard on the grounds that it does imply visibility “because of your appearance, gait, speech pattern, behavior or other discernable characteristic” (Ramos, 589 F.3d at 430). See also Soucek 2010.

  7. See Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964, 973 (6th Cir. 2011); Meged v. Gonzales, 141 Fed.Appx. 698, 701 (9th Cir. 2005); Bucur v. INS, 109 F.3d 399, 404 (7th Cir. 1997).

  8. In re Acosta has been overruled, but on other grounds, and its discussion of immutability remains to some extent a touchstone in asylum jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA has repeatedly attempted to refine its “particular social group” criteria. See, e.g., Rivera-Barrientos, 666 F.3d 641, 647–53 (10th Cir. 2012).

  9. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(4)(B) & 1252(b)(4)(D), our emphasis.

  10. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, Sept. 27, 2012. Case number 11–1989. Available at http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov (accessed Nov. 16, 2018).

  11. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 16:17 (approx..).

  12. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 3:48.

  13. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 53:05.

  14. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 1:02:26.

  15. Cece v. Holder, en banc oral argument, minute 2:45.

References

  • Abbott, Andrew. 1995. Things of boundaries. Social Research 62 (4): 857–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, Andrew. 2010. Varieties of ignorance. The American Sociologist 41 (2): 174–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abend, Gabriel. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory. Sociological Theory 26 (2): 173–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anker, Deborah. 1989. The law of asylum in the United States: A manual for practitioners and adjudicators. Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anker, Deborah. 2011. Law of asylum in the United States. Fourth edition. New York: Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anker, Deborah. 2018. Law of asylum in the United States. Eleventh edition. New York: Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal 38: 805–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Translated by Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7 (1): 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1991. The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Translated by Richard Nice. New York: De Gruyter.

  • Brubaker, Rogers. 2016. Trans: Gender and race in an age of unsettled identities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1984. The sociology of law: An introduction. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1986. Law and sociology: Notes on the constitution and confrontation of disciplines. Journal of Law and Society 13 (1): 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1995. Law’s community: Legal theory in sociological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1998. Why must legal ideas by interpreted sociologically? Journal of Law and Society 25 (2): 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the Mirror of social theory. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurter, Felix. 1960. Felix Frankfurter reminisces. New York: Reynal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, Werner. 2015. Law, culture, and society: Max Weber’s comparative cultural sociology of law. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorski, Philip S. 2003. The disciplinary revolution: Calvinism and the rise of the state in early modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gorski, Philip S. 2005. The return of the repressed: Religion and the political unconscious of historical sociology. In Remaking modernity: Politics, history, and sociology, ed. Julia Adams, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, G. Mitu and Richard Posner. 2015. “The Management of Staff by Federal Court of appeals judges.” University of Chicago Public Law Working Paper No. 531; Duke Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Series No. 2015–17. Available https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2590179.

  • Halliday, Terence C., and Bruce G. Carruthers. 2007. The recursivity of law: Global norm making and National Lawmaking in the globalization of corporate insolvency regimes. American Journal of Sociology 112 (4): 1135–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, Terence C., and Bruce G. Carruthers. 2009. Bankrupt: Global lawmaking and systemic financial crisis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans. 1996. The creativity of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Duncan. 2005. The disenchantment of logically formal legal rationality: Or, max Weber’s sociology in the genealogy of the contemporary mode of Western legal thought. In Max Weber’s economy and society: A critical companion, ed. Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubek. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Diana. 2012. The story of the tattooed lady: Scandal and the colonial state in British Burma. Law and Social Inquiry 37 (4): 969–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, and Virag Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, Edward. 1970[1948]. An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Liu, Sida. 2015. Law’s social forms: A powerless approach to the sociology of law. Law & Social Inquiry 40 (1): 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, John Levi. 2015. Thinking through theory. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert. 1968a. On sociological theories of the middle range. In Social theory and social structure, 39–53. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert. 1968b. The bearing of sociological theory. In Social theory and social structure, 139–155. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. The language of law school: Learning to “think like a lawyer”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, John N., and Ugo Corte. 2017. Placing collaborative circles in strategic action fields: Explaining differences between highly creative groups. Sociological Theory 35 (4): 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Talcott. 1968[1937]. The structure of social action. Volume one. New York: Free Press.

  • Popper, Karl. 2002[1935]. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.

  • Posner, Richard. 1993. What do judges and justices maximize? (the same thing everybody Else does). Supreme Court Economic Review 3 (1): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 1995. ‘Judges’ writing styles (and do they matter?). University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1421–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard. 2013. Reflections on judging. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew Penner. 2012. Racial fluidity and inequality in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 118 (3): 676–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew Penner. 2014. Beyond the looking glass: Exploring fluidity in racial self-identification and interviewer classification. Sociological Perspectives 57: 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2009. Thinking like a lawyer: A new Introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele, Kim Lane. 1994. Legal theory and social theory. Annual Review of Sociology 20: 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selg, Peeter. 2013. The politics of theory and the constitution of meaning. Sociological Theory 31 (1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, Ronen. 1993. Formal and substantive rationality in American law: A Weberian perspective. Social & Legal Studies 2: 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silbey, Susan. 1991. Loyalty and betrayal: Cotterrell’s discovery and reproduction of legal ideology. Law and Social Inquiry 16 (4): 809–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silbey, Susan. 2005. After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1: 323–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soucek, Brian. 2010. Social group asylum claims: A second look at the new visibility requirement. Yale Law and Policy Review 29: 337–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 2001. When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard. 1988. Max Weber and the idea of economic sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard. 2003. The case for an economic sociology of law. Theory and Society 32 (1): 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard. 2006. Max Weber's contribution to the economic sociology of law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, Richard. 2014. The art of social theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Telles, Edward, and Tianna Paschel. 2014. Who is black, white, or mixed race? How skin color, status, and nation shape racial classification in Latin America. American Journal of Sociology 120 (3): 864–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treiber, Hubert. 2008. Max Weber and Eugen Ehrlich: On the Janus-headed construction of Weber’s ideal type in the sociology of law. Max Weber Studies 8 (2): 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Bryan S. 2009. Introduction: A new agenda for social theory? In The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 1–16. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Stephen, and Regis Factor. 1994. Max Weber: The lawyer as social thinker. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, Patricia. 1992. Some real-life observations about judging. Indiana Law Review 26 (1): 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, Patricia. 1995. The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1371–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1968a[1922]. Economy and society. Volume one. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Weber, Max. 1968b[1922]. Economy and society. Volume two. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Weber, Max. 2012[1904]. The ‘objectivity’ of knowledge. In Max Weber: Collected methodological writings, ed. Hans Henrik Bruun and Sam Whimster , 100–138. Oxford: Routledge.translated by Hans Henrik Bruun

  • Whitehead, Alfred North. 1967[1926]. Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court Decisions

  • Angov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir., 2013).

  • Benitez Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir., 2009).

  • Bucur v. INS, 109 F.3d 399 (7th Cir., 1997).

  • Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (S.Ct., 1932).

  • Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir., 2003).

  • Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (S.Ct., 1984).

  • Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396 (3rd Cir. 2003).

  • Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3rd Cir., 1993).

  • Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir., 2012).

  • Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir., 2009).

  • INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (S. Ct., 1987).

  • Lwin v. INS, 144 F.3d 505 (7th Cir., 1998).

  • Meged v. Gonzales, 141 Fed.Appx. 698 (9th Cir., 2005).

  • Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, (9th Cir., 2005).

  • Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir., 2009).

  • Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641 (10th Cir., 2012).

  • Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir., 2011).

  • Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir., 2010).

Administrative Decisions

  • In re Kasinga. 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, WL 379826 (BIA, 1986).

  • Matter of Acosta. 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, WL 56042 (BIA, 1985).

  • Matter of A-M-E & J-G-U-. 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, WL 274141 (BIA, 2007).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civic Consulting Alliance, Chicago, IL, USA

    Boyce Robert Owens

  2. Bard College, Annandale-On-Hudson, NY, USA

    Laura Ford

Authors
  1. Boyce Robert Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boyce Robert Owens.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Owens, B.R., Ford, L. Judicial Social Theorizing and Its Relation to Sociology. Qual Sociol 42, 229–249 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9409-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9409-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation