Max Weber's Theory Of Law

Throughout centuries we as a society have always had an unhealthy devotion to law, whether it be how it has been brought out, what is seen as being applicable as law, and how it provides a broad understanding of the law and kinship that is required to fully understand the different concepts and rituals that law provides. Many different sociologists and anthropologist have developed their own theories regarding how law is defined to them and more importantly how it’s power is distributed towards other members of society. The contribution of sociologist and anthropologist to the formation of law can help trace the development of international human rights law from a perspective of the development in meaning and scope of international norms. Three

This theorist is popularly known as Max Weber, who directs his ideological stance on law through his “Theory of Rationalization” (Lecture notes, 2015). Weber developed the notion of “ideal types” which analyzes the basic elements of social institutions and their specific form of authority. These ideal types that Weber mentions dictate law through different ideologies ranging from traditional, charismatic and legal-rational (Lecture notes, 2015). Traditional authority thrives on the ability of rule to be passed down often not changing over time, therefore valuing the status quo. Charismatic authority and law is administered based on personal qualities routinized in a number of ways according to Weber. Examples include traditionalized orders, and individuals changing into a legal staff. The final form of authority Weber defines differentiates from the other two in a different sense. Instead of obedience and law being administered by an individual it is a set of uniform principles (insert pg #). This form of authority is frequently found in the modern state, city governments, and private and public

Durkheim views law as an expression of the conscience collective, being law that consists of “Beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society” (insert pg #). When criticizing this view, it is assumed that there is an identity between the content of the law and the content of the collective conscious, which however is not true for all societies. Paul Bohannan, defined law as a “body of binding obligations” and found that each culture and its legal concepts were unique to one another (insert pg #). Comparing this view with Durkheim’s, a common element is noticed- both contain a solidarity “binding” members together in a society and regulating laws around this set of standards. Breaking these bonds of social solidarity offends the collective values shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society (lecture notes,