Abstract
The early decades of the last century saw European philosophical thought becoming increasingly interested in the sociological extension of the idea of law. From the viewpoint of the sociology of law, law is formed in the process of social interactions and is not sanctioned by the state. Sergey Hessen and Georges Gurvitch base their conceptions of social law on the sociology of law in the 1920s and 1930s. They start a polemic in the pages of the journal Sovremenniye zapiski (Contemporary Notes). Although they differ radically in their definitions of the status of the state they concur in defining society as a set of social institutions and communities existing as instruments for expressing personal freedom. The social regulations they propose are already legal situations. Hessen and Gurvitch believe that the individual can fully exercise his/her freedom only in conditions of such legal pluralism. However, the concept of legal pluralism involves an inherent problem of preserving social unity: why is it that society does not fall into a range of autonomous social entities, each offering the individual its own legal order for actualising freedom? To solve this problem the philosophers use the concept of “the general will”. General will is an instrument of correlation between individual freedom and the development of society and culture as a whole. The object of philosophical dispute is how the general will is formed: 1) in the process of social self-organisation according to Gurvitch; 2) in the operation of the suprafunctional organisation (the state) according to Hessen. The difference in the grounding of the general will leads to a difference in the concepts of social unity: 1) sobornost according to Gurvitch and 2) solidarity according to Hessen. Analysis of the dispute between Gurvitch and Hessen brings out not only the differences in the interpretation of social unity but also the fundamental problems with the conceptions of social law.
Highlights
В первые десятилетия прошлого века в европейской философской мысли усиливаются тенденции социологического расширения идеи права
The concept of legal pluralism involves an inherent problem of preserving social unity: why is it that society does not fall into a range of autonomous social entities, each offering the individual its own legal order for actualising freedom? To solve this problem the philosophers use the concept of “the general will”
Ключевые слова: социальное право, общество, индивид, государство, солидарность, соборность, неокантианство to a difference in the concepts of social unity: 1) sobornost according to Gurvitch and 2) solidarity according to Hessen
Summary
Sergey Hessen and Georges Gurvitch base their conceptions of social law on the sociology of law in the 1920s and 1930s They start a polemic in the pages of the journal Sovremenniye zapiski (Contemporary Notes). Ключевые слова: социальное право, общество, индивид, государство, солидарность, соборность, неокантианство to a difference in the concepts of social unity: 1) sobornost according to Gurvitch and 2) solidarity according to Hessen. Предпринятый во второй части статьи анализ концепции общей воли в учениях Гессена и Гурвича позволит понять, каким образом они обосновывают социальное единство. Полученные результаты дают возможность в третьей части статьи проанализировать, как в учениях Гессена и Гурвича представлен сам процесс социального единения. Гессен и Гурвич обозначают модели социального единения как солидарность и соборность соответственно. In their argument about social law the philosophers expound the concept of “the general will”, owing to which society preserves its unity in the context of legal pluralism. The answer to the question, how do the two philosophers understand solidarity and sobornost, amounts to answering the question, what opportunities for building social unity do they envisage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
