The Representation of the Sacred and the Insufficient Functional Differentiation of the Legal System in Brazil

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Germano Schwartz
Kybernetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Winczorek

PurposeThe links between moral communication and legal communication have long been studied in sociology of law. Little has yet been said about moral communication invoking when communication in the legal system is impossible, ineffective or uncertain. The paper fills this gap to demonstrate that systems theory-based sociology of law can effectively recognise the role of moral communication in such situations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents an empirical study of moral communication in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It focused on situations when SMEs' interactions with function systems, particularly the legal system, result in irremovable legal uncertainty. The data depict strategies of managing such uncertainty and were obtained in a paths-to-justice survey of 7,292 owners and managers of SMEs and 101 in-depth interviews. The findings are interpreted using the author's concept of “uncertainty translation”, rooted in Luhmann's systems theory. It suggests that business organisations such as SMEs deal with the ubiquitous uncertainty in their operations by translating it into a convenient type.FindingsThe study distinguishes between formative and absorbing moral communication and finds that both types play a role in steering the uncertainty translation mechanism in SMEs. Six scenarios of invoking moral communication are identified in SMEs dealing with legal uncertainty. In such scenarios, moral communication facilitates the translation of business uncertainty “away from law”. Under some circumstances, this, in turn, leads to latent systematic results, reflexively affecting the legal system, the economic system and the SMEs.Research limitations/implicationsIn its core argument, the study is based on qualitative material. While it identifies empirical scenarios of invoking moral communication, it does not report the prevalence of these scenarios due to methodological limitations.Originality/valueThe study results pose questions related to the staple theoretical issue in post-Luhmannian social systems theory: functional differentiation. If moral communication–a type of communication not linked to any social system–can produce far-reaching, systematic results that affect function systems, then the functional differentiation thesis should be less pronounced than Luhmann typically stressed. This said, the paper argues that the contradiction between the findings and Luhmannian theory of morality is only apparent and may be reconciled.


Author(s):  
Marcelo Neves

This chapter presents a model for distinguishing between constitutional principles and constitutional rules, emphasizing that it concerns a legal-doctrinal difference that emerged with modern constitutionalism. In this context, principles are defined as reflexive mechanisms in relation to rules, and the circular connection between them becomes the focus of analysis. It also discusses the performance of principles and rules in the process of constitutional concretization as well as pointing out the requirement of a constitutional principle theory adequate to the complexity of contemporary society, even in the context of transconstitutionalism. This chapter is divided into five sections: locating the problem and conceptual contours; constitutional principles as a result of the positivization of law: principles and rules as an internal difference of the legal system; the circular relationship between constitutional principles and rules; from optimization to competition: limits of ‘balancing’; and intra-principle collision, double contingency, and functional differentiation of society: towards a complex theory of principles.


Author(s):  
Todd Hedrick

Habermas’ theory represents the most coherent combination of reconciliation and reification considered herein. Habermas remains attuned to the concerns raised by Adorno that the functional differentiation of society may undermine the autonomy of the individual (through “the colonization of the lifeworld”), but resists the inexorability of Adorno’s conclusions by conceiving of a democratic society’s legal system as the medium through which discourse could consensually shape the “interchanges” between system and lifeworld. However, Habermas effects this synthesis by abstracting away from the psychoanalytic issues that concerned Adorno and Honneth, and by thinking of his proceduralist paradigm of law as ungrounded in the type of substantive legal paradigms that normally allow persons to identify with the system’s underlying values. The chapter concludes that Habermas is left with a too-attenuated relationship between the rationality of socialization and democratic governance, and persons’ usual first-order notions of meaning and value, to be genuinely emancipatory.


1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 441-442
Author(s):  
A. I. RABIN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document