AMICI

Newsletter of the Sociology of Law Section
American Sociological Association

Volume 4, Number 1 (Fall, 1996)


From the Chair

Lauren Edelman, Section Chair

	What is the sociology of law? I thought this would be an easy
question to answer until I recently joined the faculty of Berkeley's
Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. In a sociology program, that
question is almost unproblematic: we are all linked by discipline and tend
to think more about what is substantively interesting within sociology of
law than what about that field makes it sociology. But students at the JSP
Program, who work with faculty that have (more or less) similar
substantive interests but a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, have
begun to ask me: What is the sociology of law, and how is it different
from, say, the anthropology or politics of law, or from the law and
society tradition, broadly speaking? 

	I am finding this a difficult question to address. On the one
hand, I am tempted to answer that there is very little difference, that
the sociology of law is in fact a very interdisciplinary field that draws
not only on sociology but also on anthropology, political science,
history, economics, psychology, legal scholarship, and increasingly,
rhetoric. Certainly, many of us teach sociology of law courses that
include the writings of scholars in fields other than sociology. But if
that is true, why were so many of us so anxious five-or-so years ago, to
form a new section within the American Sociological Association, when most
of us already belonged to the interdisciplinary Law & Society Association?
Isn't there something that is distinctive about the sociology of law as
opposed to other disciplinary approaches to law? 

	The best answer I have been able to come up with is that
substantively, the sociology of law involves a commitment to linking the
study of law with the core issues of sociology as a discipline: e.g.
social stratification, social change, socialization and deviance, and the
emergence of capitalism. Methodologically, the sociology of law involves a
commitment to empirical investigation (qualitative or quantitative) as a
means of studying the dynamics of law and social structure. This is not to
say that sociology necessarily involves a commitment to positivism, at
least in the sense of discovering "laws" of society that are independent
of time and place. Sociologists have certainly been influenced by the
ethnographic and interpretive methodologies of anthropology, by the
rational-choice models of economics, and even by postmodem thinking that
leads us to question the existence of social structures independent of
views that researchers bring to studying those structures. Yet there is,
it seems to me, a methodological core to the sociology of law that
revolves around learning through observation of social actors and social
structures, as opposed to analyzing text or re-telling the stories of
individuals. But perhaps that is simply my positivist training creeping
out. What do you think? Perhaps others would like to submit their view of
the unique focus or contributions of the sociology of law to the
newsletter.

	Whatever led to the formation of the section, it is certainly a
vibrant one. Despite our small numbers (286 at last count), there were by
my rough estimate somewhere between 60 and 80 people at the Section
Business Meeting in New York. And about half of those present volunteered
to participate in Section Committees. Perhaps more impressive, quite a few
people whipped out their checkbooks and made donations to the section.
(See the column by Robin Stryker in this issue). I doubt that this is
typical and am certainly glad to be chairing a section that is so
committed. 

	Speaking of commitment, I would like to thank our outgoing chair,
Rick Lempert, and secretary-treasurer, Nancy Reichman for all the work
they have done for the section. Thanks also to the 1996 Program Committee
members who put together two great panels and a set of very nice
roundtables: Frank Munger, Robin Stryker, Kevin Delaney, Richard Leo, and
Cynthia Fuchs-Epstein. Frank Munger, who as chair-elect is chairing this
years program committee, reports that Cal Morrill, Carol Heimer, Karen
Heimer and John Sutton are hard at work planning the 1997 program. And
Frank is also working on some joint panels with other sections for the
1998 program. This years Book/Article Prize committee consists of: Ronen
Shamir (chair, and this years winner), Kevin Delaney, Peter Manning, Kim
Sheppele, and Penelope Canan. Chris Uggen (chair) Cathy Connolly, Richard
Leo, and Liz Chambliss have agreed to serve on the Student Paper Prize
Committee. Membership Committee members are: Pat Steinhoff and Patty Ewick
(co-chairs), Kiyoshi Ikeda, Patricia Gwartney, and Mathieu Deflem. The
Nominations Committee is: David Greenberg and Bill Felstiner (co-chairs),
Mark Suchman, Joachim Savelsberg, and Susan Silbey. And, our Publications
Committee, who brings you this newsletter, is: Matt Silberman, Robert
Kidder, Larry Ross, Mary Pat Baumgartner, Marlynn May, and Jill McCorkel.
Thanks to all of you for the work you are putting into the section. 

	I would also like to call your attention to the new Sociology of
Law Mentoring Program. The Mentoring Program is designed to help assistant
professors in the sociology of law survive and perhaps even thrive awing
the pretenure years. I will match interested assistant professors with
tenured faculty from different institutions. Exactly what will be involved
in each mentoring relationship will be worked out by each mentor/mentee
pair. In general, I would envision the mentor offering advice on issues
such as structuring a research program, publishing, establishing
intellectual relationships with ones colleagues, etc. In addition, mentors
could read and give feedback on papers or book chapters. So far, about ten
assistant professors have requested mentors and about twelve senior
faculty have volunteered to be mentors; I am in the process of matching
people more or less according to areas of interest. The program is open to
assistant professors or to advanced graduate students who are currently on
the market and plan to become assistant professors by next Fall. If you
would like to participate in the program as a mentee, or if you would be
willing to volunteer as a mentor, please contact me bye-mail at:

ledelman@uclink4.berkeley.edu or by phone at (510) 642-4038. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Active learning and the sociology of law

Peter Lehman, University of Southern Maine

	Active-learning or problem-solving approaches to teaching make
students more active participants in their learning, increases student
enthusiasm, helps connect materials to student lives, helps develop
critical thinking, and increases retention of skills and concepts. Law
studies has a tradition of using cases, hypothetical or real, which can
make the transition to an active-learning approach easier. 

	Traditionally, we present the concepts and theories first and then
apply them, for instance, to a case.  This approach can confuse a
sociological vocabulary with a sociological perspective.  Often, students
end up learning concepts but have little or no idea about how to use them
or even why they have learned them. 

	An active-learning approach inverts this process by placing the
problem first. Active learning begins with a problem and then draws on
theory, concepts, and data as needed in order to solve or address the
problem.  The problem becomes the centerpiece; students learn the concepts
and theories as tools to the solve the problem. 

	I tend to begin each section of my law and society course with a
problem or case.  I have used parking behavior and fairy tales as well as
traditional law cases. For an example that needs little explanation,
however, let me draw upon Lon Fullers classic hypothetical about the
Speluncian Explorers. 

	I would use the situation of the explorers but neither the outcome
nor the sample opinions developed by Fuller. This works best in
collaborative student groups. Groups can be given a relevant statute and
asked "Has a crime been committed?" The discussion of this task
illuminates the questions central to a discussion of the nature of law or
the nature of crime. 

	Throughout the section of the course, the class returns to the
case to consider, for example, What would Marx say about the case? or
Durkheim, or Weber, or Black, or Hoebel? The case might reappear as a
class discussion topic, an essay assignment, and/or an examination
question. 

	The crucial point, however, is that the problem gives students a
sense of the questions, and types of questions, being addressed by the
theorists.  They have a more concrete sense of why we are studying the
theorists.  And they have a built-in guide for reading and studying a
concrete problem to solve. 

	For a more extended example of an active-learning approach in
sociology of law see "Parking, Law, and Society," Legal Studies Forum,
1989:75-88. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Underdeveloped Research Areas: By-Law Evolution
and Democratic Centralism

Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Northwestern University

Pluralism and Oligarchy in Voluntary Associations

	In the 1950s and 1960s pluralism was thought of as the cure for a
great many political faults. Union Democracy tried to show that in an
occupational association, pluralism based on big city printer locals,
printer bowling clubs, big newspaper shops, free printer newspapers, and
two-party elections prevented the concentration of power in the center,
and produced a stronger union as a result. 

	The recent suggestion of a bylaw of the Amcrican Sociological
Association that says that sections should not take positions on any
public question, so that the ASA could present unity on public questions,
suggests that this tradition favoring pluralism has been undermined. 

	The position of the ASA would have been called "democratic
centralism" (it was Lenin's phrase) in the 50s and 60s, the idea that
debate was within the politburo, and the party should confront the
bourgeois enemy in unified ranks. It might, to borrow a phrase Selznick
borrowed from the bolsheviks, be called the "ASA as a combat party"
position. I have seen the same democratic centralist position developing
on the Board of Directors of a private school, as I have been urged to
keep my mouth shut after the vote goes against me.  I have a gift for
being in the minority, like my hero Trotsky, and (in case it isn't clear)
I do not like democratic centralism. 

	But the deeper sociology of law question is what explains the
origin of such proposals in the by-laws. There is, after all, no actual
power in the ASA, very few positions to control, very few public stances
to worry about, very little combat with the bourgeoisie for political
power. I think instead we should investigate the hypothesis that
democratic centralist by-laws reflect the "fear of organized anarchy." We
have to answer the question of why the sociology of law section taking a
stand on some question of law (say the supply of legal aid, or
sociological testimony on the crassness of the classes in class action
suits, or what should evidence privileges be for spouses in marital rape
accusations) seems like a symptom of forthcoming doom to the democratic
centralists among us. 


A Research Agenda

	I would offer three hypotheses that could be investigated to
explain the by-laws suppressing the potential social bases of "faelions,"
as Leninists called plural sources of ideology and power. 

	1. The greater the proportion of paid administrators in the
governing council meetings, and the greater their role in creating the
agenda, the more by-laws suppressing: pluralism of public positions, the
amounts of money in subsection prizes, subsection control over budgets,
separate hiring of paid administrators by subsections, separate relations
with outside bodies such as other associations, separate subsection media
of mass communication (a core question is who owns the mailing list), and
the like. 

	The basic idea is that administrators want things to be orderly,
and pluralism is not an administrator's view of orderliness. Especially
disorderly money payments, under democratic discretion of subsections,
seem most anarchic because it disturbs the accountant in all modern
administrators. How can one budget pluralistic democracy? Stalin, for
example, was an administrator, the party secretary. Richard Simpson and
Ida Simpson have written on the drift of the ASA to greater proportions of
all activity being bureaucratic activity, in the issue of Sociological
Forum on the future (i. e. the doom) of the discipline. 

	2. Democratic centralist by-laws will tend to be invented during
periods of rapid formation of subgroups, especially when these are
specifically differentiated by interest and competence. That is, the more
subsections might actually have different policies, and the more rapidly
such subgroups are forming, the greater the rate of production of by-laws
suppressing potential organization of "factions." Especially when the
social and economic base of the sections (e. g. scholarly activity) is
different from that of the center (e.g. selling insurance or peddling
credit cards), such a rapid drift of power to the periphery will took like
anarchy. 

	3. The more the leadership of an organization comes from a place
where its interests are beleaguered (as sociology's are at the National
Science Foundation, for example), the more appealing a combat party
ideology will appear, so the more pressure toward "unity" in the defense
of "common interests." One might think that if collective interests were:
threatened, decentralization to bodies that might appeal to different
constituencies would be strategic. If we could have a special section of
the ASA devoted to showing that the currently declining crime rate was
really a rising one, for example, it should sell well in the Justice
Depanment while the rest of us go down the tubes.  A diversified portfolio
is optimum in a turbulent environment. HIV and influenza, beleaguered by
the medical profession, diversify into a million colonies producing
mutations inside a million victims to defeat their enemies. If the ASA had
had a quite autonomous organization behavior section with a separate
budget, and that section had bought out Administrative Science Quarterly
with an endowment from Hewlett Packard, our students might even now be
getting jobs.  Even Stalin was pushed to decentralize to punatively
autonomous national republics.  But the prospect of doom predisposes
people to magnify any risk from disorder and disagreement, in spite of the
theoretical value of a diversified portfolio. 



Disclaimer for Researchers

	The restatement of the above propositions as null hypotheses ought
to clear up the value bias in my dislike of democratic centralism.  I am
unlikely to be persuaded that democratic centralism is a good thing for
the ASA even if the research disproves my hypotheses, and even though
pluralistic democracy did not do the printers much good after computer
typesetting.  If we go to our doom, let's go in a glorious cacophony. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorandum Re: Sociology of Law Section Fundraising

From:  Robin Stryker, Secretary-Treasurer

	At our section's Business Meeting in New York, the Section decided
that since the Crime, Law and Deviance Section had changed its section day
so that it would be the same day as ours, we would try to have a joint
reception with the Crime, Law and Deviance Section. We will try to do so
for the first time at the upcoming ASA meetings in Toronto. 

	Most of the money we collect as section dues goes to set
(nondiscretionary) expenses, like putting out our newsletter. As of the
August, 1996 annual meeting, we had a fairly small amount of discretionary
money in our budget (accumulated since the Section's inception) that could
be allocated for a reception. The amount came to approximately $500.00. At
the Section Business Meeting, a number of section members contributed some
money to the section. In this way, we were able to raise another $205.00.
Our section's discretionary money is kept in an account for us by the ASA. 

	If you are able and would like to contribute some money (any
amount) to the Sociology of Law Section, the Section would be very
appreciative. If we collect money that we do not need to use for a
reception this year, that money will be held over to help finance future
Section receptions or to finance other official Section activities that
are agreed to by the Section membership in accord with our by-laws. 

	To contribute money, please send your check -- made out to the ASA
Sociology of Law Section -- to Robin Stryker, Sociology of Law Section
Treasurer, Department of Sociology, W140 Seashore Hall, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.  I will take care of keeping the records on who
has sent checks, and will forward the checks on to ASA for deposit in our
section's discretionary account. 

	If you want to deduct your contribution to the Section on your
taxes, and you contribute $250.00 or more, you must have a receipt. The
ASA central office (Elizabeth Czepiel, Governance Coordinator) will send
you an official receipt for tax purposes. 

	At some point, the Section may acknowledge a list of donors in our
Section Newsletter. Thus, if you prefer to remain an anonymous donor,
please let me know when you send in your check. If you do NOT indicate
that you wish to remain anonymous, I'll assume that you don't mind having
your name included in a list of donors. 

	On behalf of the Section, thanks much to all those who already
have contributed.  And thanks as well to those who will do so in the
future. Every little bit helps. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 Book Prize
Report from the chair of the Committee

The consensus of the Book Prize Committee was that the 1996 book prize be
awarded to Professor Ronen Shamir of the Tel Aviv University, Department
of Sociology, for his book: 

Managing Legal Uncertainty: Elite Lawyers in the New Deal
(Duke University Press 1995).

The Book

	This summer's welfare bill and last summer's Supreme Court
decision striking down federal law on the grounds of limitation by the
commerce clause, are just two of many signs that the political and legal
structure established in the New Deal is undergoing fundamental upheaval.
Such a change has long worried lawyers and legal scholars for whom it was
a template for raising claims and pursuing doctrinal development. Less
obviously it presages a transformation in the modern sociology of law
which has long focused on the New Deal state and its legal penumbras as a
central problem and as a major empirical vehicle. In Managing Legal
Uncertainties, Shamir takes us back to the period of transformation which
preceded the establishment of the New Deal system. In those high
Depression years the near collapse of the economy rendered the system of
private law, which had dominated the governance of the economy, far more
vulnerable to populist and statist attacks. Then as perhaps now, lawyers
and scholars of law struggled among themselves and with outsiders to
define the very nature of legal authority and to wield it. 

	To the extent legal authority before 1930 had depended on the
sanctity of an autonomous bench and bar capable of defining both public
interest and that of their business clients without conflict the New Deal
strategies initiated during Roosevelt's radical first term were
threatening indeed. The Supreme Court decisions of those years have long
since become monuments of error and perhaps evil to many living in the
modern system, but for a large segment of the elite bar in the Thirties
these offered bulwarks of resistance that allowed them to negotiate
something much less then the abandonment of private law's hegemony. For
other lawyers, especially those in the academy, and many corporate clients
with their own legal intelligence, the New Deal strategies offered
opportunities for reconstituting legal authority. 

	This is familiar ground to most students of modern law and society
but Shamir is able to offer us a new look at this almost sacramental
landscape. Drawing on Bourdieu's conceptions of the multiple
specieficities of capital (cultural capital, social capital, etc.), Shamir
is able to move among and between the major theories of elite interests in
the legal profession and to develop an account which will enrich but
problematize them all. He finds that treating lawyers predominantly as
servants of power elites the role they play in defining the means of
power. He also rejects treating the bar as captive of its own ideologies.
The academic "realists" (and their many professional associates) were only
the most explicitly pragmatist faction of the era. Differences in
generation and expectations between an old and new elite count for more,
according to Shamir, then clients or class interests alone. 

The Field

	*The committee received 5 nominations. Through our own canvassing
of colleagues and book review editors we selected an additional 17 books
for review giving us a total of 22. 

	While talk of methodological fault lines continues to flow through
the halls of many of our academic associations, the committee was
impressed.  Our authors drew on a wide range of methodologies including
statistical analysis (2), ethnography (5), and history (3).  We were
encouraged by the fact that the largest groups either drew on multiple
methodologies (6), or reflected theoretically on an explicitly
interdisciplinary range of findings.  By the evidence in this year's field
of a maturing interdisciplinary and multiple methodology approach. 

	Finally, I would like to thank my committee whose diligence and
intellectual energy turned what could have been an administrative disaster
into a lively reading group. 

The Committee

Jonathan Simon (Chair), University of Miami, School of Law
Laura Gomez, UCLA, School of Law
Alfonso Morales, University of Arizona, Department of Sociology
Frank Munger, SUNY Buffalo, School of Law
Carroll Seron, Baruch College, CUNY, School of Public Affairs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Papers: Sociology of Crime. Law, and Deviance
(Published by JAI Press)

	Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance is a new, bi-annual series
of volumes that publishes roughly article-length scholarly work in the
areas of criminology and criminal justice, the Sociology of law, and the
Sociology of deviance. The series is similar in type and format to the
many other series published by JAI Press (e.g., Current Perspectives in
Social Theory, Research on Democracy and Society, International Social
Movement Research, and Studies in Symbolic Interaction). 

	The Series is now accepting manuscripts for consideration for
publication in the inaugural volume, as well as for later volumes. The
series will include theoretical contributions, critical reviews of
literature, empirical research, and methodological innovations in
criminology, law, and deviance. The series especially welcomes pieces that
engage, review, or reconceptualize what is known and what remains to be
understood about broad directions of research and theorizing. The series
is open to a wide variety of theoretical approaches to crime, law, and
deviance, so long as the studies represent a high quality of scholarship
and make a significant contribution to the advancement of our
understanding of the topic examined. Studies that develop new theoretical
perspectives would be especially welcome. The series will also strive to
publish a balanced mixture of studies that draw on statistical,
ethnographic, historical/comparative, experimental, and textual data and
methods. Publication decisions will be made based on evaluations by
anonymous reviewers and the judgement of the editor. 

	Volume I of the series is tentatively scheduled to come out in the
summer of 1998.  The submission deadline for consideration for Volume 1 is
April 30, 1997.All manuscripts received after that date will be considered
for Volume 2. 

Please send all manuscripts to: Jeffery T. Ulmer, Editor; Sociology of
Crime, Law, and Deviance; Department of Sociology and Anthropology; Purdue
University; West Lafayette, IN 47907. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graduate Student Paper
Competition

	The editors of Law and Social Inquiry are pleased to announce a
competition for the best journal-length paper in the field of sociolegal
studies written by a graduate student.  The winning paper will be
published in Law and Social Inquiry and the author will receive a cash
prize of $500.  Submissions will be judged by the editorial board, and the
winning submission will be internally reviewed for publication.  The
author must be a graduate student or law student at the time of
submission. Entries should be received by March 1, 1997.  The winner will
be announced by May 1.  Law and Social Inquiry publishes both empirical
and theoretical studies of sociolegal processes from a variety of
disciplinary perspectives. Please send your best work to: 

The Editors, Law and Social Inquiry, American Bar Foundation, 750 N. Lake
Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611. For further information send e-mail to
Isi-abf@nwu.edu or call (312) 988-6559. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outstanding Article Award

	THE ASA SOCIOLOGY OF LAW SECTION invites nominations for its
annual Outstanding Article in the Sociology of Law Award.  The award
committee solicits one or more entries by members of the American
Sociological Association. Nominations may be offered for articles
published in sociological and socio-legal journals or in law reviews,
published in 1995 or 1996.  Deadline for submitting nominations is March
1, 1997.  Please send a letter, providing name of author, title of
article, all relevant publication details, as well as a brief explanation
on the merit of the article, to:

Ronen Shamir, Sociology of Law Outstanding Article Committee, Dept. of
Sociology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, ISRAEL.  Or e-mail:
Yonit@spirit.tau.ac.il

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section Committees
1996-97

Book/Article Prize Committee:
Ronen Shamir, Tel Aviv U, yonit@spirit.tau.ac.il (chair)
Kevin Delaney, Temple U, kdelaney@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Peter Manning, Michigan State U, peter.manning@ssc.msu.edu
Kim Sheppele, U Penn, kimlane@oyez.Iaw. upenn. edu
Penelope Canan, U Denver, pcanan@du.edu

Student Paper Prize Committee:
Chris Uggen, U of Minnesota, uggen@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (chair)
Cathy Connolly, U of Wyoming, cconn@uwyou.edu
Richard Leo, U of Colorado-Boulder, leo@sobek.Colorado.edu
Liz Chambliss, U of Texas, echambliss@mail.law.utexas.edu

Membership Committee:
Pat Steinhoff, U of Hawaii, steinhof@hawaii.edu (co-chair)
Patty Ewick Clark U, pewick@vax.clarku.edu (co-chair)
Kiyoshi Ikeda, U of Hawaii, kiyoshi@hawaii.edu
Patricia Gwartney U of Oregon, Pattygg@oregon.uoregon. edu
Mathew Deflem, Kenyon College, deflemm@kenyon.edu

Nominations Committee:
David Greenberg, NYU, dgreenbe@is3.nyu.edu (chair)
Bill Felstiner, UC Santa Barbara, felstine@alishaw.sscf.ucsb.edu (chair elect)
Mark Suchman, U of Wisconsin-Madison, suchman@ssc.wisc.edu
Joachim Savelsberg, U of Minnesota, savelsbg@soc.umn.edu
Susan Silbey, Wellesley, ssilbey@wellesley.edu

Publications Committee:
Matt Silbermann, Bucknell, silbermn@bucknell.edu (chair)
Robert Kidder, Temple U, rkidder@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu (Newsletter Editor)
Larry Ross, U of New Mexico, Iross@unm.edu
Mary Pat Baumgartner, fitzgerald@wpc.wilpaterson.edu
Marlynn May, Beloit College, maym@beloit.edu
Jill McCorkel, U Delaware, Jmccorke@strauss.udel.edu


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Graduate Student Paper
Award Winner

Scott Phillips, LSU

Biographical Sketch

The 1996 Sociology of Law graduate student paper competition was won by
Scott Phillips for his Master's Thesis entitled, "The Institutionalization
of Judicial Decision Making: A Temporal and Rhetorical Analysis of the
Development of Hate Crime Laws." Phillips' thesis, directed by Ryken
Grattet at Louisiana State University, investigates the social
construction of constitutional interpretations through an empirical
examination of judicial opinions delivered in appellate court cases which
challenge the facial validity of hate crime statutes. Phillips, whose
interests include the Sociology of law, criminology, deviance, and
qualitative methods, will pursue his doctorate this fall at the University
of Georgia. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------





Election Results

Craig A. McEwen
Chair, Nominations Committee



Results of the June elections for
Section Officers and council:

Chair-elect: Frank Munger
Secretary-Treasurer: Robin Stryker
Council:  William Felstiner, David Greenberg, Patricia Steinhoff.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Notes


provided by Howard Erlanger, Review Section Editor, Law & Social Inquiry

Friedman, Lawrence M., & Harry N. Scheiber. Legal Culture and the Legal
Profession. Boulder, Col. Westview Press, 1996. Pp. vii + 183. $60.50. 

	This volume examines the successes and problems of the U.S. Iegal
system, its impact on the broader culture, and the spread of American
legal cullure abroad. Contributions by scholars in law and the social
sciences include an analysis of whether American culture truly is
exceptionally "legalistic," the impact of antilawyer sentiment on civil
justice, the globalization of judicial review, and the role of the courts
in the construction of racial and ethnic identities. 


Habermas, Jurgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse
Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1996. Pp. xliii + 631. $40.00. 

	In this work, Habermas works out the legal and political
implications of his Theory of Communicative Action (1981), bringing to
fruition the project announced with his publication of The Structural
Formation of the Public Sphere in 1962. He offers a sociologically
informed conceptualization of law and basic rights, a normative account of
the rule of law and the constitutional state, an attempt to bridge
normative and empirical approaches to democracy, and an account of the
social context required for democracy. He concludes with a call for a new
paradigm of law that goes beyond the dichotomies he argues have innicted
modern political theory from its inception and that still underlie current
political controversies. 


Jacob, Herbert, Erhard Blankenburg, Herbert M. Kritzer, Doris Marie
Provine, & Joseph Sanders. Courts. Law. and Politics in Comparative
Perspective.  New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996. Pp. xiii +
408. $45.00 cloth, $20.00 paper. 

This book compares the intersection of political forces and legal
practices in five industrial nations: the United States, England, France,
Germany, and Japan. The authors examine how constitutional courts function
in each country, how the adjudication of criminal justice and the
processing of civil disputes connect legal systems to politics, and how
both ordinary citizens and large corporations use the courts. For each of
the five countries, the authors discuss the structure of the courts and
access to them, the manner in which politics and law are differentiated or
amalgamated, whether judicial posts are political prizes or bureaucratic
positions, the ways in which courts are perceived as legitimate forums for
addressing political conflicts, the degree of legal consciousness among
the citizens, the kinds of work lawyers do, and the manner in which law
and courts are used as social control mechanisms. The authors conclude
that although the extent to which the courts participate in policymaking
varies, judicial responsiveness to public problems is not a uniquely
American phenomenon. 


Thornton, Margaret. Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession
New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. xii + 323. $34.95. 

     Based on interviews with more than 100 law students, academics,
solicitors, barristers, and judges, this book examines the experiences of
women in the legal profession in Australia. Thornton challenges the
assumption that women will become accepted within the legal community as
increasing numbers are "let in." She argues that the fiction that the
feminine is associated with disorder has resulted in the implementation of
disciplinary strategies designed to curb refractory women, and she
concludes that the "fictive feminine" is invoked to deny authority to
professional women. 


Hoffer, Peter Charles. The Devil's Disciples: Makers of the Salem
Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Pp. xx
+ 279. $29.95. 

	Hoffer reexamines the Salem witch trials based on recent studies
of panic rumors, teen hysteria, child abuse, and intrafamily relations. He
argues that Salem stood on the leading edge of a sprawling and energetic
American empire, under increasing pressures from overpopulation, disease,
and cultural conflict. Traditional piety and social values appeared
endangered as consumerism and secular learning gained ground. Guerrilla
warfare between Native Americans and English settlers and rumors that the
Devil had taken a particular interest in New England caused panic. He
concludes these factors set the stage for the witchcraft hysteria. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Faculty Position:
Department of Sociology,
University of Kansas

The Department of Sociology invites applications for a full-time, tenure
track Assistant Professor in organizational Sociology to begin on August
18, 1997, contingent upon budgetary approval. Applicants must have a Ph.D.
in Sociology and research and teaching interests in the culture,
structure, or processes of organizations in such areas as family, gender,
politics, economy, education, medicine and psychiatry, law and criminal
justice, culture, and/or race/ethnicity.  Strong preference will be given
to candidates who can teach an introductory graduate statistics course;
additional consideration will be given to candidates who have an interest
or experience in teaching a large lecture course in Introductory
Sociology. The University of Kansas Sociology Department has a growing
undergraduate major, a lively graduate program, and an interesting and
conceptually engaged faculty with a commitment to research and teaching
that explores both classical and contemporary ideas and debates in
Sociology and related disciplines. We have a strong commitment to
supporting and mentoring new faculty. Applicants should submit:  1) a
letter of application that outlines a research agenda and its relationship
to social organization, and a teaching philosophy and course preferences,
2) vita, 3) three letters of recommendation, 4) samples of written or
published work, S) syllabi for courses in social organization and other
areas of teaching interest, 6) summaries of student course evaluations and
peer teaching evaluations if available, to: Professor Joey Sprague, Chair
of the Search Committee, Department of Sociology, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045.  Initial review of applications will begin on November
1, 1996, and will continue until the position is filled. The University of
Kansas is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.  Women and
minorities are especially encouraged to apply. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Announcements:

Dirty Business: Exploring Corporate Misconduct: Analysis and Cases
	By Maurice Punch, Consultant, Sage Publications.

International Feminist Perspectives in Criminology: Engendering a Discipline
	By Nicole Hahn Rafter, Northeastern University
	and Frances Heidensohn, University of London, eds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Faculty Positions

(Below is a summary of current ASA listings that include the Sociologv of
Law. For more information about them, see the ASA Emplovment Bulletin). 


Position: Assistant Professor
University:East Carolina University
Courses: Theory, quantitative methods, sociology of law
Contact: Faculty Search Committee
Department of Sociology
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
Deadline: December 1, 1996 (position will remain open until filled)


Position: Assistant Professor (2)
University: University of Oklahoma
Courses: Criminal justice, sociology of law, race, gender
Contact: Wilbur Scott, Chair
Department of Sociology
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73109
Deadline: December 15, 1996


Position: Assistant Professor
University: Texas Christian University
Courses: Policing, ethics, law, and race and gender
Contact: Patrick T. Kinkade
Criminal Justice Program
Department of Sociology
Texas Christian University
TCU Box 298710
Fort Worth, TX 76129
Deadline: December 15, 1996


Position: Assistant Professor
University: Western Washington University
Courses: Criminology, sociology of law
Contact: James Inverarity, Chair
Department of Sociology
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9801
Deadline: December 1, 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMICI is the official newsletter of the Sociology of Law Section of the
American Sociological Association.

Editorial Office Address:
Rotert Kidder, Department of Sociology, Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
FAX: (215) 204-3352
Phone: (215) 204-3121
e-mail: rkidder@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------