ABSTRACT
Thedifficultyinframinganyconceptof"law"isthatthereare somanythingstobeincluded,andthethingstobeincludedare sounbelievablydifferentfromeachother.Perhapsitispossibleto getthemallunderoneverbalroof.ButIdonotseewhatyouhave accomplishedifyoudo.Foraconcept,asIunderstandit,isbuilt forapurpose.Itisathinkingtool.Itistomakeyourdatamore manageableindoingsomething,ingettingsomewherewiththem. AndIhavenotyetmetthejob,orheardofit,towhichallthedata thatassociatethemselveswiththisloosestofsuggestivesymbols, "law,"arerelevantatonce.Wedoandhavetoomanydisparate thingsandthinkingstowhichweliketoattachthatname.For instance,legislatorspass"alaw,"bywhichwemeanthatthey officiallyputanewformofwordsonthestatutebooks.Thatcalls upassociationswithregardtoattorneysandjudges,andtosuits beingbrought"underthestatute."Butitalsocallsupassociations withregardtothosesetsofpracticesandexpectationsandpeople whichwecallpoliticalpartiesandmachinesandlobbies.The formerweshouldwant,insomeway,toincludeunderthehead "law,"Isuspect.Ifwedidnot,weoughttostopdefiningand thinkalittlefurther.Thelatter-thepartiesandlobbies-we
mighthavemoredoubtabout,evenifwedidstopandthink. Again,itseemsfairlyclearthattherehasbeensomethingwecould notwelldissociatefromoursymbol"law"inplacesandtimes whentherewasnolegislatureandevennostate-indeedwhen therewasnoorganizationwecancall"political"thatwasdistinct fromanyotherorganization.Youcannotstudythesimplerforms ofsocietynor"thelaw"ofsuchformswithoutlookingintothe mechanismsoforganizedcontrolatsuchtimesandplaces;but todayyouwillbelikelytodistinguishsuchtypesofcontrolas non-legal.Ofcourse,youwouldnotdisregardthem,ifyouwanted toknowanythingabout"law"thatwasworthknowing.Butyou wouldregardthemasbackground,orforeground,orunderground,toyourcenterofinterest.Theywouldbesomethingthat youwouldcompareandcontrastwith"law,"Isuspect,inthe presentorderofsociety.AndyetIalsosuspectyouwouldhave yourhandsfullifyousetabouttodrawthelinebetween"the two."Oragain,therearegentlemenwhospendagooddealof timediscussing"theendsoflaw,"or"whatlawoughttobe."Are theytalkingabout"law"?Certainlytheirpostulatesandconclusions,ingrossandindetail,havenoneedtolooklikeanything anyjudgeeverdid;andattimessomeofthosegentlemenseemto availthemselvesofthatfreedom;butitwouldbeacase-hardened personwhodeniedthatwhattheyaredealingwithiscloselyconnectedwiththissameloosesuggestivesymbol.Whatinterestsme isthatwhenajudgeisworkingina"well-settledfield"heislikely topaynoattentiontowhatsuchgentlemensay,andtocallit irrelevantspeculation;whereaswhenheisworkinginan"unsettledfield"heseemstopayalotofattentiontotheirideas,orto ideasofmuchthesameorder.ThisItaketomeanthatforsome purposestheyaretalkingsomethingverycloseto"law,"underany definition;andforotherpurposes,theyaretalkingsomething whoseconnectionwith"law"asjustusedisfairlyremote.And thisproblemofthewordcallingupwide-scatteredanddisparate references,accordingtothecircumstance,seemstomevital.
