Kantian Journal

2020 Vol. 39. No. 3

Back to the list Download an article

Georges Gurvitch and Sergey Hessen on the Possibility of Forming Social Unity

DOI
10.5922/0207-6918-2020-3-4
Pages
72-96

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.

Reference

Antonov, M. V., 2014. Portraits of Legal Scholars. G. D. Gurvich: the Project of the Sociology of Law. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 4, pp. 63-74. (In Rus.)

Bitcilli, P. M., 1927. [Rev.] M. A. Zimmerman, United States in Human History. 1776—1926, Prague: Plamya, 1926. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 33, pp. 553-554. (In Rus.)

Bitcilli, P. M., 1935. [Rev.] G. Gurvitch, L’expérience juridique et la philosophie pluraliste du droit, Paris, 1935. Novy Grad, 10, pp. 139-142. (In Rus.)

Dmitrieva, N. A., 2016. Back to Kant, or Forward to Enlightenment: The Particularities and Issues of Russian Neo-Kantianism. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 54(5), pp. 378-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1290414.

Duguit, L., 1921. Objective Law. II. Columbia Law Review, 21(1), pp. 17-34.

Durkheim, E., 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. In: E. Durkheim, 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method: And Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. New York, London et al.: Free Press, pp. 1-163.

Durkheim, E., 2013. Division of Labour in Society. 2nd Edition. Edited and with a new introduction by S. Lukes. Translation by W. D. Halls. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ehrlich, E., 1913. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Translated by W. L. Moll; with an introduction by R. Pound; with a new introduction by K. A. Ziegert, 2017. New York: Routledge.

Gergilov, R. E., 2005. Law as a Social Control: George Gurvitch’s Conception. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 8(3), pp. 71-78. (In Rus.)

Gurvitch, G., 1918. Rousseau and the Declaration of Rights: The Idea of the Inalienable Rights of an Individual in the Political Doctrine of Rousseau. Petrograd: Wolf Printing House. (In Rus.).

Gurvitch, G., 1924. The Ideology of Socialism in the Light of Recent German Literature. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 18, pp. 404-419. (In Rus.).

Gurvitch, G., 1925. State and Socialism. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 508-523. (In Rus.).

Gurvitch, G., 1927. The Future of Democracy. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 32, pp. 326-355. (In Rus.)

Gurvitch, G., 1928. Socialism and Property. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 36, pp. 346-382. (In Rus.).

Gurvitch, G., 1929. Property and Socialism (Regarding the Socialist Construction of S. I. Hessen). Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 38, pp. 508-520. (In Russ.).

Gurvitch, G., 1932. L’idée du droit social. Notion et système du droit social: histoire doctrinale depuis le 17e siècle jusqu’à la fin du 19e siècle. Avec préface de L. Le Fur. Réimpression 1972. Aalen: Scientia.

Gurvitch, G., 1937. La théorie des valeurs de Heinrich Rickert. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 124(9/10), pp. 80-88.

Gurvitch, G., 1941. The Problem of Social Law. Ethics, 52(1), pp. 17-40.

Gurvitch, G., 1945. Social Control. In: G. Gurvitch and W. Moore, eds. 1945. Twentieth Century Sociology. New York: The Philosophical Library, pp. 267-269.

Gurvitch, G., 1949. Groupement Social et Classe Sociale. Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 7, pp. 3-42.

Hessen, S., 1912. Mystik und Metaphysik. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 2(1), pp. 92-113.

Hessen, S., 1915. Die Philosophie der Strafe. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 5(2), pp. 173-218.

Hessen, S. I., 1924-1927. The Problem of Legal Socialism (Evolution of Liberalism). Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 22, pp. 257-293; 23, pp. 313-342; 27, pp. 382-430; 28, pp. 299-345; 29, pp. 308-342; 30, pp. 380-409; 31, pp. 328-358. (In Rus.)

Hessen, S. I., 1932. The Idea of Social Right. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales Contemporaines, 49, pp. 421-435.

Hessen, S., 1935a. Worldview and Ideology. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 57, pp. 316-329 (In Rus.)

Hessen, S., 1935b. Truth of Democracy. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 58, pp. 361-377 (In Rus.)

Hessen, S., 1939. O sprzecznościach i jedności wychowania: zagadnienia pedagogiki personalistycznej. Lwów & Warszawa: Książnica-Atlas.

Hessen, S. I., 1999. State of Law and Socialism. In: S. I. Hessen, 1999. Izbrannye sochineniya [Selected Writings]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 147-542. (In Rus.)

Hessen, S. I., 2012. Modern Democracy (translated by N. V. Danilkina). Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 75-84. (In Rus.)

Kornilaev, L. Yu., 2019. The Specifics of Criticism on E. Lask’s Philosophy in Russia. Voprosy Filosofii, 12, pp. 132-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007532-0.

Lask, E., 1923. Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre. In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften. Band 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-282.

Le Goff, J., 2013. Gurvitch and Social Law. Pravovedenie, 5(310), pp. 97-111. (In Rus.)

Lossky, N. O., 1935. Freedom and Economic Democracy. Novy Grad, 3, pp. 51-59 (In Rus.).

Lossky, N. O., 1951. History of Russian Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Rickert, H., 1926. Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Rousseau, J. -J., 2002. The Social Contract. In: J.-J. Rousseau, 2002. The Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 149-254.

Stepun, F. A., 1928. Thoughts on Russia. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 35, pp. 364-402 (In Rus.).

Sztobryn, S., 1983. Dialektyka swobody i przymusu w pedagogice S. Hessena. Studia Filozoficzne, 11-12, pp. 203-212.

Vishniak, M. V., 1925. Socialist State or Social Law. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 523-529 (In Rus.)

Vishniak, M. V., 1936. Bloom’s Expirience. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 62, pp. 344-357 (In Rus.)

Vishniak, M. V., 1957. Sovremennye zapiski. Vospo­minaniya redaktora [Annales contemporaines. Editor’s Memoirs]. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. (In Rus.)

Vorobiev, M. V., 2017. The Philosophical and Legal Content of Sergey Hessen’s Concept of Personality. Kantian Journal, 2(36), pp. 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-2-6. (In Rus.)

Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1934. [Rev.:] Georges Gurvitch. L’Ideé du Droit Social, Paris, 1932. Put / La Voie. Revue religieuse russe (Paris), 43, pp. 78-82. (In Rus.)

Walicki, A., 1987. The Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press.

Weber, M., 2019. Economy and Society: A New Translation. Edited and translated by K. Tribe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Windelband, W., 1907. Vom Prinzip der Moral. In: W. Windelband, 1907. Präludien. Aufsätze und Reden zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 380-413.

Woytinsky, W., 1935. Planned Economy and Modern Labor Movement. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 361-380 (In Rus.)

Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2017. Hegel’s Dialectic in Political Philosophy of Sergius Hessen. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 37, pp. 30-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/37/3. (In Rus.)

Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2018. The Notion of Free Will in Sergey Hessen’s Conception of Culture. Kantian Journal, 37(4), pp. 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-4-3.

Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2019. Solidarity as an Instrument of the Institutionalization of Freedom in Sergius Hessen’s Philosophy. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 47, pp. 121-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/47/13. (In Rus.)

Zilber, A., 2016a. “Compelling to Confess”: Kant About Truth, Happiness and Publicity // Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 4, pp. 70-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163990.

Zilber, A. S., 2016b. Knowing Humanity without Knowing the Human Being: the Structure of Polemic in Kant’s Political Argumentation. Kantian Journal, 3(57), pp. 28-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2016-3-3 (In Rus.).