Objections to modern multidisciplinary theories and teachings

Abstract

The scientific nature of a theory or theories is tested for very different reasons, such as insufficiently developed methodological apparatus, obvious partiality and insufficiency, small probability, ethical unacceptability of the results, etc. The latest theories represent a special object of attention. Since there is a large number of various multidisciplinary legal theories today, only those most intriguing ones will be presented and commented upon, those that are used in order to communicate results that compel serious questioning of their scientific value or point at the goals which are contained in their deeper layers as less noticeable or undisclosed. Today, at the end of the 20th and the beginning of 21st century, the state and law are increasingly being studied in a more multidisciplinary manner. Thus the conditions have been created for a "big opening up of consolidated schools and trends, and for a significant thematic expansion of the legal interest towards the topics and areas that were usually outside the interests of lawyers. In addition to the traditional topics from the theory of justice to the legal science, and from the theory of norm to the theory of organization, there is an increased affirmation of the studies of the constitutionalism as a distinctive theory of law, feminist studies and studies of the so-called "female law", critical legal studies, new institutionalistic theories, multiculturalism, communitarianism, sociological-anthropological legal pluralism, all the way to the functionalistic and informatics legal theories, including bioethics with bio-jurisprudence and the movement of law and literature. Different novelties which contain the presented latest multidisciplinary theories with selectively expressed remarks, are not the only novelties, or the remarks for that matter, but what is common with all of these theories is the same methodological shortcoming consisting of a randomly selected number of elements (like, for instance, in the teaching of Michael Voltzer) or assumptions (for instance, in the teachings of the Chicago Law School, multiculturalists or feministic jurisprudence). To each such selection, at least the same number of other equally important assumptions, elements or properties may be added, which is a remark that also relates to some contemporary natural science teachings (for instance, the teachings of Lon L. Fuller or John M. Finnis, who will not be the subject of this work). As if it has been forgotten that a correct scientific assumption must start from what has already been scientifically proven or at least objectified, and not from what is the result of one's own observation of the permanent or unavoidable in the human nature and society, since this observation is extremely volatile, and hence, relative, which also makes it scientifically unimportant. And only when the unimportant has been discarded, can arguments be derived and judgements can be passed, and they show that the stated teachings can hardly stand the test of their scientific statements in the methodological and epistemological sense of meaning, as has been properly noticed by Karl Popper when he claims that behind the universal words and their meanings there is a much more important problem: "the problem of universal laws and their truthfulness; i.e., the problem of regularity". And that also sets quite different "intellectually important goals" such as the formulation of the problem, attempt to set up theories that would resolve the formulated problems and the critical consideration itself of the mutually contradicted theories. These goals enable the researcher to take as a scientific position only such critical position "which does not search for verification, but for key tests that could rebut the theory that is being tested, without ever being able to definitely confirm it". Other significant remarks stem from the stated basic methodological and epistemological remark, and these are: relativity with regards to the value sense or justification (for instance, of the justice and the role of the law-maker and Supreme Court when legitimizing secessionist clause), obvious unacceptability of the final scientific claims owing to their untruthfulness (in Popper's sense of the strictest testing of scientific positions): for instance, creation of some forms of territorial autonomy on the basis of racial, gender or sexual characteristics or determination of the state and its organization contrary to their nature and purpose, or unethical conduct and exaggeration (as in the case of the Chicago School of Economics or different feministic theories and schools of thought) that lead to unilateral approach when the scientific positions are developed consistently and until the end. But, the political benefit from the claims stated in these theories that are used to propose, proclaim as final or justify socially dubious projects about which members of the society have not been properly informed, is more than obvious. It is not difficult to notice that the latest sociological and anthropological teachings, and only partially or indirectly the system-cyber and bioethical theories, complement wonderfully and support other presented theories which in a somewhat self-proclaimed and utopian manner deal with the resolving of contemporary legal and social issues. Yet, the most interesting is the inconsistent position of the most important multidisciplinary theories with regard to the ethical problems which are either excluded, where the positivistically directed scientific apparatus has been developed and reliable within its limits, or over-exaggerated, where such scientific apparatus is insufficient or lacking, or they are made relative, when the results do not coincide with the goals set in advance. This reveals two faces of Janus of the presented multidisciplinary theories, which have obtained a strong impetus at the very end of the "dispersed" 20th century and the same type of the beginning of the 21st century. One side of that face represents the damage inflicted on the science and the society by well-paid "academic scribblers" or "hired publicists", as such persons were called by Charles Right Mills. The other side, however, represents an encouragement in terms that not all the representatives of these theories have opted for such kind of "bread-winning", but are truly engaged in a great legal and social experiment that is currently going on. Still, the idea persisted to separate what was natural according to the gender features, to join and equalize what was unnatural or ascriptive with the natural and traditional features, to make a state renounce the right to its own existence, to bring down individuals or social groups to subjects that should behave strictly in accordance with the economic formulas, etc. Such dissolution of the traditional notions, values and forms may serve as an important foundation for political doctrines and practice, the goal of which is a new redistribution of power that would be controlled in the future by one world government supported by the global law order. Perhaps due to their value neutrality or practical ethical direction the system-cyber and bioethical theories are more valuable for the achievement of the global harmony and the rule of law as a desirable goal in the foreseeable future, since they have a respect for what is common for all (existence of organization and system, application of information technologies, right to dignified life and death, humane medical treatment, etc.) without imposing self-proclaimed "most important" social values and formulas. The contemporary multidisciplinary theories are interesting and challenging. They are also useful, at least because they force today's jurists to wake up and get out from the daily routine created by the satisfaction with what has already been achieved. But, we shall still have to wait for some more serious scientific results of these theories, unless it happens that they (together with the presented theories) become forgotten in the meantime like any other thing that falls out of fashion.