Theory, praxis and politics in law and society research: reflections on the Cotterrell‐Nelken debate

In this paper, I provide reflections on the continuing value of the Cotterrell–Nelken debate within law and society research. Specifically, I pick up on two discussion points that animate this debate. First, the debate quintessentially probes the identity of the discipline of the sociology of law. In this regard, it is very much concerned about how the boundaries of a discipline are formed. I reflect on how this issue continues to persist across law and society research, as questions on the boundary formation and dissolution of different concepts and categories are ubiquitous and an animating feature of the field. Second, I reflect on how lurking behind the questions raised by the debate are political considerations that structure legal and socio‐legal analysis. The Cotterrell–Nelken debate raises vexing questions on what law is and what law ought to be, without clearly resolving them. Indeed, any resolution seems futile and instead points to the political choices that underpin different understandings of the law and its relationship to other social scientific fields. Across law and society research, vexing questions about the nature and function of law within specific settings may relate to political choices that receive inadequate scholarly attention. Law and society research would thus benefit from an agenda that places the politics underlying different legal discourses into plain view.