Nomos (sociology)  

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Natural law became universal, international, even cosmic law. The Sophists had set physis in opposition to nomos; the Stoics had restricted this opposition to that of physis and thesis and thereby opened the space for the most remarkable expansion of the concept of nomos. Nomos was equated with the law of the universe, with the inviolable ananke [necessity] named in Democritus's philosophy of nature: Physis was no longer in opposition to nomos, but a synonym for it; physis became the first nomos, which was universally grounded. In this way the first lasting, although troublesome, relation between the concepts of nature and law was achieved; for the first time we find natural law as a pathos."--Natural Law and Human Dignity (1961) by Ernst Bloch.

Related e



Kunstformen der Natur (1904) by Ernst Haeckel
Kunstformen der Natur (1904) by Ernst Haeckel

In sociology, nomos refers to provisional codes (habits or customs) of social and political behavior, socially constructed and historically (even geographically) specific. The term derives from the Greek νόμος, and it refers not only to explicit laws but to all of the normal rules and forms people take for granted in their day-to-day activities. Nomos stands for order, valid and binding on those who fall under its jurisdiction; thus it is a social construct with ethical dimensions. It is a belief, opinion or point of view; it is a human invention.

History of the term

Carl Schmitt began using the term in his 1934 publication "On the Three Types of Juristic Thought" to denote the "concrete order" of a people, before extending its use into his 1950 book "The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum".

Bergerian nomos

After Schmitt, the next influential writer to use the term in a modern context is Peter L. Berger. Berger writes of human beings fashioning a world by their own activity (1967:5). Berger sees this taking place through a continual threefold cycle between individuals and society: externalisation, objectivation and internalization. The world thus fashioned has an order—a set of principles—which comes to be read onto society by individuals through externalisation and objectivation, and also internalised in each individual. This order thus comes to be assumed, spoken of, and placed into social discourse to be treated as common sense. This ordering of the world and experience, which is a corporate and social process as well as an individual one, is a nomos.

Berger writes of ‘The socially established nomos’ being understood ‘as a shield against terror. Put differently, the most important function of society is nomization.’ (1967:22). We all need that structuring nomos; it provides us with stability, predictability, a frame of reference in which to live. The alternative is the chaos and terror of what Berger calls anomy.

To be most effective, the nomos must be taken for granted. The structure of the world created by human and social activity is treated not as contingent, but as self-evident. ‘Whenever the socially established nomos attains the quality of being taken for granted, there occurs a merging of its meanings with what are considered to be the fundamental meanings inherent in the universe.’ (1967:24-25). Berger sees this happening in all societies, and while the nomos is expressed in religious terms in ‘archaic societies’, ‘In contemporary society, this archaic cosmization of the social world is likely to take the form of “scientific” propositions about the nature of men rather than the nature of the universe.’ (1967:25).

So this process of world-construction is not necessarily religious, but its expression has most often been religious. Later Berger explores the part religious belief has played in nomoi: providing a connection with the cosmic — seeking to provide a completeness to that religious world-view.

‘Every human society is an edifice of externalized and objectivated meanings, always intending a meaningful totality. Every society is engaged in the never completed enterprise of building a humanly meaningful world. Cosmization implies the identification of this humanly meaningful world with the world as such, the former now being grounded in the latter, reflecting it or being derived from it in its fundamental structures. Such a cosmos, as the ultimate ground and validation of human nomoi, need not necessarily be sacred. Particularly in modern times there have been thoroughly secular attempts at cosmization, among which modern science is by far the most important. It is safe to say, however, that originally all cosmization had a sacred character.’ (1967:27).

Coverian nomos

The next landmark in the use of the term is generally thought to be by Robert Cover, who argued in his influential 1982 paper Nomos and Narrative that while the mechanisms of law and social control are part of law, that students of the law, and legal actors, should instead focus on the normative universe, the whole of the means of social control. As with Berger, Cover rooted the nomos in "narrative", or what a post-structuralist would call meta-narrative. Cover argued that no set of legal institutions exists apart from the narratives that locate it and give it meaning.

He says this because he argues that our moral sense is composed of the narratives from which we draw conclusions, and by which we locate ourselves in relation to other people. He argues that because narrative is morality, the normative universe must rest on narrative. Since we also construct our view of the universe physically from narrative, he argues that the normative universe is as much a part of our existence as the physical universe.

Cover then makes an argument of incorporation: he states that just as we develop increasingly complex responses to the physical world, so too is our development of responses to "otherness" conditioned over time by interaction. From this he argues that societies that have great legal systems rest on more than formal and technical virtuosity, but in the richness of their understanding of the normative universe.

Cover argues that the explicit relationship between formal apparatus of a society, in this case a legal society, and the normative range of behavior is the fulcrum to understanding whether the society is functional or not.

Cover's use of the term is rooted in Berger's argument that nomos requires mythology and narrative, as pillars for the understanding of the meaning of each act within a particular nomos.

Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Nomos (sociology)" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.

Personal tools