Abstract

The argument in this paper is that the exclusion of empirical research has led to a deficiency in the Positivist model; the neglect of conflict in the form of the trouble-case. In the attempt to define law in a relatively narrow way Positivists have avoided important knowledge about social behavior. In addition the analytical method of Positivism has been connected with a value-position which tends to exaggerate the extent to which law functions within social structures as an orderly system. One consequence of this perspective is that the role of conflict in the law process is hardly appreciated. Studies of law in some primitive societies suggest that although social behavior generally is not regulated in rule-terms, conflict often is institutionalized in a manner capable of providing norms appropriate to new situations. It is suggested that the focus upon the trouble-case is more likely to develop our understanding of conflict as a dynamic element in the law process