Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Symbolic Legislation: An Essentially Political Concept

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 4))

Abstract

Symbolic legislation commonly has a bad name. In critical sociological studies, it refers to instances of legislation that are to a large extent ineffective and that serve other political and social goals than the goals officially proclaimed. Since the nineties of the last century another concept of symbolic legislation is developed, in particular in Dutch legislation theory. In this more recent and more positive understanding, symbolic legislation is an alternative legislative technique that differs from the traditional top-down approach. The question that is addressed in this chapter, is whether there is a real – in the sense of epistemologically real – difference between the two concepts of symbolic legislation. On what grounds can the allegedly negative and positive concepts be differentiated from each other? Is it possible that one instance of legislation can be classified as symbolic legislation both in the negative sense and in the positive sense? Are they two sides of the same coin or do they constitute mutually exclusive categories? As will be shown, the distinction between the two concepts cannot be made on scientific grounds only, but involves considerations of a political kind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are based on my PhD thesis (Van Klink 1998, chapter 2 and 3). On some points I have revised and updated the text (following Van Klink 2014). Moreover, I have added some examples from other contributions to this volume.

  2. 2.

    In this context, ‘political’ refers to the use or abuse of power by state officials for their own sake or their clientele’s at the cost of the common good. In Sect. 2.4, I develop a more general concept of the political (of which ‘dirty politics’ is just one particular instance).

  3. 3.

    The distinction between direct, indirect and independent effects I have borrowed from Griffiths (1978, 8–12).

  4. 4.

    As in the case of expressive legislation, see Sect. 2.3.

  5. 5.

    This research project started with the edited volume Witteveen, Van Seters and Van Roermund (1991).

  6. 6.

    I have borrowed this notion from Minow (1990, 294).

  7. 7.

    See Allott (1980, 33). Below, the notion of interpretative community will be explained.

  8. 8.

    Fish (1980, 171) uses the notion of ‘interpretative community’ in the context of literature studies and literary criticism. It is applied here to the legal and political sphere.

  9. 9.

    In his contribution, Hoeyer (Chap. 10) also points to the instrumental value of symbolic legislation: ‘(…) we need to appreciate the constitutive social effects of legal symbols, even when the laws as such do not seem to work as intended.’ See also Lembcke’s contribution (Chap. 6) on this point.

  10. 10.

    For a more detailed analysis of constitutive legislation, see Witteveen and Van Klink (1999, 130–133).

  11. 11.

    Cotterrell (1984, 57) uses the notion of ‘educational legislation’, whereas in Dutch legislation theory it used to be more common to speak of ‘mentality legislation’.

  12. 12.

    In hindsight, I consider these resemblances to be less superficial than I did while writing my PhD thesis. Now, I see them as indicative of the political nature of the distinction between the two concepts of symbolic legislation (see Sect. 2.4).

  13. 13.

    For a general introduction to the interactive legislative approach, see Poort (2013, Chaps. 1 and 3) and Van der Burg (2014). See also Van der Burg’s contribution to this volume (Chap. 3).

  14. 14.

    According to Fuller (1969, 63), clarity of the law is one of the requirements of good law making. In his view, this does not rule out the possibility of using standards such as ‘good faith’ and ‘due care’ in the text of the law: ‘Sometimes the best way to achieve clarity is to take advantage of, and to incorporate into the law, common sense standards of judgment that have grown up in the ordinary life outside legislative halls.’ However, this does not mean that the legislator can ‘always safely delegate his task to the courts or to special administrative tribunals’ (Fuller 1969, 64).

  15. 15.

    On the compatibility between the interactive approach and the requirements of the Rule of Law, see further Van der Burg’s contribution (Chap. 3).

  16. 16.

    That is, the power in both senses of capacity and competency to create or maintain order within a certain social domain through the use of law or other means.

  17. 17.

    This point is also discussed in the introduction (Chap. 1, Sect. 2.2).

  18. 18.

    This metaphor is introduced in Van der Burg and Ippel (1994). On the relation between law and morality from an interactive perspective, see also Van der Burg (2003).

  19. 19.

    See also the introduction (Chap. 1, Sect. 2.2).

  20. 20.

    The phrase is taken from Ricœur’s famous book title (Ricœur 1974).

  21. 21.

    Edelman (1988) frequently speaks of politics as a ‘spectacle’ in which citizens are assigned the role of mere spectators.

  22. 22.

    Jellinek already pointed out that law not only serves an instrumental function by establishing order, but it also possesses a symbolic dimension in that it gives expression to the self-understanding of a given society. In its symbolic dimension law has, according to Jellinek, an orientational function (see Lembcke and Van Klink forthcoming). Van der Burg (2005) also argues that legislation in general serves both functions.

  23. 23.

    In Van Klink (2005, 2014) I provide a more extended evaluation of the communicative and interactive approach.

References

  • Aalders, M.V.C. 1984. Industrie, milieu en wetgeving. De Hinderwet tussen symboliek en wetgeving. Amsterdam: Kobra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allott, Antony. 1980. The limits of law. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Thurman W. 1938. The symbols of government. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubert, Vilhelm. 1966. Some social functions of law. Acta Sociologica 1–2: 98–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, Ian, and John Braithwaite. 1995. Responsive regulation. Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azimi, A. 2007. Open norm als maatwerk? De communicatieve benadering toegepast op de Arbeidsomstandighedenwet 1998 (diss. Tilburg). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cass, Loren R. 2009. The symbolism of environmental foreign policy. Power, interest, and ideas. In Environmental change and foreign policy. Theory and practice, ed. Paul G. Harris, 41–56. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 1984. The Sociology of Law. An Introduction. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roos, Theo. 2013. Grimmig spiegelbeeld. Ontwikkelingen in de strafwetgeving in de laatste decennia. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, Umberto. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. London: MacMillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, Murray. 1976. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, Murray. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretative communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Lon L. 1969. The morality of law (revised edition). New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, John. 1978. Is law important? (inaugural lecture, Groningen). Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, John. 2005. Do laws have symbolic effects? In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 147–161. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield, Joseph R. 1976. Symbolic crusade. Status politics and the American temperance movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasiak, Anna. 2010. Constitutional constraints on ad hoc legislation. A comparative study of the United States, Germany and the Netherlands (diss. Tilburg). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindermann, Harald. 1988. Symbolische Gesetzgebung. In Gesetzgebungstheorie und Rechtspolitik, ed. Dieter Grimm and Werner Maihofer, 222–245. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kindermann, Harald. 1989. Alibigesetzgebung als symbolische Gesetzgebung. In Symbole der Politik, Politik der Symbole, ed. Rüdiger Voigt, 257–273. Opladen: Lese Verlag & Budrich.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lembcke, Oliver W. 2013. Menschenwürde als Verfassungsprinzip. In Wörterbuch der Würde, ed. Rolf Gröschner, Kapust Ante, and Oliver W. Lembcke, 344–346. Stuttgart: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lembcke, Oliver W., and Bart van Klink. forthcoming. Das mag in der Praxis richting sein, taugt aber nicht für die Theorie. Zum Verhältnis zwischen Faktizität und Geltung bei Jellinek und Kelsen. In Faktizität und Normativität. Georg Jellineks freiheitliche Verfassungslehre, eds. Brugger, Winfried, Rolf Gröschner, and Oliver W. Lembcke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, Dirk. 2003. Symbolic politics in environmental regulation. Corporate strategic responses. Business Strategy and the Environment 12: 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minow, Martha. 1990. Making all the difference. Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, Winfried. 1999. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poort, Lonneke. 2013. Consensus & controversies in animal biotechnology. An interactive legislative approach to animal biotechnology in Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricœur, Paul. 1974. The conflict of interpretations. Essays in hermeneutics, ed. Ihde, Don. trans. Domingo, Willis, et al. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwitters, Rob. 2005. Symbols work. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 89–111. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamhuis, Jellienke. 2005. Communicative law. A quest for consensus. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 277–297. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 1996. Legislation on human embryos. From status theories to value theories. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 82(1): 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2000. Het primaat van de praktijk. In De overtuigende wetgever, ed. Bart van Klink and Willem Witteveen, 105–122. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2003. An interactionist view on the relation between law and morality. In The importance of ideals. Debating their relevance in law, morality, and politics, ed. Wibren van der Burg and Sanne Taekema, 197–218. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2005. The irony of symbolic crusades. The debate on opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 245–275. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2014. The dynamics of law and morality. A pluralist account of legal interactionism. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren, and Frans W.A. Brom. 2000. Legislation on ethical issues. Towards an interactive paradigm. Ethical Theory and Moral Practise 3(1): 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren, and Pieter Ippel (eds.). 1994. De Siamese tweeling. Recht en moraal in de biomedische praktijk. Assen: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 1998. De wet als symbool. Over wettelijke communicatie en de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen bij de arbeid (diss. Tilburg). Deventer: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 2005. An effective-historical view on the symbolic working of law. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 113–145. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 2014. Symboolwetgeving. Opkomst, ondergang en wederopstanding van een begrip. RegelMaat (Journal for Legislative Studies) 1: 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen, W.J. 1991. De jacht op de wet. In Wat maakt de wet symbolisch? ed. W.J. Witteveen, P. van Seters, and G. van Roermund, 115–136. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen, Willem J. 2005. Turning to communication in the study of legislation. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 17–44. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen, W.J., and B.M.J. van Klink. 1999. Why is soft law really law? RegelMaat (Journal for Legislative Studies) 3: 126–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen, W.J., P. van Seters, and G. van Roermund (eds.). 1991. Wat maakt de wet symbolisch? Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeegers, Nicolle, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink (eds.). 2005. Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Bart van Klink

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart van Klink .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bart van Klink

  2. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Britta van Beers

  3. Department of Sociology, Theory and Methodology, Erasmus University Rotterdam Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Lonneke Poort

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Klink, B. (2016). Symbolic Legislation: An Essentially Political Concept. In: van Klink, B., van Beers, B., Poort, L. (eds) Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw. Legisprudence Library, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33363-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33365-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation