Reclaiming Conflict: Towards a Sociological Critique of Democratic Law in the Neoliberal Conjuncture

Overview

This article develops a sociological critique of democratic law by examining how representative democracy has been restructured under neoliberal conditions. The central argument concerns the progressive displacement of political conflict from institutional democratic arenas toward juridical and technocratic domains, conceptualized as depoliticization understood not as politics' withdrawal but as reorganization of authority through antagonism neutralization. The analysis situates neoliberal legality as both a moral and managerial technology that fragments collective agency, individualizes responsibility, and reframes dissent as deviance.

Methods and approach

The article engages classical and contemporary sociological theory alongside critical legal studies and semiotics of power to analyze transformations in democratic law. The approach draws on the conceptual legacy of classical sociology to trace how political contestation has been reconfigured within juridical frameworks. The methodology examines law's dual function as legitimizing mechanism for democratic retreat under claims of neutrality while simultaneously providing symbolic infrastructure for governance and management of dissent. This theoretical integration permits analysis of the neoliberal legal order as simultaneously depoliticizing and regulatory.

Results

The analysis demonstrates that neoliberal legality operates as a technology that displaces antagonistic conflict from explicitly political spaces into juridical and technocratic registers. Law functions to neutralize democratic contestation through claims to neutrality and technical rationality while fragmenting collective political agency into individualized legal subjects. The legal order redefines political dissent as deviance or violation, thereby reframing the terrain upon which democratic struggle occurs. This reconfiguration represents a regression of democratic possibilities insofar as conflict is managed through legality rather than constituting democracy.

Implications

The article's framework suggests fundamental tensions between formal democratic law and substantive democratic contestation under neoliberal restructuring. The analysis indicates that reliance upon juridical mechanisms for managing political claims may systematically constrain democratic conflict rather than facilitate it, with implications for understanding how authority operates through legal neutrality. Recognition of law's role in depoliticization necessitates rethinking the relationship between legality and democratic practice beyond institutional or procedural frameworks.