Criticism or Demerits of Theory of Social Engineering by Roscoe Pound: 7

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5
Read Part 6

Criticism or Demerits of Theory of Social Engineering by Roscoe Pound:

Critics of Roscoe Pound argue that it is difficult to see how the balancing of interests will produce a cohesive society where there are minorities whose interests are irreconcilable with those of the majority. There is a different problem where the substantial proportion of the populace is parochially minded and has little or no sense of nationhood.

However, against the backdrop of the foregoing, Pound failed to tell us if the interests he identified are exhaustive. Moreover, he has not been able to convince us about how conflicts generated by the variety of interests can be resolved. Although he indicated that this can be done by weighing and balancing, he failed to elaborate. When you have to weigh, then certain interests must give way. Although he expected the minimum of interests to be trampled upon, it is still the case that certain interests would be sacrificed. If he adopted the utilitarian theory, then it means minority rights would have a raw deal.

Again, note that ‘civilization’ featured in his analysis of conflict resolution. But this should not imply that those considered to be uncivilised cannot resolve conflicts. Note that if mediation is a yardstick for measuring the level of civilisation, then those said to be uncivilised have been erroneously labelled. This is because in these ‘uncivilised’ societies, conflicts are mediated and controlled by institutional mechanisms.

Demerits of social engineering:

i) Law suffers from rigidity.

ii) It may not change to social needs by changing itself. Thus, it lags behind social changes.

iii) Law is becoming more complex. To meet competing interests more laws are continuously passed often changed and the citizens may not know where they stand.

Thus, even though, the social engineering theory had marked an era of change in modern jurisprudence, it is worth while repeating that Pound seems to have devoted too little attention in developing a mechanism of evaluation for rights. It is submitted by his critics that it would have been preferable had he enlarged on the criteria of evaluating interests instead of developing particular interests.

The above analysis has referred to individual rights, but, when we look to the interests of the individuals in society as a whole, their rights and their conflicting social interests, we find law playing the role of “social engineering”. This aims at maximum fulfilment of the interests of the community and of its members and also to promote the smooth running of the machinery or the society. The architect of this is Roscoe Pound.

Law should be just, but more than that it should be uniform definite certain, known and permanent. This enables a person, to predict what he may get from the courts. Impartiality is the objective of law; publicly declared principles protect the administration of justice. People in Society need not be at the mercy of others. Hence the saying “rule of law is always preferable to rule of men”. Law assures stability and security of social order.