Following the events of the early part of the second half of the 20th century, when certain mass social movements have emerged in the world, it has become a widespread belief that law is an important and effective means of bringing about social change. As mass social movements in many respects did not fully correspond to the prevailing model of social movements of the time, they were labeled “new” social movements. For the sake of pursuing its collective interests, new social movements often the classical patterns of political activity and, as one of the tactics, often mobilize the law in some ways.
While the use of the legislative process as a means of bringing about social change presupposes the existence of political will, the concept of strategic litigation is based on the idea that judicial institutions are an effective environment for initiating social change also in those areas where political will is for various reasons traditionally weak. Efforts to change social patterns through the judiciary have always been accompanied by a great deal of skepticism – first, as there is a risk of progressive courts substituting their own vision of justice for that of democratically electing law-making bodies representing the majority will, and second, as there is little convincing evidence that such a strategy for influencing society is truly effective.
The solution to these controversies, however, could be the realization that legal mobilization is not exclusively reflected in proceedings before formal legal institutions, but involves much more. Namely, law is often perceived by new social movements as an instrument for changing legal consciousness and legal culture, which can ultimately manifest itself, through various mechanisms, in changing patterns of thinking and behavior in society, that is, in social change.
|
