The literature on the subject contains a number of indications that G.D. Gurvitch pro­vided a justification for sobornost as a legal concept reflecting the level of social deve­lopment. However, there are still no special studies devoted to this issue. The author ex­plores Gurvitch’s doctrine of auto-theurgy as a justification of a sociocultural reality and shows how Gurvitch characterizes the concept of volezrenie as a way of socialization and enculturation of an individual. The analysis of volezrenie is then used to explain (...) why the interaction of individuals and collective social actors is a legal matter in Gurvitch’s doctrine. In his doctrine of social law, Gurvitch identifies any social fact as a legal fact. For this reason, all social interactions acquire the status of normative facts, i.e. situations of law and order formation. According to Gurvitch, coexistence of a multitude of norma­tive facts, i.e. legal pluralism, ensures the flexibility of a legal system and becomes the basis for a harmonization of personal values of individuals and transpersonal values of social phenomena. Based on these provisions, Gurvitch argues that social law contrib­utes to the achievement of social unity, namely, sobornost in the most effective way. Gurvitch defines sobornost as a self-organizing wholeness within which the freedom of an individual finds its expression through participation in the development of culture it­self. In conclusion, it is shown that sobornost, understood as a legal concept, is used in Gurvitch’s philosophy to justify an ideal of social development that overcomes the limitations of the meta-ideologies of individualism and collectivism. (shrink)