Abstract

Joris Kocken argues that scientists in the empirical tradition of legitimacy studies disagree on an wide range of important issues. Still they all use one or more basic assumptions derived from the conventional reception of Weber's concept of legitimacy: that legitimacy as a non-normative concept can be used to determine by observation the legitimacy of a certain exercise of power; that law is, seen by itself, alt least potentially, good and that the western style of legal order can be used as a recipe to create a stable state. These three assumptions can partly be traced back to Weber, partly they are characteristics of a specific interpretation of his texts. Together they make the sociological discourse on legitimacy self-contained and prevent an open discourse about the good society in which different disciplines partake.