“Law is a social science; under this premise the content of this text will be developed. At first, it seeks to answer the question, what is law? and then, what are the humanities? In order to draw a line of connection between both answers that will give theoretical support to the premise raised.”

No matter how much the technical elements and reasonable operations of various theories that seek to contest this premise advance, it must be made clear that law is the result and not the origin of social relations and the ends that a society builds for social benefit, hand in hand with justice and equality.

In this way, modern legal systems, which were created since the French Revolution, are understood under maxims for Western societies, which are translated into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that reflects what are the minimums built and agreed by a group of people who positioned that form of social relationship after overcoming the middle ages.

The social element and the definition of the nature of Law, is given as a result of what society in a complete context means; regarding levels of training and access to the satisfaction of basic needs, etc.., so the technique of law is what will be transformed over time, but the substance of law is the one that does not change, on the contrary, it reaffirms the relationship with social phenomena and the reality of man. As an example, several different legal systems can be seen, with completely dissimilar judicial procedures, with abysmally different scales of values. and in territories whose historical processes have been similar, but that manifest different legal systems only from being socially ordered in a different way.

If law were understood as an exact discipline, it would be very easy to construct specific models by way of universal laws, as is the case with physics or chemistry who do not vary their theories over time; on the contrary, the variation of techniques, procedures, restrictions, etc., obeys the context and not the formula; an example of this is the advancement of society that allowed the descendants of Africa to be considered people and not objects that could be exchanged as commodities; likewise, the fact that women could be classified as citizens with equal rights as men is the result of an openly changing and dialectical context. The latter, for example, happened only 70 years ago in Colombia and even today there are still spaces of dispute over equal rights between men and women.

Faced with the different social systems in the world, the law has been seen in the task of achieving all these models through its legal techniques. In a situation in which there is no equality of opportunity between two parties involved, the ideal of justice is appealed, which although it is always present in the law, it seeks to reduce the social gaps within a society and to that extent, it must have a social and political character that openly allows to rescue its imperative character rather than the technical and deductive aspect that many times the law takes as an ideal and that it does not know the social context in which it is located.

Finally, the law is applied by people who have specific formative and social characteristics that will condition their interpretations while determining their decisions, which is why emphasis should be placed on the formation of human competences, from the being in the philosophical sense, from knowledge, because technique is important to achieve fair decisions, and from the doing, because the correspondence to technical and operational decisions from the point of view of the being, allows justice to approach the egalitarian benefit for all the members of a society.

.

It is a dogmatic normative or legal research, descriptive based on documentary analysis that is collected in bases and specialized literature, descriptive based on legal hermeneutics. Given the tradition of the Colombian legal system, the approach is qualitative to the extent that an inductive process is proposed. Among the techniques or instruments of data collection, the indexed databases of information of some universities and the regulations in force in the subject were taken into account. Once the information was collected, we proceeded to the classification regarding each of the topics and regulations selected through the organization through bibliographic files, graphs, Excel tables among others.

For some time now the question What is law? has been the subject of extensive discussions by students and teachers of this program. Faced with the answer there are multiple positions ranging from referring to the Greeks and Romans, through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, to the closest definitions of the modern world. For the purposes of this text, it is of interest to relate to the most recent definitions of law and the notion of justice that are covered within this concept, as well as the new ways of understanding law that go hand in hand with legal sociology or sociology of law, a growing discipline that has therefore been the subject of multiple debates by various academics around the world.

Therefore, it is imperative that this principle have to be applied at the time of public contracting, all contractors must have the same possibilities to be hired and must be at the same level as the rest, so that the final decision takes into account all options available with the same weight.

To give a definition of law, we start from the idea that conceives it as a practical science, that is “beyond producing utilities for man such as money, pleasure, consumer goods, a job or what serves the reform of structures or the social revolution” (Hervada, 2009) it is also a science that uses theories, philosophies and the less “academic” forms of these to define itself. It is interesting then to analyze the real utility of the tools of metaphysics, that is, the most abstract part of the theories and the way in which they allow to open the panorama of analysis before a fact or social situation, considering that many times the mere practical definition of law does not make judgment before the situation or event, and this requires other frameworks of analysis that provide them with a more ethereal element, characteristics of the order of the philosophical.

In this way, law as a practical science is also responsible for regulating society, that is, maintaining order in the behavior of human beings, hand in hand with the rulers and the political and judicial bodies, who are the operators of the executive mandate or, for the specific case, of the legislator. “Making laws is an art that corresponds to politicians; it is part of the art of politics, which is who has to build society according to justice, freedom and solidarity” (Hervada, 2009). This is how lawyers must be trained not only in the practical legal field, but also in politics and philosophy. Metaphysical tools for the analysis of reality must be integrated into this.

The training of lawyers with knowledge and understanding of codes and laws should not be the only objective of the university faculties where this science is provided. New tools that are open to law, such as ethics and philosophy, must also be a priority, that is, lawyers trained in citizen, communicative, investigative and of course ethical skills, that not only limit the results of their cases to a question of favoring one or another claim, but that – through empathy towards the other – the solution to the event is offered in the best way for the satisfaction of both parties.

In law there is a determining factor: justice. That is where the complexity of the question What is law? it must address an answer as to the question What is justice? To Hervada (2009) “justice is not originally an effect of the norm, it is not born of the law, and therefore it is not an original dimension of politics, that is, to politics and to the law, justice is given, and this is on the part of the law, of fair things”. According to this author, the Roman jurists, in their occupation of transforming knowledge, defined justice as giving each one his own, that is, giving each one his right. So THEIRS and THEIR right are the same thing.

It could be said then, that justice consists in giving each one his own, and in this way, the law becomes the instrument by which each human being is given access in conditions of equity to what corresponds to him/her/them. Under this approach, it is possible to affirm then that where there is no right there could be no justice, because it is present in all things, but it is manifested in a tangible way through the law. It is therefore necessary that law schools can focus the training of their professionals on the idea of legal science as the representation of justice and fairness; in this way the commitment to convert people trained in the science of law as defenders of justice not only becomes plausible but an ethical imperative for its exercise.

To talk about what is fair it is necessary to talk about equality, and therefore, that justice based on equality does not discriminate on socio-economic condition, skin color, level of education, gender, sexual orientation, religious practices, political convictions, etc., it is fixed on giving each one what corresponds to him/her/them in a balanced way. To Hervada (2009) “What is the equality proper of justice? It is the one that is contained in its formula: to give each one his own. Everyone is treated the same because everyone is given what is theirs.” In this way, justice is represented blindfolded by the non-discrimination of people, and with the balance because it gives each one what corresponds in a balanced way, which means, not attending to recommendations of third parties, to sympathy towards some over others or to subjective favors.

With an introduction towards the definition of law as a science and some of its characteristics, it is necessary at this point, to delve into the discussion that has been a central theme since its creation, and it is the concept of legal sociology or sociology of law. These concepts are relatively new, dating from the 1960s and since they saw the light they are the subject of strong discussions in the most orthodox spaces of law and by authors who refuse to open the discussion in which law must be conceived as a social science that is permanently nourished by the social disciplines around it.

The legal sociology or sociology of law, which will have the same meaning in this text, has been gaining a place in law schools around the world by opening the debate around the meaning and concept of the discipline and how from their approaches, they have provided new tools to lawyers in training from all existing law schools. The struggle that has occurred the authors who promote this discipline around the world lies in seeking the recognition of legal sociology as an autonomous discipline in its postulates, which clearly belongs to the field of sociology, but from which it takes up elements that will serve for the understanding and analysis of law in relation to social phenomena.

To talk about legal sociology, it is necessary to define it from what the French jurist Jean Carbonnier pointed out as a concept that “encompasses all the phenomena of which in law they can be cause, effect and occasion. Thus, for the jurist, legal sociology can be defined as that branch of general sociology that has as its object a variety of social phenomena: legal phenomena or phenomena of law” (Arrieta, Carvajal, 2005).

This definition continues to be the subject of discussion for scholars of law and other areas who have sought to unify law and sociology. That is the case of Boaventura de Sousa, Portuguese sociologist, who defends this discipline indicating that legal sociology is “a specialized branch of sociology and also refers to the concepts of social phenomena and legal phenomenon” (Arrieta, Carvajal, 2005).

Added to this, in the text of Arrieta y Carvajal (2005) a series of definitions about this concept are gathered, including the one postulated by Germán Palacio, Colombian academic, who defines legal sociology as follows:

This definition opens a panorama in front of new ways of understanding the law, and how this definition over the years, has seen the need to transform its postulates in favor of a better professional practice and a greater understanding of the people who turn to legal operators to solve the events or events that afflict them and on which they usually build claims that must be resolved in the light of pre-existing norms given the principle of legality typical of modern legal systems.

This topic being the subject of extensive debate by various academics around the world, for the objectives of this text, only some of those considered to be at the forefront will be taken up, since to raising the multiple positions that this concept has, it requires a deeper analysis that would blur the meaning of this proposal. In this way, in the attempts to seek a definition and characterization of the term of legal sociology or sociology of law, it has then been seen that the general framework of the analysis of this concept is the interaction between the social – society – and law.

For some professionals from more orthodox schools, it is complex to relate and understand law on a par with sociology, legal sociology or sociology of law. In the many debates that have been presented on the object of study of this discipline in formation, some are more inclined to social interaction; others usually summarize it from empirical analyses of attitudes or behaviors in the field of law; and for others, it covers everything that has to do with the law in terms of its mechanisms of production and application and therefore, what is related to society as a whole (Arrieta, Carvajal 2005)

Linking law with social knowledge not only offers the possibility of having better professionals, trained in high community values, ethics and solidarity with the other, but it enables the empowerment of the human being in the search for a better quality of life, highlighting the autonomous qualities in the sense of solidarity and equity. Added to this, social knowledge within law, such as politics, economics, anthropology, psychology, culture, art, education, etc., provide the professional in law, better abilities to adapt to social phenomena, that is, they nourish him with a greater framework of analysis, allowing the understanding of the problem to be greater and that as a consequence of this the need to highlight this training in law schools can be claimed.

With the above it is possible to expand the conception to answer the initial question of What is law? That is why the initial approach to law as a practical science is taken up, in the words of Hervada (2009), beyond producing utilities for man, it is also a science that makes use of theories, philosophies and less academic forms. This definition opens an important step for what is considered throughout this text as a way to achieve justice that finally uses the concept of legal sociology to account for the contribution of other social disciplines in this work.

Thinking about the law without justice is a disproportion for professionals in this area, since according to the definition that was previously given of justice, giving each one his own, it is important to always emphasize that the law becomes the instrument by which justice does its work, which means, it manifests itself in a tangible way in the expectations that arise in the sound of a society. It is of the utmost importance to highlight the fact that justice advances alongside equity and that is why this concept transcends the formal manifestation of equality to be installed from the perspective of material equality.

A justice that has been built around equality with the other is exclusively concerned with giving each one what corresponds to him in a balanced way, that is, away from discrimination or sympathy towards one or the other in order to provide solutions that favor the parties in the best way ensuring that each one can access what corresponds to him/her/them. This is how it is insisted on the representation of justice blindfolded and the balance held in its hands, because it is the graphic way of implying what is proposed from the description of these concepts.

Thus, at this point legal sociology gains an important place, being a discipline that collects what has been initially built with respect to what is the law and how from other sciences are granted an endless number of tools and frameworks of analysis that allow to expand both methodologically and theoretically to the law as a social science to understand in a more adequate way the social phenomena that are the source of its existence. From anthropology, psychology, art, culture, economics, politics, and of course, ethics, the legal professionals will have greater capacities to solve the conflicts that arise in the exercise of their profession if they understand and vindicate what has been said here.

The objective of this text requires that this question be addressed from what has been understood by the human sciences, that is, the so-called humanities. For many authors within the common field of discussion, the humanities refer only to the studies of man as the center of all things and of reality itself; they are also understood as a series of gnoseological tools that will allow access to multiple types of knowledge, that is, philosophical tools that study nature, knowledge, how far it goes and what limits it has. It is clear that these definitions leave conceptual gaps when it comes to covering everything related to what is widely understood by the humanities.

To give it a greater scope, the humanities “are constituted by the themes referred to human values, the use and analysis of the language and expressions of spirituality of men. Hence they are conceived as the theorization of the arts, language, mind and cultural experience” (Saladino, 2017). Expanded the semantic field of the humanities, it is necessary to assume that today this continues to grow; within this science are grouped studies related to literature, philosophy, critical history, archaeology, theory and practice of the arts, as well as economics, politics, psychology, anthropology, education, amongst other related.

Among the various objectives that the humanities have, one of them focuses on the task of “separating man from animalist behavior, making man more human by refining his culture” (Saladino, 2017) and therefore, of the valuation of its autonomy within the field of ethics, so that its relationship with philosophy is quite close.

The humanities are part of an area of knowledge that, since its birth, has had the reality as its objective, not only of man but of the world, that is, to explain and interpret what it is related to the existence of the human being and his environment. But within this battle to explain reality, scientific knowledge has had distances from what the humanities have proposed, in the face of this, it is necessary to confront these two positions:

In this way, scientific knowledge and the humanities are not enemies of each other, their relationship has been based since their existence, by complementarity. The humanities are necessary to give clarity to reason and scientific knowledge aims to provide data and explanations that will nourish the postulates of the first. The humanities on the other hand have a fairly representative charge, since these are responsible for being a source of critical thinking, as well as promoting the development of this, with the aim of fulfilling man's desire to know and give validity to the interpretations of reality that are being developed.

Another important feature is the “recognition of diversity and universality, tolerance by helping to cultivate the importance of the existence of human diversity from which humans better finance their realization” (Saladino, 2017).

In this way, an important factor within the humanities stands out: the interdisciplinarity of their studies. This factor makes it possible to understand that there are relationships between various disciplines and areas of knowledge with other types of knowledge, which result in complementary relationships to obtain better explanations of reality and to base in a stronger way the conceptions of this.

It is at this point where it is necessary to delve into the relationship of the humanities with the law. For this, we will take what was proposed by the French philosopher and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who elaborated two fundamental concepts for the use of dichotomous categories and opposing theoretical frameworks within modern thought, the social field and the habitus. (Pierre Bourdieu, 2018)

To Bourdieu, law is a social field, in the same way as politics, science or economics are. In this way, law as a social field “allows an approach to multiple levels of conceptualization of law, which includes, for example, law as a practice, as a set of norms, as a description and conceptualization of norms and as a theoretical elaboration of foundation and explanation of social relations” (Gómez, 2005)

The idea of the social field not only serves to understand the law, but is a conceptual tool that will allow us to approach science. Hence it is stated that Bourdieu “does not study science to make a discursive construction from itself, but to make a sociological analysis of the social scenario of scientists and science, and thus answer the question about the social use that is given to science” (Gómez, 2005). For this French philosopher and sociologist, science becomes a “microcosm provided with its own laws, endowed with partial autonomy” which does not mean that it cannot receive influence from other fields, precisely there lies its advantage over other scientific disciplines and areas of knowledge of this same line.

The category of social field ends up being a rather important conceptual and theoretical tool to understand the role of law in social life, which inevitably leads to the approach about the place of faculties and law schools in training for an adequate analysis and understanding of social phenomena and the analysis of reality, for it is within it that these discussions take place and where a criterion is usually formed from which a synthesis of reality is elaborated.

As has been seen, law is permeated by multiple areas and disciplines that will make it a social field, but that in turn, it gives different qualities for the professional practice of those who have been trained in this discipline; the challenge is to position these new conceptions in training centers and universities around the world in order to return the law to its central place for society as a living organism whose engine is given by the conflicts that develop within it and drive evolution.

Now, the humanities and the disciplines related to it, cannot be seen as simple subjects of complement, that is, within the technical training of lawyers, the existence of subjects that focus on an analysis of social characteristics or that contain topics of economics, sociology, psychology, politics, culture, etc., must be discarded by teachers and students, or worse, not included in the curricula, since the training of a lawyer must be complete, comprehensive and –over all– must obey the purposes of justice and material equality that were described above. Only from both technical and social elements, when resolving conflicts, is it possible to generate socially suitable results.

The above has an added value for the Colombian case, the training of lawyers not only with technical skills, but with a broad social approach from the humanities, that will allow students close to exercising their professional life, to better understand and analyze the needs of Colombian society today, that is, to place oneself in the context of a country that signed a Peace Agreement to provide a solution through dialogue to its structural conflicts. That is why it is required that professionals with competences in conflict resolution print to each of their activities the social and human approach that is only possible with a training intentionally directed in this sense. Thus, the contribution in the arduous task of building a stable and lasting Peace, as well as peaceful coexistence among Colombians, can continue to be built daily.

It is then a task of the Colombian law schools to assume a position in front of new fields of training for their graduates, who with sufficient legal technical tools will need the field of humanities to complete training at the level of the needs of a post-conflict country and from which various initiatives are developed in society that seek a peaceful solution to the situations of violence that afflict its inhabitants.

Being, in ontological terms, refers to the substance that exists independently of consciousness, however, from a dialectical materialistic perspective, being is not realized outside the material world (Ludin, Rosenthal, 1982), that is, contrary to the distinguished Cartesian cogito ergo sum, being does not only come from an act of consciousness; under this proposition, it is also appropriate to bring up the idea of the social being, since it characterizes the material life of society.

Being in society has been the object of reflection from antiquity to contemporaneity, so that The Politics of Aristotle continues to be a fundamental work in modern philosophical formation; in general, in The Politics rests in a more concrete way the Aristotelian conception of the form of social organization, with several books which expose the hierarchy between master, slave, women; the economy, the property, the family, the village, until reaching the polis. However, the point of interest for this approach is the one described as Zoon politikon:

Some positions of The Politics are controversial, however, by endowing man with such a nature, it implies that man – from his position – has a duty to society. At this point it is necessary to mention that for Aristotle politics and ethics were intrinsically linked, since both have as their ultimate goal the common good.

In the book Nicomachean Ethics by this great thinker, the problem of happiness and good living for man is raised; in book I, Aristotle (2007) mentions that “all human activity has an end and ethics is part of politics”, thus maintaining that in appearance human actions, activities and productions tend to some good and therefore, bearing in mind that they possess such an intention, it is worth examining to which science they belong. However, he states in the same text that:

In this sense, it is appropriate to point out that the discussion on ethics regains strength by raising both the sphere of the individual, pointing out the virtues of man such as responsibility, generosity, loyalty, justice, patience, among others, as well as the collective sphere, trying to establish those minimums for the most harmonious societies. However, the Aristotelian position regarding the ethical and political relationship can be considered ideal for a community that pretends to be made up of good and socially committed individuals, and the philosophical inquiry into ethics is not exhausted there.

In modernity, Immanuel Kant, among his extensive work, in The foundation of the metaphysics of customs (1785) expresses its deep concern for a pure moral philosophy, that is, a philosophy constituted entirely by mainly principles – of pure reason – or free from human experience, since the anthropological can be corrupted, therefore, it must deepen on the foundations of a pure will to the extent of the realizable, ignoring human inclinations or desires.

Contrary to the Aristotelian position, for Kant happiness is not the end that is pursued, but goodwill, in view of the fact that the gifts of fortune, which include honor and well-being, can make the happy man an arrogant being (1785), in fact, he warns of misologists, who by committing their reason around happiness, the most they further away from it; likewise, goodwill should not be confused with duty, although it is nourished by goodwill, it can face certain subjectivities such as impulses or inclinations, relapsing into selfish actions that do not necessarily have a bearing on the duty to be.

In short, for Kant, reason is a practical faculty, its purpose must be the production of goodwill, however, this alone will not lead to the full satisfaction of the subjects, thus leaving the possibility of goodwill being debased; on the other hand, the goodwill crossed by reason, turns man into a being capable of reaching the age of majority, of self-legislating, which provides a certain freedom to exalt his social environment.

Even so, there is a simile with the Aristotelian work to have a universal aspiration, where again ethics is presented as a vital category to inquire about well-being and coexistence in societies; although there is talk of general principles, socio-political, economic and cultural factors, in turn, they condition ethical and moral conventions; it is at this point that it is convenient to emphasize law as a practical science, since, together with leaders and state agencies, they are responsible for decreeing laws, which are aimed at the constitution of just and free societies (Hervada, 2009), what in the end may be the universal aspirations raised by both Aristotle and Kant.

Exposed these conceptions of great thinkers, it is necessary to emphasize the transcendence of ethics today. Far from being ancient religious imperatives or a secondary subject in academic training, the daily life of the human being is covered with numerous judgments based on the conception of ethics, that is why, as members of a society, it is difficult for anyone to manifest that they do not have a position against the actions of others, public events, among others. That’s where Pieper (1991) will say that the agreement and rejection, as well as the purported neutrality, express an ethical stance. Now, when the position is dogmatic, it is considered a moralism or self-righteousness, since it begins to be exclusive, hence this author affirms that:

That being said, the law should not be viewed unequivocally from formal sources; even from its informal sources understood as the field of what has to complement the normative spectrum. Therefore, it is worth taking up elements of legal sociology, where the classical notion of abstracted law is rejected in the face of the social world; paraphrasing Kelsen (1881), legal science is understood as a closed and autonomous whole, whose development can only be understood according to its “internal dynamics”, since from that “pure” perspective of law, it is molded as an instrument of domination and not as a mechanism to achieve justice.

An integral lawyer has the ability to delve into the various interpretations of a particular case, taking into account the variables that arise in its context – in the legal system there are no ex ante truths– and not just as a rule or syllogism that applies to all cases; a rule cannot be applied purely and immobilely or in the same way to the various social phenomena that motivate the legal operation, since no two cases will ever be the same. That is why it is up to the judge, for example, to decide whether or not a rule extends to another case and under what characteristics it should be applied.

Finally, the integrity and social commitment of the lawyer goes beyond his action in front of a legal system, since empathetic, reliable people are required, who can maintain an assertive communication with the parties in dispute or with the community that seeks to satisfy a need or expectation; priority must be given to integrality in the elements used to synthesize reality, because there is a synergy that will provide professionals and humanitarian societies that seek that each one receives what corresponds to him, that is, for what is considered as fair.

The human being is a social being, to that extent, throughout the history of philosophical thought, ethics, when asked about the idea of the good, the right, the virtuous, forms of behavior and interaction has been a concern that continues to be valid. It is evident that, when the subjects lack an ethical and critical stance, the reproduction of totalitarian ideologies that have been characterized by being dogmatic and attacking or repressing difference has been allowed.It is for issues such as the one referred to here that it is necessary to deepen the training of integral lawyers, with an interdisciplinary education that breaks with the orthodox idea that law is limited to the study of the legal and therefore abstracts from the social. The process of training lawyers should be critical in considering and examining the multiple conditions of possibility and interpretations beyond the norm; their training must put ethics at the center because the law directly affects the field of social relations and therefore acquires a responsibility that entails an exemplary character in the actions exercised as a professional. In the current scenario, a lawyer must be able to propose alternatives to the new challenges that correspond to him as a society; issues such as justice, peace and reconciliation are imperatives of its action. In other words, from the being in the philosophical sense it is indispensable that it reflects its ethical formation; from the knowledge, it must be qualified to achieve decisions adjusted .