Abstract

This paper explores two main methods, employed for the analysis of regulatory law, empirical and systems-theoretical approaches. These two approaches are often portrayed in the literature as very different, mainly for two reasons. First, it is contended by some authors that systems-theoretical approaches—in contrast to empirical approaches—do not see a role for individuals in shaping social reality and regulatory law as one aspect of it. This paper, however, claims that systems-theoretical accounts do provide for human agency while empirical accounts have limitations in their analysis of the role of ‘real individuals’ in shaping regulatory law. The paper argues that both empirical and systems-theoretical approaches need to provide a deeper analysis of the notion of ‘the individual’. This requires taking into account how ‘feeling rules’ influence the management of emotions. Secondly, empirical and systems-theoretical approaches are portrayed as distinct because they are considered as employing different methodologies. While systems theory involves speculative grand theory, empirical approaches are based on specific techniques of empirical data collection and analysis. This paper argues, however, that systems-theoretical ideas on how knowledge about the social world can be generated are close to qualitative empirical approaches, which stress the relativity and subjectivity of the meaning systems of the particular actors studied