If knowledge of the subject of the theory of state and law allows a clear answer to the question that examines the science, the knowledge of the methodology allows us to give an answer to another important question: how science is doing, by what methods and techniques.
The fact that the methodology of any science is also not arbitrarily invented, to imported a set of methods and techniques of study. The methodology is objectively determined by the subject of the study, which follows from the general conceptual approaches, the level of scientific knowledge, a part of every science, its essential element.
The methodology is a system of methods, a set of methods and techniques of research, knowledge about them. But objectively, this system, this set of defined nature of the phenomena and processes, derived from a common methodological state of scientific knowledge and scientific interests.
Its methodology to objectively requires and receives its modern theory of state and law.
It must be emphasized, as the previous Marxist-Leninist stage of development of the domestic theory of state and law, dividing all the methods on the main and private, used mainly only the so-called primary method of materialist dialectics.
And again, if there was no dogma, and the vulgarization of the dialectical materialist method, in this approach, there would be nothing to worry about. After all, in this method, the state and the law is seen as a growing, dynamic social institutions. The reasons for their development are rooted in the material conditions of society. The contradictory nature of this development is also recognized in the dialectical materialism.
In short, everything would be fine, if this method is not opposed to all other, which was attached to the role of the subsidiary, private, secondary methods. And they are deprived impairing the theory of state and law of real knowledge of state-legal phenomena and processes that gave her scholastic, speculative, reduced the scientific validity of its recommendations. This was especially true of the socialist state, also when not using sociological, comparative, statistical methods, legal experiment obscured scientific knowledge about this type of state, led to an undue apologetics.
In turn, exaggeration of the materialist dialectic methodology transformed into artificial search for "ascent" of scientific knowledge from the concrete to the abstract, to the scholastic arguments about the absence of a socialist state of antagonistic contradictions, etc.
With this approach, in fact, argues that the mind of the individual (his, stereotypes, dogmas, myths, etc.) must only determine that being, is the environment in which he lives. Of course, nothing is more vulgar than the definition of the spiritual world of a particular person solely by his household, including housing, employment, and family circumstances. They are, of course, can not be ignored, but one can not be reduced solely to them all the diversity of spiritual and moral life of each individual. In addition, from "being determines consciousness" can display a variety, including the most absurd, claims. But, fortunately, as part of the consciousness of the individual does not meet its particular existence, and the existence of a specific individual consciousness does not match.
But the main thing was though that a vulgarized and numbered by Stalin in "Short Course of the CPSU (b) the" dogma of materialism and dialectics was fitted and methodology of all other sciences, including jurisprudence. In this case, ignored many areas and features of the methodology of the theory of state and law.
But the widespread use of only one of the comparative method, in which there is a comparison of legal systems, law branches and other structural elements of the state and legal life of different societies, would be immediately revealed what gaps, weaknesses and gaps exist in a socialist state in the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens .
True legal statistics would be immediately allowed on the basis of its analysis and synthesis to obtain scientific knowledge about the causes and forms of offenses, predominantly repressive role of law enforcement, etc.
Sociological method allowed to set and measure the role of social factors and their impact on state-legal development of the society.
Only in the 70's and 80's of the situation with the methodology of jurisprudence has changed: there were serious efforts of many scientists, lawyers raise the methodological basis of the domestic theory of law through active and widespread use of sociological and statistical methods in the study of the effectiveness of the law. Have been developed and this period and views on the need to use a cybernetic approach, legal experiment and several others.
Theory of law is closely connected with the social sciences such as philosophy, sociology, political economy, political science, ethnography - and this relationship is mostly is held in the methodological field of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the use of sociological, comparative, formal-logical method enriches the methodology of the theory of state and law.
Legal experiment - experimental verification of the law in a limited area - used in law-making Russia in the XIX century.
Of course, it may be useful and creative use of materialist dialectics - an important methodological arsenal of philosophy.
Also significant would be the use of cyber techniques (for example, the approach to manage the process of taking into account the feedback of obligatory compliance