In every society, at all historical stages of development, the ideals and values of different people clashed and sought a compromise. The concepts of “fair” and “unfair”, “worthy” and “shameful”, in the end, at the state level were reflected in the terms “lawfully” and “illegal”.
Based on this, two relatively autonomous, but at the same time interrelated concepts can be distinguished - “legal consciousness” and “legal culture”. At first glance, culture has an advantage over legal consciousness, largely determines and defines it. But often we observe cases of feedback. It is clear that different people have different values and attitudes towards social reality. Some knowingly accept and comply with the requirements of legal norms, and some allow (intentionally or not) a derogation from generally accepted rules of behavior. However, even these offenders have a clear sense that they are acting illegally, and that their actions in the eyes of society are reprehensible.
So, we can talk about the presence of a legal culture in society. It develops together with society, forming value guidelines, ideals of justice and influencing the behavior of most of its members. For example, in a slaveholding society there was no value of the personality of a slave, it was interpreted as a thing and a commodity, but in later societies the norm of people's freedom was adopted, and now, when we hear about cases of slavery, we unconditionally condemn, although in ancient Greece it was generally accepted the norm. There are many more examples of how legal culture has changed with the development of human civilization. Its concept and structure also underwent changes.
The code of legal values, ideals, and behavioral norms was sometimes formed spontaneously, but it was often influenced by the ruling classes, religious authorities, and even charismatic personalities. To one degree or another, they enthralled other members of society, forcing them to voluntarily or involuntarily follow these new norms. Thus, the structure of legal culture can be described as follows. First of all, this is a psychological legal culture (for example, stealing is not good and ashamed). Then comes the behavioral (I will not steal) and, finally, the ideological paradigm (theft is a crime).
The ideological component of legal culture is reflected in customs, coutums, laws. And already written or unwritten law forms legal consciousness - that form of public consciousness that reflects the law and its application. Thus, legal awareness and legal culture are in constant relationship. Legal awareness through upbringing, education, through clearly established laws and norms affects culture. But the legislature also consists of people who hold certain legal values.
The link “legal awareness and legal culture” is organic and inextricable. They influence each other, and are determined by each other. We can say that the first concept is more orderly, because it reflects both existing law and its history, its best achievements, as well as positive examples of other states. These are systematic ideas and representations of legality - real or desired. Legal culture is wider than legal awareness, and carries a large emotional and behavioral component.
Both legal consciousness and legal culture are divided into individual, social-group and social. An individual may have values, behavioral attitudes, and legal awareness that are completely different from what is generally accepted. There are social groups in which a completely different attitude to the laws and their perception is formed (not “earn and buy”, but “steal and drink”), but in general, society marginalizes such individuals and social groups.
However, there are examples when the legal culture of society simply has not grown to the laws borrowed from the best law enforcement practices of other countries. For example, the law on humane treatment of animals, adopted for political reasons (for the sake of joining the European Union), in a society where it is not customary to consider our smaller brothers as a subject of law, will be met with complete neglect and contrary to law acts.