Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:52:59.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Comparatism, and Epistemic Governance: There Is Critique and Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Simone Glanert  and
Pierre Legrand

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

How many scholarly fields have experienced the disappointing fate of comparative law and continued in the grip of a demonstrably indigent epistemology for decades on end? After the early postmodernity witnessed their protracted servitude to Les Grands systèmes's jejune classifications, facile correspondences, and meagre interpretive return — a predicament which, implausibly, endures in countries as diverse as Brazil, France, and Russia — law's comparatists began taking their epistemic orders from Hamburg and the Hamburgher diaspora. For fifty years or so, they have been gorged on a diet of Rechtsdogmatik, scientism, objectivity, neutrality, truth, and assorted shibboleths. As if these epistemic delusions were not problematic enough, the earlier, obsolete model was eventually revived although tweaked to focus on traditions instead of systems (or families). While critics were occasionally moved to chastise threadbare Hanseatic knowledge-claims — some expressing their concern in conspicuous venues, others harnessing prestigious institutional affiliations — comparative law's orthodoxy, somewhat extraordinarily, has hitherto been able to operate unencumbered by any epistemic challenge whose monographic exposition would have proved decidedly pre-eminent. It is the great merit of Gunter Frankenberg's Comparative Law As Critique, in crucial respects an account at once capital and extensive, that it interrupts, finally, the longstanding deployment of comparative law's mainstream imposture. Frankenberg's refutation is thus well worth restating, and the first part of this review wishes loyally to apply itself to this important representative task not least by affording the author much latitude to express himself in his own voice. Yet, Frankenberg's considerable critical integrity notwithstanding, this essay holds that his epistemic transgression remains too diffident. Specifically, five key concerns at least warranted more subversive epistemic commitments than Frankenberg allows. In the wake of Comparative Law As Critique, the second part of this commentary addresses these contentions with a view to making a case both for comparative law as strong critique and for the paradigmatic epistemic turn that has been persistently deferred within the field.

Type
Special Section Network Analysis and Comparative Law Methods
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , 01 May 2017 , pp. 701 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

1 René David's 1950 Traité élémentaire de droit civil comparé was rebranded as Les Grands systèmes de droit contemporains in 1964. The new version has persisted through successive editions in French and, less regularly, in other languages. The most recent English edition was released in 1985 as Major Legal Systems of the World Today. Meanwhile, Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz's 1969 Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, a product of the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg, became available to an Anglophone readership as An Introduction to Comparative Law in 1977 due to Tony Weir's acclaimed translation. In 2000, Patrick Glenn startlingly sought to breathe new life into David's primer by releasing his Legal Traditions of the World. In one of the more charitable reactions to Glenn's work, a commentator remarked that it was “as if one ha[d] been upgraded from an ordinary package tour to a luxury cruise ship with a more sophisticated guide to the standard sights.” William Twining, Glenn on Tradition: An Overview, 1 Journal of Comparative Law 107, 108 (2006).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Günter Frankenberg, Critical Comparisons: Rethinking Comparative Law, 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411 (1985); Fletcher, George P., The Universal and the Particular in Legal Discourse, 1987 Brigham Young University Law Review 335 (1987).Google Scholar

3 Günter Frankenberg, Comparative law As Critique (2016).Google Scholar

4 Id. at x.Google Scholar

5 Id. at 22.Google Scholar

6 Id. at 31.Google Scholar

7 Id.Google Scholar

8 Id. at 33, 17.Google Scholar

9 Id. at x.Google Scholar

10 Jacques Derrida, De la grammatologie 178 (1967).Google Scholar

11 Frankenberg, supra note 3, at 41.Google Scholar

12 Id. at ix, 13.Google Scholar

13 Id. at 6.Google Scholar

14 Id.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 15 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

16 Id. at 6.Google Scholar

17 Id. at 8, 40.Google Scholar

18 See id. at 40.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 38.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 46.Google Scholar

21 Id. at ix, 88.Google Scholar

22 Id. at 44.Google Scholar

23 Id. at 98.Google Scholar

24 Id. p. 14.Google Scholar

25 Id. p. 5.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 37, 78.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 288.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 41.Google Scholar

29 Id. at 6.Google Scholar

30 Id. at 42 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

31 See id. at ix, 111.Google Scholar

32 See id. at ix, x.Google Scholar

33 Id. at 74 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

34 Id. at 72 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

35 Id. at 83.Google Scholar

36 See id. at 42–47.Google Scholar

37 Id. at 45.Google Scholar

38 See id. at 47–52.Google Scholar

39 See id. at 52–59.Google Scholar

40 Id. at 52.Google Scholar

41 Id. at 54–55.Google Scholar

42 Id., at 57.Google Scholar

43 See id. at 59–70, 94–95.Google Scholar

44 Id. at 63.Google Scholar

45 Schlesinger, Rudolf B., Introduction, in 1 Formation of Contracts: A Study of the Common Core of Legal Systems 9 (Schlesinger, Rudolf B. ed., 1968); Schlesinger, Rudolf B., The Common Core of Legal Systems: An Emerging Subject of Comparative Study, in Twentieth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law: Legal Essays in Honor of Yntema, Hessel E. 78 (Nadelmann, Kurt H., Arthur T. von Mehren & Hazard, John N. eds., 1961).Google Scholar

46 See Frankenberg, supra note 3, at 85–112.Google Scholar

47 See id. at 84.Google Scholar

48 See id. at 117–64.Google Scholar

49 Id. at 118.Google Scholar

50 Id. at 130.Google Scholar

51 Id. at 150, 142.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 138.Google Scholar

53 Id. at 143–44.Google Scholar

54 Id. at 143.Google Scholar

55 Id. at 148.Google Scholar

56 Id. Frankenberg repeatedly quotes Fanon, a psychiatrist and philosopher having settled in Algeria from his native Martinique. See id. at 150–51. Fanon is best known for his analysis of colonialism and decolonization, which established him as a leading anti-colonial thinker. On the subject of veiling, Fanon wrote as follows: “This [Algerian] woman who sees without being seen frustrates the colonizer. There is no reciprocity. She does not surrender herself, does not give herself, does not offer herself. […] The European man facing the Algerian woman wants to see. He reacts in an aggressive way before this limitation to his perception.” Frantz Fanon, L'an V de la révolution algérienne 26 (2011).Google Scholar

57 Wendy Brown, Regulating Aversion 189 (2006) (“What makes choices ‘freer’ when they are constrained by secular and market organizations of femininity and fashion rather than by state or religious law?”).Google Scholar

58 Frankenberg, supra note 3, at 62.Google Scholar

59 Id. at 159.Google Scholar

60 Id. at 161.Google Scholar

61 Id. at 71 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

62 Id. at 225, 71.Google Scholar

63 Id. at 217.Google Scholar

64 Id. at 167.Google Scholar

65 Id. at 204.Google Scholar

66 Id. at 176.Google Scholar

67 Id. at 179.Google Scholar

68 Id. at 180.Google Scholar

69 See id. at 171–86.Google Scholar

70 Id. at 218.Google Scholar

71 Id. Google Scholar

72 Id. at 219.Google Scholar

73 Id. Google Scholar

74 See id. at 220–22.Google Scholar

75 Id. at 227.Google Scholar

76 Id. at 228.Google Scholar

77 Id. Google Scholar

78 Id. at 230 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

79 Hans Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre 64 (§28) (1934).Google Scholar

80 Frederick Schauer, The Force of Law 12 (2015).Google Scholar

81 Ugo Mattei, Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in the World's Legal Systems, 45 American Journal of Comparative Law 5, 13 n.37 (1997).Google Scholar

82 Tamanaha, Brian Z., Realistic Socio-Legal Theory 128 (1997).Google Scholar

83 Fletcher, George P., What Law Is Like, 50 Southern Methodist University law Review 1599, 1610 (1997).Google Scholar

84 Derrida mentions “le travail en creux de l'interrogation.” Jacques Derrida, L'Ecriture et la différence 49 (1967).Google Scholar

85 White, James B., Heracles' Bow 80 (1985).Google Scholar

86 See Beckett, Samuel, The Unnamable 85 (Steven Connor ed., 2010) (“What can one do but speculate, speculate, until one hits on the happy speculation?”).Google Scholar

87 Sarah Wood, Without Mastery: Reading and Other Forces 1 (2014).Google Scholar

88 Letter from Samuel Beckett to Marthe Arnaud (10 June 1940), in 1 The Letters of Samuel Beckett 684 (Fehsenfeld, Martha D. & Overbeck, Lois M. eds., 2009).Google Scholar

89 Roland Barthes, Le Bruissement de la langue 78 (1984).Google Scholar

90 Derrida, supra note 84, at 382 (emphasis original).Google Scholar

91 Martin Heidegger, Holzwege 42 (2015).Google Scholar

92 Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit 218–19 (2006 [1927]).Google Scholar

93 See White, supra note 85, at 80 (referring to “the independent force of the text”).Google Scholar

94 Jacques Derrida, Béliers 41 (2003).Google Scholar

95 See Heidegger, Martin, Unterwegs zur Sprache 265 (1959). See also Derrida, Jacques, Le Monolinguisme de l'autre (1996).Google Scholar

96 Walter Benjamin, Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers, in Illuminationen 54–55 (1977 [1923]).Google Scholar

97 See Paul de Man, The Resistance to Theory 73–105 (1986).Google Scholar

98 José Ortega y Gasset, La reviviscencia de los cuadros, in 8 Obras completas 493 (2d ed. 1994 [1946]).Google Scholar

99 Jacques Derrida, Positions 31 (1972).Google Scholar

100 Jacques Derrida, Du mot à la vie, Magazine Littéraire (April 2004), at 26.Google Scholar

101 Simone Glanert & Pierre Legrand, Foreign Law in Translation: If Truth Be Told…, in Law and Language 513–32 (Michael Freeman & Fiona Smith eds., 2013).Google Scholar

102 Meaghan Morris, Foreword, in Naoki Sakai, Translation and Subjectivity xiii (1997).Google Scholar

103 Observe that for a postcolonial sensibility, untranslatability salutarily “exposes the limits of what the dominant language can handle.” Judith Butler, Restaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism, in Contingency, Hegemony, Universality 37 (Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau & Slavoj Žižek eds., 2000).Google Scholar

104 Benedict Anderson, Frameworks of Comparison, London Review of Books (21 January 2016), at 18.Google Scholar

105 Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure 108 (2006).Google Scholar

106 See Günter Frankenberg, The Innocence of Method — Unveiled: Comparison As an Ethical and Political Act, 9 Journal of Comparative Law 222 (2014).Google Scholar

107 George Devereux, From Anxiety to Method 97 (1967).Google Scholar

108 paul rabinow & anthony stavrianakis, demands of the day 110 (2013).Google Scholar

109 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode 306 (5th ed. 1986).Google Scholar

110 Derrida, supra note 10, at 233.Google Scholar

111 Heidegger, supra note 92, at 159.Google Scholar

112 Id. at 197.Google Scholar

113 Jacques Derrida, Papier machine 368 (1990).Google Scholar

114 See Derrida, Jacques, Et cetera… (and so on, und so weiter, and so forth, et ainsi de suite, und so überall, etc.), in Jacques Derrida 24 (Marie-Louise Mallet & Ginette Michaud eds., 2004 [2000]).Google Scholar

115 Joan Stambaugh, Heidegger, Taoism, and the Question of Metaphysics, in Heidegger and Asian Thought 80 (Graham Parkes ed., 1987).Google Scholar

116 Letter from Martin Heidegger to Julius Stenzel (31 December 1929), 16 Heidegger Studies 11, 19 (2000).Google Scholar

117 Letter from Martin Heidegger to Karl Löwith (19 August 1921), in 2 Zur philosophischen Aktualität Heideggers 29 (Dietrich Papenfuss & Otto Pöggeler eds., 1990).Google Scholar

118 [Stéphane] Mallarmé, Tennyson vu d'ici, in Divagations, in 2 ɶuvres complètes 138 (Bertrand Marchal ed., 2003 [1892]).Google Scholar

119 Samuel Beckett, Worstward Ho, in Company/Ill Seen Ill Said/Worstward Ho/Stirrings Still 81 (Dirk Van Hulle ed., 2009 [1983]). For Frankenberg's reference to Beckett, see Frankenberg, supra note 3, at 20.Google Scholar

120 2 Jacques Derrida, la Bête et le souverain 31 (Michel Lisse, Marie-Louise Mallet, & Ginette Michaud eds., 2010 [2002]).Google Scholar

121 Id. at 367.Google Scholar

122 Natalie Melas, All the Difference in the World 65 (2007).Google Scholar

123 See, e.g., Minh, Trinh T.-ha, Elsewhere, Within Here (2011).Google Scholar

124 Jacques Derrida, Points de suspension 296 (Elisabeth Weber ed., 1992 [1989]).Google Scholar

125 D.N. Rodowick, Philosophy's Artful Conversation 306 (2015) (emphasis added). We adopt Rodowick's observation regarding “his” discipline and apply it to “ours.”Google Scholar