LEGAL AND CULTURAL PLURALISM

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to: Kushagra Prasad Dahiya

Submitted by: Vaishnavi Sharma

BA LLB Hons.

Ist Year (IInd Semester)

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat

 INTRODUCTION

Legal Pluralism refers to the existence of multiple legal systems within one particular human
population/ or geographic area. Plural Legal systems are particularly prevalent in former colonies,
when the law of a former colonial authority may exist alongside more traditional legal systems
1
(customary law). Legal pluralism refers to situations of legal coexistence in a single social field.
Initially described in colonial situations, in which the colonial power superimposed a European legal
system over an existing indigenous system, legal pluralism is now understood as a fundamental
characteristic of all legal systems. Advanced capitalist states as well as colonial and postcolonial
states have multiple legal systems. 2 In this study, I will be reviewing some articles on Legal and
Cultural Pluralism by Sally Engle Merry and Bhikhu Parekh respectively.

LEGAL PLURALISM BY SALLY ENGLE MERRY

The author in her article Legal Pluralism starts off by mentioning the background of Legal Pluralism.3
She asserts that every society is legally plural, not just those who has a colonial past. Legal pluralism
is examined in broadly 2 contexts, first the indigenous forms of law, and second law that are found
in advanced capitalist societies. With the historical shift in anthropology, as it began to shed its
colonial roots, legal pluralism also grew to study non colonized societies such as the US, Britain and
France The capitalist mammoths like US,UK and France also have legally plural societies. She
examines various thinkers’ perspective in this context of legal pluralism’s definition and the
mechanism. According to Pospisil, in his pioneering work on legal levels, he claims that "every
functioning sub- group in a society has its own legal system which is necessarily different in some
respects from those of the other subgroups". By subgroups he means units such as family, lineage,
com- munity, and political confederation that are integral parts of a homogenous society,
hierarchically ranked, and essentially similar in rules and procedure. Two types of laws can be seen
one State law and the non-state laws(indigenous ). Griffith talks about legal pluralism through a
sociological perspective rather than juristic. Legal pluralism has been applied to the study of social
and legal ordering in USA, Britain, and France. Social order is the act of maintaining functional
institutions of family, religion, education etc. Merry’s arguments are derived from an examination of
several studies of colonised societies.

1
Griffiths, John (1986). "What is Legal Pluralism". Journal of Legal Pluralism 24: 1-55.
2
Dahiya,Kushagra (2020). “Legal Pluralism”
3
Merry, Sally Engle. 1988. “Legal Pluralism.” Law & Society Review 22
 Classic legal pluralism and new legal pluralism

Classic legal pluralism. This is the analysis of the intersections of indigenous and European law.
Beginning in the late 1970s, there has been an interest among socio-legal scholars in applying the
concept of legal pluralism to non-colonized societies, particularly to the advanced industrial
countries of Europe and the United States. The scope of Legal Pluralism has been widened and from
the relationship between Colonizer and colonized , it became relationship between Dominant and
sub ordinate groups.4 The new legal pluralism moves away from questions about the effect of law on
society or even the effect of society on law toward conceptualizing a more complex and interactive
relationship between official and unofficial forms of ordering. The significant contribution of classic
legal pluralism to the development of new legal pluralism is as follows:

i. Normative orders are fundamentally different in structure, and an analysis of these

differences.
ii. Customary law is historically derived, and not rooted purely in superstition or myth as
people tend to believe.
iii. Delineation of the dialectic between normative orders- uses the example of Pospisil’s
study of the Kakaupu Papuan’s response to the introduction of Dutch law, and how in
some instances, the Kapauku took Dutch law, made it their own and even adapted it to
the political struggles between their different factions, some of whom were more
attuned to the colonial order than others.

FOLK LAW, INDIGENOUS LAW, STATE LAW, LAWYER'S LAW: DEFINING THE TERMS

Classic legal pluralism created a distinction between law and custom. In this case, law was state law,
which was seen to take several forms, such as law, state law, lawyer’s law, official law, and
bourgeois legality. Snyder primarily argues that customary law was not an adaptation of indigenous
law, but a new form created by the Colonial state. Snyder shows this through his work in Senegal.
Snyder’s work provides an understanding of the power relations contained in the concept of
customary law, as it focuses on the historical moment of a society moving from precapitalist to
colonial economic form. The customary law in the Senegalese context was simultaneously produced
by the Europeans in their own image, as they took what they liked from it, usually aspects
concerning land ownership and such. Further, as is the case with translators of a language, the
ideology of the class of people most closely related with the Europeans became customary law.
Finally customary law was considered subordinate because it was of an oral tradition. Snyder argues

4
Merry, Sally Engle. 1988. “Legal Pluralism.” Law & Society Review 22
the dependency theory instead of modernization theory, that the imposition of colonial law was not
just a form of modernization, but a way for the Europeans to incorporate remote societies and their
economic systems into their own. The nomenclature of customary law raises several questions: the
term imposed law was inadequate because all law is imposed in some way. Kidder argued for
‘external law, which accounts for the multiple layers of power operating in the legal system.
Galanter called the law, indigenous, but Merry notes that contemporary work on such law notes that
all cultures were always susceptible to outside influences, and therefore not ‘indigenous ’by any
clear measure. As an example, she returns to Pospisil, who wrote about the interaction of law in
New Guinea, and found that the Dutch colonial administrators were using his ethnographic book as
the basis for the interpretation of customary law. To further the discussion on terms, a 1981
conference on peoples ‘law and state law discussed using the term folk law, but there was a concern
over whether the term was too romantic. The stark distinction between folk and state law was
questioned, instead and finally, Galanter’s suggestion of a continuum of differentiation and
organization of the generation and application of norms was seen as more appropriate.5 Moore’s
semiautonomous social field is what Merry arrives at as the most inclusive term for non-State law.
The semi-autonomous field generates rules internally (DBRANLU’s Do’s and Don’ts can be a kind of
law), and can coerce and force compliance on these rules, but it is also vulnerable to the rules of the
surrounding social matrix. This is a fluid kind of structure, and the outside field penetrates it but it
doesn’t dominate it, so there is no pure resistance or autonomy. The author stresses the
importance of looking at State law as fundamentally different from other forms because it is
coercive, and monopolizes the symbolic power of the state authority, and therefore even non-state
norms are influenced by it. The crux, here is that legal pluralism doesn’t describe a type of society,
but it is a condition found in most societies. This condition was made even more complex with the
addition of non-colonized societies under the umbrella of legal pluralism.

RELATIONS BETWEEN NORMATIVE ORDERS

How interactions between state law and society change the normative order. There are examples
where changes are observed, and no changes are observed. the creation of customary law was an
act of unequal power relations, subordinate groups were hardly passive. Sometimes, public letter
writers in Nigeria even produced legal documents in the absence of untrained lawyers, in this way
they shaped the way that land deeds and ownership changed. Thus, changes in the legal field were
not predictable. Galanter notes that even when the law is not used, it constitutes a bargaining and
regulatory force. In this way, it is connected to local politics between those who stake authority

5
Dahiya,Kushagra (2020). “Legal Pluralism”
claims based on kinship or religion vs. the knowledge of the state, education or connections with the
government. Santos introduces the concept of inter legality through the example of Cape Verde,
when he says that the modern legal state is mostly Homeric, and abstract. But, in the example of
Cape Verde, judges seem to have no system of switching between the two forms of Homeric and
biblical law. This overlapping and interaction between legal spaces, is what he calls ‘Interlegality.'

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

this literature suggests at least five ways in which viewing sociolegal phenomena as plural expands
the research framework.

i. Moving away from legal centralism. Not everything is rooted in state law.
ii. 2. Move away from the essentialist definition of law, to a historical understanding,
where both and various legal systems work dialectically on one another and reconstitute
one and the other. In this case, historical processes of change can be incremental
additions, subtractions and reinterpretations.
iii. 3. Looking at the law as a system that tends to obscure certain power relations as a
natural phenomenon. The courtroom is natural, or litigation is natural. In this
methodology, ways of determining truth and justice become an indicator of hierarchies
within the social system. The one who is seen as handing out judgement is the highest
authority.
iv. 4. There is a call to move away from studying disputes, to study ordering in non-dispute
situations. This ordering is seen in the Dutch system that looks at institutions such as
family, land tenure, inheritance etc., instead of the Anglo-American format of looking at
disputes. This way of seeing beyond conflict, allows for more complexity in the
understanding of legal pluralism.
v. 5. Looking at domination, where people can and do resist state law, where state law
does not find a way, and there is a discrepancy in the law in action vs. law in the books.
This is seen in the case of colonial law in India. Thus, state law is plural.

Limitations of the methodologies of legal pluralism are that

1. The analysis is of interactions between social fields, but it does not regard the
changes to a social field. The Tswana, in South Africa were impacted by missionaries
who ended up changing local concepts of time, work, space and personhood, despite
trying not to. The shift in consciousness could be described as legal pluralism, but it does
 not highlight how these shifts came about. Thus the loss of different ways of being and
knowing are not recorded in the current version of legal pluralism. 2. Legal pluralism
calls for an analysis of systems, but this can leave out the nuances of a particular culture,
legality, symbols and the way they are constantly in flux.

Thus, by demonstrating its complexity, the author argues that the concept of legal pluralism is in
need of refinement. This is a weak conclusion, because although she mentions that this is a large
task, it seems to work back into the cycle of creating complexity for the sake of complexity.
Historically specific cases, however, perform the very important function of pointing to the power
dynamics within systems of law, and also pluralistic interpretations of these varying and interacting
systems of law.

CULTURAL PLURALISM

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their
unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider dominant culture
provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. As a sociological term,
the definition and description of cultural pluralism has evolved over time. It has been described as
not only a fact but a societal goal. 6

CULTURAL PLURALISM BY BHIKHU PAREKH

In the article, Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity7 Bhikhu Parekh has laid out several points
regarding the boundaries of Cultural Pluralism and which part of this creates a difference between
the Dominant or Wider society and the Minority . The paper deals with the growing cultural
pluralism and issues related to it. Cultural pluralism is a pattern or a system in which people of
different faiths, religions, castes, creeds can all work and live together, retaining proudly their own
faith and identity and sharing the common bond of being, either by birth or choice. Plural culture
means the co-existence of several sub-cultures within a given society on equal terms. In such a
pluralistic culture, the validity of various sub-cultures is recognized. The people living in different

6
William, R. Hazard and Madelon, Stent(1973). "Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: Some Preliminary
Observations," Cultural Pluralism in Education: A Mandate for Change, eds. Madelon Stent. p. 13.
7
Parekh, Bhikhu (2014).” Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity”. Sage Publications
sub-cultures follow different ways of life, live differently and think according to cultural patterns
adopted by them. The article particularly focuses on a question i.e. n as to how the wider society
should respond to their desire to preserve their ways of life and what it is to be done when the latter
offend against its deeply held value.8 It insights all the matters which can be bone of contention
between the Wider Society and the Minority Community and with it, the necessary measures that
can be taken to dissipate that tension . The author begins the article by classifying groups forming a
society into several categories . First, the original inhabitants of the country which were held highly
and have a good percentage of shares of the wider society or the Dominant culture. Second, some
might have arrived from outside a long time ago and have since become an integral and in some
cases not easily distinguishable part of society. The last category might be recent arrivals or
immigrants. Since the claims of these and other kinds of groups vary in their nature and moral
weight, the author only stresses upon the issue of newly arrived immigrants in a Country where they
had to settle for the rest of their lives. He states the problems immigrants had to face in this new
atmosphere, they were considered the least deserving candidates for the equal enjoyment and
protection of rights than the other two categories ( recognized as citizens). Immigrants also had the
weakest claim on to preserving their way of life in this different cultural space, and so on. Three
reasons have been provided to bolster the above perspective. : (1) One's native country is the ideal
place to lead one's way of life. In leaving their countries of origin, immigrants have chosen to leave
their original culture and voluntarily relinquished all, or at least some, of their cultural rights; (2)
Unlike the indigenous and long established groups, immigrants, who are new, territorially scattered,
and in a state of transition, do not have a viable cultural structure that they can claim a right to
preserve; (3) If immigrants are to succeed in their new country, they must integrate into the wider
society, and should not hold on to their way of life9. The author doesn’t find any of these reasons to
be persuasive. He countered all the three reasons in a subtle way. For the first reason, this is not
always necessary that the immigrant has taken the decision freely and even if he had taken up this
decision of leaving his home country it nowhere indicates that his culture have also been jettisoned
on the way. There are a number of reasons a person might leave his or her country e.g. studies,
employment, warfare( in case of WWII soldiers taken from countries like India to Britain) can be
among some of those reasons and hence, the act of immigration does not therefore signify a
decision to leave one's culture, the host society cannot abandon its obligation to its immigrants by
conveniently misconstruing the nature of immigration. The second reason is an important one
according to the author but exaggerated enough. It is, of course, true that the immigrant cultural life
does not have the cohesion and continuity characteristic of that of the indigenous and long-

8
Parekh, Bhikhu (2014).” Cultural Pluralism and the Limits of Diversity”. Sage Publications
9
Ibid, 1
established groups to sustain their way of life. Even when immigrants are few in number and
territorially scattered, they carry their culture with them for the simple reason that culture is not like
lug- gage that one can leave behind. Even a few families can sustain their cultural traditions for
generations in an alien environment if they are determined to do so and if the host society is not too
repressive. The Last reason is flawed in itself. . Integration is a two-way process, requiring
adjustment on both sides. So just expecting it from the Immigrant to integrate with the wider society
and not obliging the Wider Society to do the same is hypocrisy.

The immigrant is what the author calls a probationary citizen, who will become the full-fledged
future citizen of this country and must be provided with the same rights as the other citizens. The
host country has to develop a mutual co-operative atmosphere for the Minority that has just arrived
from their own home town with a sense of nervousness and anxiety. s. Being a voluntary and
bilateral transaction, immigration generates obligations on both sides. So far as the immigrant is
concerned, he has several obligations, such as the duty to respect the way of life to which he has
been admitted; to familiarize himself with its language, values, culture, mode of public discourse,
and so on; to realize that, since he does not fully understand its nature and mode of working, he
should be modest in his demands; and to appreciate that as a newcomer he is likely to be resented
or found threatening and should therefore do all he can to win over the trust and goodwill of the
wider community. > For its part, the host society has several obligations to the immigrant. Since he is
new, he is likely to be resented and ill-treated, and needs protection and a generous welcome. Since
he needs time to find his way around in a new society and to make intelligent choices about his
future, including how and how much to integrate, the society should not pressure him to make
precipitate decisions or use its schools to brainwash his children and split the family. Now, the
author discusses three categories in which an immigrant’s way of life might fall and are listed as
follows:

1. Some might be just different from those of the wider society's way of life.
2. Some might offend against the society's values in different degrees.
3. Some might embody values the society ignores, or cherishes but does not realize in practice,
and are likely to evoke its admiration or at least respect.

The first and third category are not be bothered by, only the second kind raises questions as to
whether or not such practices should be permitted, and to what extent. This is the central point of
this article and we will discuss in accordance with the author’s view. He talks about the elements of
every society such as gender, religion, values, customs, practices,etc and how they differ according
to the societies. Then, he categorizes each society with two sets of values to which all its members
are collectively committed and by which they are all individually bound: one of these is embodied in
its constitution, the other in its laws. Although the two bodies of values are closely related, they are
different in nature. Those embodied in the constitution are general and regulative and largely deal
with the government's relations with its citizens, whereas those embodied in the laws are specific,
secondary, and substantive and largely deal with citizens' relations with one another. The author
calls these values as the society’s operative public values . They are operative as they lay out a
systematic plan of developing the society; public as they are embodied in its constitutional and legal
practices and define the principles of its public life to which all its members are collectively
committed because everyone subscribes to them whether they have a personal dislike for them and
values because it is cherished by all , sets a parameter for the society to live within. These values are
the basic moral structure of the societies. These OPVs are not always static, rigid, and coherent and
many more but are dynamic and changes with the societal needs. Since the operative public values
represent the society's basic moral structure (and are the whole society's values as different from
those of a section of it) they provide the only valid moral starting point from which to evaluate
minority practices. When a minority practice offends against the society's operative public values, it
merits disapproval. But the author laid down several reasons for not disallowing that practice .

i. The society should look for the ways that why and how the particular practice occupies
a place in its way of life, what the practice means to it, and why the minority adheres to
it.
ii. Rather than dogmatically use the operative public values as crude yardstick to classify
minority practices into acceptable or un- acceptable, the society has a duty to engage in
a dialogue with the minority about its disputed practice.

The Discussion has to be bi focal and not partial. It should be about the reasons why the minority
upheld the specific practice and also why the wider society doesn’t want to continue with the
minority practice in its sphere. If it is about the merits and demerits of the practice then it will lead
to a chaotic debate which will yield no results. The author sketches out the defence of the minority
and wider society regarding that controversial practice. Minority’s defence has three stages. Firstly,
the speaker will wish to maintain that the practice is binding on its members be- cause it is integral
to their way of life, or required by their religion, or sanctioned by their tradition, or some other
reason but this can be challenged by the critic that the practice has no religious basis, or that it is a
mere historical excrescence with no deep roots in the community's traditional way of life. Secondly,
the spokesperson will demonstrate the rationale or the internal rationality of the practice, showing
how it is interlocked with other practices and sustains their way of life, and why disallowing or
abolishing it would destroy or weaken the minority section. . As we shall see below, this is how such
practices as female circumcision and polygyny are defended by many Muslims. They can do this in
three ways. They might argue that the disputed practice does not offend against the society's
operative public values when these are charitably interpreted, or that the society itself is not serious
about these values and tolerates their violations by sections of its citizens, or that the values are
discriminatory, biased, or narrow, and likely to benefit from incorporating the new values rep-
resented by the disputed practice Thirdly, . By challenging either the society's dominant
interpretation of its relevant values or the values themselves, the minority puts them on the public
agenda and demands their defense. The wider society’s defence parallels with the defence of the
minority in three stages. First can be the importance of its disputed values by associating them with
the national heritage, religion and way of life of the society. Second, it seeks to demonstrate the
rationale behind that disputed value and at the third stage the defence will either defend its value
against the minority’s value or concedes that they have to be revised. Author came to a conclusion
that there can’t be a body of universal principles that should be followed while dealing with the
question before hand. Four interrelated considerations, then, need to be weighed in any discussion
of a disputed minority practice: 1 . Its importance to the minority way of life10

2. The minority's ability to offer a reasonable defense of it

3. The wider society's operative public values or, what comes to the same thing, the importance of
the relevant value to its way of life

4. The society's ability to offer a reasonable defense of its values 11

If the minority practice is not offending any of the operational public values then it should be
welcomed by the wider society. If a practice is central to the minority way of life and deeply offends
against one or more of the wider society's operative public values, we confront a difficult situation;
the two parties then need to engage in an open-minded dialogue with a view to exploring where and
why they disagree and whether one of them can convince the other. If for some reason a dialogue
were to be impossible, it might be advisable to postpone the decision in the hope that the passage
of time and the fusion of ideas brought about by formal and informal public discussions will create
enough common ground and goodwill between the two parties. The immigrants are new to the
wider society's way of life, they need to appreciate that its nature and inner workings are likely to
elude them and that in doubtful matters they should there- fore defer to its judgment. Now, he with
the help of some examples tell us how the dispute between minority and society’s . The first

10
Parekh,Bhikhu(1994). "Equality, Fairness and Limits of Diversity," Innovation 7, no. 3.
11
Parekh,Bhikhu(1994). "Equality, Fairness and Limits of Diversity," Innovation 7, no. 3.
examples are of Hindus in Britain Cremating and submerging their dead bodies which is integral to
the Hindus and neither of them offends against any of the operative public values of British society.
The only relevant public interest in the matter is that they should not put public health at risk. Quite
sensibly, the Water Act of 1989 allows both, provided that the persons concerned obtain a license.
The next example is of jews and muslims slaughtering animals. the practice does not violate any of
the operative public values of the wider society, and the popular sensibility to animal pain is not, at
least as yet, so intense and widespread that the practice causes it deep un- ease. Female
circumcision, involving clitorectomy and partially stitching up female genitals, is a fairly common
practice among Muslims in Northeast Africa and affects nearly two million women, including
thousands of immigrants to Europe. It is banned in all Western societies, If things were to change
radically, and if the operative public value were to grant rights to animals, the practice might need to
be reconsidered. The debate scenario laid out by the author has been hypothetically shown with the
example of Muslim polygyny and Female circumcision issue. The debate revolves around the
defense and its criticism by both sides and it lays a structured blueprint on how to act when the
Operational public values are getting offended by the minority’s practice. The major criticism I
founded while reading the article is that the authors does not clearly draw boundaries between
multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. He also did not consider the Immigrants forced out of their
own country due to different reasons like natural disasters e.g. people of Syria, Sudan, etc.

INTERACTION OF LEGAL PLURALISM AND CULTURAL PLURALISM

Legal pluralism found its place in different cultures and vice-versa. In a country like India, where
there are centralized and decentralized laws sanctioned by the constitution and various small
communities have their traditional or customary laws . Both are existing cohesively together in the
nation where minorities like Jews, Parsis and Muslims co-exist with the Majority of Hindus. In
America a lot of minorities are living peacefully with the wider society . It happens all over the world.
The concept of legal pluralism has proved enormously fruitful in challenging ideas about the
centrality of state law and increasing awareness of the diversity of ways that individuals interact
with the law. In exploring access to justice, it is essential to recognize the variety of forms of justice
that individuals have available to them. Culturally diverse countries also having plural legal
institutions runs efficiently in this globalized world . Globalization can also be one of the results of
the interaction between the two. Legal pluralism also occurs when different laws govern different
groups within a country. For example, in India and Tanzania, there are special Islamic courts that
address concerns in Muslim communities by following Islamic law principles. Secular courts deal with
the issues of other communities. Since modern Western legal systems can also be pluralistic,12 it is
misleading to discuss legal pluralism only in relation to non-Western legal systems. Legal pluralism
may even be found in settings that might initially appear legally homogenous. For example, there are
dual ideologies of law within courthouses in the US, as the formal ideology of law as it is written
exists alongside the informal ideology of law as it is used. 13 The discussion on the internal and
external plurality of legal systems is called law. Sources of Islamic law include
the Koran, Sunnah and Ijma, but most modern Western nation states take the basis of their legal
system from the Christian superpowers of old (Britain, France etc.). That is also why moral
laws found in the Bible have actually been made full-fledged laws, with the initial grundnorm set far
back in legal history, hence fulfilling the priority of both the positivists and the naturalists. Legal
pluralism also exists to an extent in societies where the legal systems of the indigenous
population have been given some recognition. In Australia, for example, the Mabo decision gave
recognition to native title and thus elements of traditional Aboriginal law. Elements of
traditional aboriginal criminal law have also been recognised, especially in sentencing. That has, in
effect, set up two parallel sentencing systems. Another example is the Philippines whose customary
ways of indigenous peoples in the Cordilleras are recognized by the Philippine government and
in Kalinga, Bodong is the means used by the people to settle disputes: since it had been very
effective for them, it is still widely practiced. There is some concern that traditional legal systems
and Muslim legal systems fail to promote women's rights . it is also a result of Cultural pluralism with
the legal one. The mention of examples in Bhikhu Parekh’s article shows the intimation of both the
concepts and how one aids the other for survival.

If I have to take up examples where I can sense legal pluralism existing , there are many in fact.

i. In India, there are different tribes who follow their own law and even the government
of the land doesn’t interfere with their legal mechanism for the sake of preservation of
their culture and heritage. Even the constitutional law grants them the freedom to
constitute their own law .e.g. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 encouraged tribes
to enact their own laws. Muslims follow their own personal laws . There are still
customary laws prevalent in rural areas of the subcontinent .i.e. Taking loan from
sahukars and providing them lands as surety, etc.

12
Griffiths, John (1986). "What is Legal Pluralism". Journal of Legal Pluralism 24: 1-55.
13
Merry, Sally (May 1986). "Everyday Understandings of the Law in Working-class America". American
Ethnologist. 13 (2): 253–270.
 ii. Even during colonization of eastern countries by the western ones, the colonizers used
to impose their own law on their colonies but still led the indigenous people adhere to
their customary practices. the idea was that certain issues (such as commercial
transactions) would be covered by colonial law, and other issues (family and marriage)
would be covered by traditional law.14

14
Tamanaha, Brian Z., , Sage, Caroline and l, Woolcock,Michae, eds. 2012. Legal Pluralism and
Development: Scholars and Practitioners in Dialogue. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.