Loading field map
How should anthropologists study law without imposing Western legal categories? This question has produced five distinct frameworks over the past century, each offering different answers about what law is, where it operates, and how it should be analyzed. From early efforts to locate law in social order maintenance to contemporary debates about legal multiplicity and the deconstruction of legal categories, legal anthropology's frameworks have both competed and built upon each other.
Structural-functionalism treated law as a mechanism for maintaining social equilibrium. Two variants emerged within the British tradition. Bronisław Malinowski, studying Trobriand Islanders, argued that law could be found in the web of reciprocal obligations—a form of civil law without courts. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, by contrast, insisted that law required organized sanctions, narrowing the definition to publicly enforced rules. Both shared an assumption that law's primary function was to uphold social order and that small-scale societies were self-regulating systems. This framework was influential but eventually criticized for ignoring conflict, change, and power asymmetries. It treated societies as closed, stable units and offered little room for individual agency or historical transformation.
Reacting against the static equilibrium model, the Law as Process framework shifted attention to how law actually operates through disputes. Researchers adopted the extended case method, following conflicts from emergence to resolution. Max Gluckman's work on Barotse judicial reasoning and Paul Bohannan's study of Tiv jurisprudence exemplified this turn. Their disagreement—over whether to translate indigenous legal concepts into Western terms (Gluckman) or present them in their own terms (Bohannan)—became a defining debate. Gluckman argued for underlying universal principles of legal reasoning; Bohannan insisted on cultural specificity. That debate foreshadowed later tensions between universalist and relativist approaches. Law as Process opened up the study of legal strategies, negotiation, and the agency of disputants, but it remained focused on micro-level interactions and largely neglected the broader political and economic structures that shape disputes.
By the 1970s, dissatisfaction with both functionalism and processualism gave rise to an interpretive approach. Drawing on Clifford Geertz's symbolic anthropology, scholars began to ask how law creates meaning rather than merely regulates behavior. Geertz's essay "Local Knowledge: Fact and Law in Comparative Perspective" argued that law is a distinct mode of cultural interpretation, analogous to religion or art. This framework studied legal rituals, symbols, narratives, and the ways law constructs social reality. It widened the focus from dispute processing to legal consciousness and ideology. However, its emphasis on meaning sometimes underplayed the coercive dimension of law and the institutional diversity that other frameworks highlighted. It coexisted uneasily with the more materialist concerns of political economy approaches.
Emerging around the same time, Legal Pluralism addressed a different limitation of earlier work: its state-centeredness. Sally Falk Moore's concept of the "semi-autonomous social field" showed that people in any society are governed by multiple normative orders—customary, religious, state, and transnational—that interact and sometimes conflict. John Griffiths argued that legal pluralism is an empirical fact, not merely a theoretical perspective. This framework expanded the unit of analysis beyond the state to include all forms of ordering. It was particularly influential in postcolonial contexts, where colonial and indigenous laws coexist. Within Legal Pluralism, a key division emerged between descriptive pluralism (observing multiple orders) and normative pluralism (valuing legal diversity as a good). Critics noted that it could reify boundaries between orders and underestimate the power of state law to shape other spheres. Nevertheless, it became the dominant framework for studying law in colonial and globalized settings.
Postmodern Legal Anthropology questioned the very categories that earlier frameworks took for granted. Drawing on feminist and postcolonial theory, scholars such as Sally Engle Merry, Annelise Riles, and Susan Coutin examined how legal categories are produced, contested, and translated. Merry's work on human rights showed how global rights discourse is reworked in local contexts—not simply imposed nor locally invented. Riles analyzed the aesthetics of legal documents to reveal hidden assumptions. Coutin studied the legal liminality of migrants. This framework deconstructs the claims of Legal Pluralism to simply map normative orders, arguing that any mapping is itself a political act. It shares with Symbolic Anthropology a focus on meaning, but adds a critical skepticism about the ethnographer's authority and the stability of legal categories. It often coexists with Legal Pluralism in practice, but their theoretical commitments diverge.
Today, Legal Pluralism and Postmodern Legal Anthropology are the most active frameworks. They agree that law is not a unified system emanating from the state, that multiple normative orders interact, and that law is deeply entangled with power. They disagree, however, on whether and how to describe those orders. Legal Pluralism aims to identify and map the diversity of legal phenomena in a given social field, treating them as relatively bounded. Postmodern approaches warn that such mapping reproduces the very categories it seeks to describe, and they call for attention to the contingent, processual nature of legal boundaries. This tension plays out in studies of transnational law, legal globalization, and the role of non-state actors. Meanwhile, Law as Process methods have been absorbed into ethnographic practice, and Symbolic Anthropology's concern with legal meaning remains influential but is often subsumed within broader cultural analysis. The challenge moving forward is to develop ways of studying law that acknowledge multiplicity without reifying it, and that attend to meaning without losing sight of coercion.