Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:53:59.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Law, Anti-essentialism and Intersectionality: Reflections from Southeast Asia in Search of an Elusive Balance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Arif A. Jamal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the paradox of diversity and similarity within legal “traditions”. More particularly, in looking especially at comparative law scholarship on Southeast Asia, it asks if there are any lessons that comparative law theory can learn about how to account for commonality and difference in large and diverse contexts from the perspectives of intersectionality and anti-essentialism that have been developed in feminist scholarship. The paper concludes that feminist scholarship does not resolve the paradox that comparative legal study makes evident but that it does make us better realise the importance of open-textured “narratives of affinity” and “contingent classification” in legal contexts.

Keywords

comparative law theorySoutheast Asiafeminism
Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 9: Special Issue: Socio-Legal Research on Southeast Asia: Themes, Directions, and Challenges , 1 January 2014 , pp. 197 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1942] AC 206.

2 Valcke, Catherine, “Comparative Law as Comparative Jurisprudence – The Comparability of Legal Systems” (2004) 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 713.

3 Örücü, Esin, “Developing Comparative Law” in Örücü, Esin & Nelken, David, eds., Comparative Law: A Handbook (London: Hart Publishing, 2007) at 43.Google Scholar

4 Esin Örücü, “A General View of ‘Legal Families’ and of ‘Mixing Systems’” in Esin Örücü & David Nelken, eds., ibid. at 178.

5 Classically in Hooker, M.B., Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws (Oxford: OUP, 1975)Google Scholar and see also his A Concise Legal History of South-East Asia (Oxford: OUP, 1978).

6 M.B. Hooker, A Concise Legal History of South-East Asia, ibid. at 13.

7 Ibid. at 9.

8 Hooker, M.B., The Laws of South-East Asia (Singapore: Butterworths, 1988) at iv.Google Scholar

9 Örücü (2007), supra note 4 at 181.

10 Ibid. at 185.

11 In the case of Örücü’s referred to at note 3 above, her main target was the categorisation coming from the “legal families” approach.

12 Cotterrell, Roger, “Seeking Similarity, Appreciating Difference: Comparative Law and Communities” in Harding, Andrew & Örücü, Esin, eds., Comparative Law in the 21st Century (London: Kluwer Law International, 2002) at 53.Google Scholar

13 [1989] U. Chi. Legal Forum 139.

14 Ibid. at 139-40.

15 Ibid.

16 Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Postscript” in Lutz, Helma, Vivar, Maria Maria Teresa Herrera, & Supik, Linda, eds., Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies (London: Ashgate, 2011) at 231.Google Scholar

17 Harris, Angela P., “Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory” (1989-1990) 42 Stan. L. Rev. 581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 585.

18 Modood, Tariq, “Antiessentialism, Multiculturalism and Religious Groups” (1998) 6(4) The Journal of Political Philosophy 378, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Harris (1989-1990), supra note 17 at 586.

20 Grillo, Trina, “Anti-Essentialism and Intersectionality: Tools to Dismantle the Master’s House” (1995) 10 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 16, 21.Google Scholar

21 See ibid. at 30.

22 See Hutchinson, Darren Lenard, “Identity Crisis: ‘Intersectionality’, ‘Multidimensionality’ and the Development of an Adequate Theory of Subordination” (2000-2001) 6 Mich. J. Race & Law 285.Google Scholar

23 Kwan, Peter, “Complicity and Complexity: Cosynthesis and Praxis” (1999) 49 DePaul L. Rev. 673 Google Scholar, 688.

24 Ibid. at 686.

25 Hooker, M.B., Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws (Oxford: OUP, 1975) at 456.Google Scholar

26 M.B. Hooker, A Concise Legal History of South-East Asia, ibid. at 1-6.

27 Ibid. at 14.

28 I draw this phrase from Werner Menski’s, Comparative Law in a Global World: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2006).

29 Of course, Southeast Asia is itself a contentious category but this is like other geographical groupings (South Asia, West Asia, the Indian Ocean etc.). See on this “Introduction” in King, Victor T., ed., The Sociology of Southeast Asia: Transformations in a Developing Region (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2008).Google Scholar

30 Immanuel Kant, Idea for a General History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784), Proposition 6.

31 Gillespie, John, “Developing a Decentred Analysis of Legal Transfers” in Nicholson, Penelope & Biddulph, Sarah, eds., Examining Practice, Interrogating Theory: Comparative Legal Studies in Asia (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008) at 42.Google Scholar The internal quotation used by Gillespie comes from Fish, Stanley, The Trouble with Principle (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999) at 280.Google Scholar I thank Sumithra G. Dhanarajan for bringing this material to my attention.

32 Ibid.

33 Mattei, Ugo, “Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in the World’s Legal System” (1997) 45 Am. J. Comp. L. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 15.

34 Modood (1998), supra note 18 at 382.