Legal pluralism has become a major theme in socio-legal studies. However, under this very broad denomination, one can identify many different trends which share little but the very basic idea that law is much more than state law. Despite their eclectic character, these many conceptions of legal pluralism also share some common fundamental premises concerning the nature of law, its function, and its relationship with its cultural milieu. This contribution aims at critically addressing these premises and at suggesting some re-specification of the question of law, its plural sources, and the many practices that enfold in relationship with it. In its spirit, this re-specification can be characterized as realistic and praxiological. This article briefly describes the main trends in the field of legal pluralism, from its historical scientific background to its more recent theories. We formulate some of the major criticisms which can be addressed to the postulates sustaining these many versions of legal pluralism. These critical stances vis-à-vis the legal pluralistic study of law articulate around three main questions, i.e. the definitional problem, the functionalist premises, and the culturalist conception which undermines existing theories. It is argued that realism is a possible remedy to these flaws, although these are best addressed through what is called a praxiological re-specification of the whole issue of legal pluralism, which is illustrated through the study of Egyptian cases. Praxiology is presented, in conclusion, as a way to fill the “missing-what” of classical socio-legal studies.