culture itself, legal culture is about who we are not just what we do.’ (Nelken, 2004: 1; see also Nelken 2007a, 2007b, 2012). The problem is that if legal culture includes everything there would seem to be nothing left for it to explain. Although this challenge needs a response (see the next section) some leading authors over-react by breaking up what is meant by legal culture into a number of different topics. Sally Merry suggests that we can of distinguish four ‘dimensions’ legal culture. The first is practices and ideologies within the legal ‘the system, everyday ways of getting things done, shared assumptions about good and bad clients, and other internal rules and The second practices… is the law. Whether the legal system is seen ‘the public’s attitude toward as a source of corruption and ethnic preference, for example...‘Thirdly, is the question of legal mobilisation, which refers to she argues, ‘there how readily people define their problems in legal terms, when they turn to the law for is legal consciousness, help. ‘ Finally, ‘A fourth dimension the extent to which an individual sees him or herself as embedded in the law and entitled to its protections (Merry, 2012: 56-57). But even Merry concedes that of these categories overlaps ‘each and influences the And, for most comparative others‘ (Merry: 57). scholars, the value of the term lies exactly in pointing to the way culture itself The term legal embodies and creates these connections. culture into the at offers ‘an entry point ‘distinctive cultural ‘logics’ work, distinct ways of seeing.. into which the researcher must struggle to 2012: 324). enter’ (Field, A further problem facing those carrying out comparative research is how far they can (continue to) treat nation states as their of legal ‘units’ culture. Works with legal (Blankenburg and titles like ‘Dutch culture’, Bruensma 1991), The Japanese approach to (Johnson 1996), or law’ the existence of ‘French criminal justice’ (Hodgson 2005), presuppose
culture itself, legal culture is about who we are not just what we do.’ (Nelken, 2004: 1; see also Nelken 2007a, 2007b, 2012). The problem is that if legal culture includes everything there would seem to be nothing left for it to explain. Although this challenge needs a response (see the next section) some leading authors over-react by breaking up what is meant by legal culture into a number of different topics. Sally Merry suggests that we can distinguish four ‘dimensions’ of legal culture. The first is ‘the practices and ideologies within the legal system, everyday ways of getting things done, shared assumptions about good and bad clients, and other internal rules and practices… The second is ‘the public’s attitude toward the law. Whether the legal system is seen as a source of corruption and ethnic preference, for example...‘Thirdly, she argues, ‘there is the question of legal mobilisation, which refers to how readily people define their problems in legal terms, when they turn to the law for help. ‘ Finally, ‘A fourth dimension is legal consciousness, the extent to which an individual sees him or herself as embedded in the law and entitled to its protections (Merry, 2012: 56-57). But even Merry concedes that ‘each of these categories overlaps and influences the others‘ (Merry: 57). And, for most comparative scholars, the value of the term lies exactly in pointing to the way culture itself embodies and creates these connections. The term legal culture offers ‘an entry point into the ‘distinctive cultural ‘logics’ at work, distinct ways of seeing.. into which the researcher must struggle to enter’ (Field, 2012: 324). A further problem facing those carrying out comparative research is how far they can (continue to) treat nation states as their ‘units’ of legal culture. Works with titles like ‘Dutch legal culture’, (Blankenburg and Bruensma 1991), The Japanese approach to law’ (Johnson 1996), or ‘French criminal justice’ (Hodgson 2005), presuppose the existence of
AFC_Nelken.docx