2949194

7/29/2019 2949194

1/50

Stanford University Press

Law and AnthropologyAuthor(s): Sally Falk MooreSource: Biennial Review of Anthropology, Vol. 6 (1969), pp. 252-300Published by: Stanford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949194 .

Accessed: 16/09/2013 11:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Stanford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toBiennial

Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:37:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=suphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2949194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2949194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sup

7/29/2019 2949194

2/50

6LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Sally alkMoore * UniversityfSouthern alifornia

THE CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL SYSTEMSSince his s the irstrticlen aw to ppearntheBiennialReview, tseems ittingoconsider tsome engthhemajor hemes hathavepreoccupiednthropologistsorkingnthe aw field efore resent-ing summaryfthe iteraturefthe ast woyears. he limitationsof pacemake t mpossibleowrite comprehensiveistory. atherthanpresenting catalog fnames, have undertakenmore x-pandeddiscussionfthework f a fewpeoplewhosebooks ncom-pass themajor hemesfthefield. ven nreviewinghecurrentit-erature,have hosen o omitmost f he urely escriptive orksnfavorf hose hat aise nalytic roblems.assume hat thersindtas difficults I do to make ociologicalense f ists fdisembodiedlegalrules loatingntheirwn, utoff romhe ocialbody fwhichtheywereoncea part.Hence, hough shallmentionomework fthiskind, shallpassovermost f t.Comprehensivenessasbeensacrificednthe nterestf comprehensibility.he selected ibliog-raphy t the ndof his aper ncludes ome fthe ignificantorksthat ouldnotbe discussednthebody f he rticle.Examiningifferentpproachesothe lassificationf egal ystemsmay ive ssome deaof hemagnitudef aw asa subject,ndof hewaysnwhichnthropologistsaveperceivedhe ield s a whole.Nosocietyswithoutaw;ergo,theres nosocietyutside hepurviewof he legal nthropologist."t s notmerelyifficultutvirtuallym-possible o controlhefull ange fthe vailable thnographicnfor-mation. verygood ethnographicescriptionontains greatdealof egalmaterial, hetherr not t s explicitlyalled law." Nader

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 2949194

3/50

LAW AND ANTIROPOLOGY 253etal. 1966havetried o sort he pecializedworks rom heothersnan annotatedibliography.) ot onlydoesevery ociety ave aw,butvirtuallyll significantocial nstitutionslsohavea legalaspect.Thismeans hat omasterhewhole egal ystemfonesociety,ro-cedural ndsubstantive,nemustmasterhewhole nstitutionalys-tem fthat ociety-fromitizenshipndpolitical lacetopropertyand enonomicelations,rom irth o death, nd from ispute opeacefulransaction.One's approach o classifyingegalsystemsmaythusdependonwhetherne ees he roblemntermsf hekinds f ocietynwhichlaw operates,r ntermsfthedistributionf pecificroceduresrconcepts rrules.The first,he attentiono social context,s verymuch he nthropologist'spproach,he econd erymuchmore heapproach fthe cholar-lawyerhospecializesncomparativeaw.Theres some verlap,f ourse; utwhateversspecial bout he n-thropologist'soint fview ies nhis endencyo seethe egal ystemaspart f wider ocialmilieu. nd ince nthropologistsavediffer-ing deasofwhatmakes p themainspringfthe ocialclockwork,they lsodifferntheirpproachesoclassifyingegalsystems.Because awpervadesomuch f ocial ife,hemajorwritersn thefield aveuseda varietyfapproachesothematerial,lassifyingtdifferentlyor ifferentnalyticurposes.here avebeen ssentiallythree inds f classification:1) a dichotomyounded n thebasicdifferencesnsocial rganizationetweenechnologicallyimplendtechnologicallyomplexocieties;2) anevolutionaryeries ocusingon egalconcomitantsfthedevelopmentrom ecentralizedocen-tralized olitical ystems,.g.,enforcementrocedures,ourts,ndcodes; (3) a procedural ichotomy,hich ontrastsispute ettle-ments ammeredutorbargainedutbetweenhedisputantshem-selves oftenwithupportersndallies neach ide) anddisputeet-tlements adeby third arty avinguthorityver oth isputants.Thefirstind f lassificationentionedbovemighte called heMaine-Durkheim-Gluckmanradition.hesemen ut he ake nhalf.They ivide ocietiesnto wogreatypes,nd ee thedevelopmentflaw as closely elated o thedifferencesetween hese ypes. orMaine (1861), thedivisions betweenkin-basednd territoriallybasedorganization.urkheim1933) distinguishesocieties n the


7/29/2019 2949194

4/50

254 SALLY FALK MOOREbasisof their aving ithermechanicalr organicocialcohesion-a cohesionoundedna multiplicityf denticalnits s against nebased on the ntegrationf differentiatednits.Gluckman1955,1965b-c) seesa division etweentribal"ocietiesnddifferentiatedsocieties:ribalocieties ave simpleechnologynda social ystemdominatedymultiplexelations;ifferentiatedocieties ave com-plex echnologynda social ystemnwhich ingle-interestelationsare ofpredominantmportance.luckman1965b) has argued hatdifferencesnsocialcontextetween he egal systemsftribal o-cieties ndthose f differentiatedocieties otonlyhaveproceduralconsequences,ut lsoaremarkedy ertain ifferencesnbasic egalconcepts.Anotherraditionfclassifications exemplifiedyDiamond ndHoebel, wowritersery ifferentromachother uthavingncom-mon hefact hat hey oth lassifyegalsystemsnto whole ocialseriesDiamond1935, 951, 965;Hoebel1954).To Diamond,whois an orthodoxewisHenryMorgan volutionist,he eriess eitherhistoricalrquasi-historical.e attemptso dentify hathe consid-ers obe the egalconcomitantsfeach tage, romavageryhroughbarbarismocivilization.ourts,or xample,re saidtoappear tthefirstgriculturaltage.As constricteds onemayfind heDia-mond rameworkecause f ts dherenceothe igiditiesf n earlyevolutionism,nd rritatings is itsuseof solated raits aken romall over he ibrarytheworld), heres no doubt hatmany f thekinds fquestions iamond as raisedhavenotyetbeenthoroughlyinvestigatedyother nthropologists.t is notyetpossible o specifyindetailnwhatkinds f ocial ettingscourts"refound, r he on-ditions hat roduce earing rocessesfvarious inds. he carefulcomparisonshat ave beenmadefor inshipnstitutionsaveneverbeenmadeforegal nstitutions.ForHoebel 1954),the ocial eriessbothmorphologicalnd his-torical,ndconsistsfa sequence romimple ocomplex,rom e-centralizedocentralized,rom hathe calls privateaw"to"publiclaw."Ashesees t, hegreat istoricalhanges fromystemsf elf-help operatingnthe absence fgovernmento systemsf aw en-forcementy publicofficialsn centralized olities.He emphasizesthe developmentf the organs fgovernmentnd their ole n en-


7/29/2019 2949194

5/50

LAW AND ANTHttOPOLOGY 255forcement.oebel'sseries s orderlynd consistentnsofars thiscriterions used;but t sfar essclearwhenhealsotries o take ntoaccounthe ystemf ulturalaluesn eachsocietyedescribes. noccasionGluckman1965c) has also looked n thefield s a series,largelyn termsf echniquesormaintainingrdernsocietiesang-ingfrom he tatelesshroughhiefdomsndkingdoms.For an at-tempt o sort utsocietiesnd legalsystemsn the basisofcom-plexity,ee SchwartzndMiller 964.)The third indofclassificationgaindivides he field f nquiryinto wotypes, utnarrowshesubject o "disputeettlementys-tems,"atherhanookingt thewholefield f aw.Gulliver1963)callshis wopolar ypespolitical"nd judicial."n thepoliticalypeofdisputeettlementystem,heres no udge;disputesre ettledya mutualestingf he woparties'ocial trength,ndthe utcomesnotdeterminedynormso any significantegree.n the udicialtype,heres a judge,whohas the uthorityndobligationohanddown decisionettlinghe aseonthebasisofgiven orms. ulliverpostulatesseries fgradationsetweenhe wopolar ypes. ohan-nan 1957,1965, 967)hasmadean analogous utsomewhat iderdivision,hichpplies s much o disputesetween roupss itdoesto those etweenndividuals.e divides ower ystemsnto nicen-tric ndmulticentricypes.n unicentricower ystems,heres acentralocusof egalauthority,hich ettles isputeshroughheexercise f that uthority.icentric rmulticentricower ystems,whichnclude he awof tatelessocietiesnd nternationalaw,arecharacterizedy he bsence f ny uperordinateuthority.ll hesetypologiesarrowhefocus o certain ifferencesn thesettlementprocess,atherhan reatinghewider ield onsideredy he lassifi-cationsmentionedarlier. n thisdispute ettlementide ofproce-dure as opposed othe nforcementide),Gluckman1956)hasfol-lowedLlewellynndHoebel 1941) inplacing he hampion-at-law,the ntermediary,henegotiator,hemediator,he onciliator,ndthearbitratorna scaleof ncreasinguthoritativeness-aeries ulhni-natingntheudicial rocesstself.

Obviously,ll ofthese arious lassificationsre copingwith se-ries, ither ysettingp a graduatedrogressionrom nepole toanotherrbycharacterizinghetwopolesthemselves.t willalso


7/29/2019 2949194

6/50

256 SALLY FAL1 MOOREreadily e seen hat he ore fmost fthese ystemsfclassificationis egalprocedure,erhaps ecause he elationshipetween oliticalstructurend procedureomes hroughlearly. he general lassifi-cation f ubstantiveules nd conceptss a muchmore omplex ask,and s much essfrequentlyackled y nthropologists,hough luck-man (1965b) attemptedomethingfthesortwhenhe sought oidentifyome fthe egalconcepts eculiar o tribalociety rom isBarotsematerial.Theunderlyingremisef llof his lassifications that heres anintimateelation etweenawandsociety,hat awis part f sociallife ngeneralnd must e treated nalyticallys such.Though hecruder ontrasts etween he legal arrangementsn "simple" nd"complex"ocieties ave beenknown or t leasta century, uchremainsobe worked ut abouttherange f variationsnd combi-nations. ut that sbyno means heonly ask head.Definitionsf heLaw

Besides xamininghe lassificationf ypes f egal ystem, ecanget ome deaof cademic reoccupationsn thefield f aw and an-thropologyy ookingt thevariousways nwhich he ield asbeendefinedt various imes, onsideringotonlyformal efinitionsflaw, but thekindofwork eoplehaveactually one.This exerciseisnot ntended o arrivet somebetter efinition,or oproducecritique f past ones,butrather o ookthroughhesedefinitionstthehistoricalevelopmentf the ubject,norder oseehow t ar-rived t tspresenttate.

Though ome detaileddescriptive orks xisted n the law ofexotic eoples e.g.,Barton 919 n the fugao nd Gutmann 926 ntheChagga), it was notuntilMalinowski'srime nd Custom nSavageSociety1926) that nythingrittenn aw byananthropol-ogist chieved wideaudience ndraised erious heoreticalues-tions.With fewbold strokes alinowskiold heworld is dea ofwhat awwas,why eopleobeyedtwhen hey id, ndwhy,ome-times,hey idnot.Malinowski as ndignantbout heoriesfprim-itive aw likeHartland's1924),which sserted hatprimitive anautomaticallybeyed he customs fhistribebecausehe was ab-solutely oundbytradition. alinowski as little oncerned ith


7/29/2019 2949194

7/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 257prohibitionsnd sanctions,ut nsteadwas strucky thepositiven-ducementsoconformityobe found n reciprocal bligations,om-plementaryights,nd goodreputation. e perceivedhe ocial ndeconomic take fthemanwho wished o remainngood standingamonghis fellows s the dynamicorce ehind heperformancefobligations.ut fthe aw s somuch he tufffordinaryocial ifethat t s embodiednall binding bligations,hen othing uta fullaccount f socialrelationsna societywilladequatelyexplain" hecontentndworkingsf ts aw. n a way, his s quitetrue, ndiscontinuouslyeing ediscovered.Malinowski as dealingwith he aspect f social control hat e-sides n the mutalityndreciprocityfsocial obligations. here smore osocialcontrol han hat, utMalinowski fferedlear,newinformation,resentedna simple rose nd lluminated ith xoticTrobriandnecdotes. e burst ntheworld t a timewhendullishdebatesweregoing n overwhetherherewassuch things lawatall inprimitiveocieties. owie (1927) expendedomeprint n thattiresomeuestion,ndothers ave since.The gist fLowie'sstate-mentwasa pleadingrgumenthat herewere ndeed uch hingssfamilyaw,propertyaw, aw of ssociations,nd aw ofthe tatenpreindustrialocieties.There re everal aradoxesnthe hort-termffectfMalinowski'swork. rime ndCustomxcitednormousnterestutside hefieldofanthropology-particularlymong cademically indedawyers,whose utlookwasbroadenedonsiderably.t was almost ertainlyowing oMalinowski'snfluencehat irtuallyll subsequent orksof urisprudenceame to include ome ntroductoryections rre-marks nprimitiveaw.This ttentiono awas a phenomenonxist-ing outside he traditionalphereof European-styleegislatures,codes, ourts,ndpolicewassomethingew nd mportant.utevenso,many ecent orks n urisprudencePaton1951),which ncludesuchdiscussions,reat he aw oftechnologicallyimple ocietiessthehistoricalrtypological recurserf modern aw-as an earlystage ubsequentlyeplaced ythat upposed pogeeofexcellence,theWestern uropean radition,rperhaps tillbetter,heAnglo-Americanradition.he lawofpreindustrialocietysnotexaminedto ee whethertoperatesn ociologicalrincipleshat pply qually


7/29/2019 2949194

8/50

258 SALLY FALK MOOREwell osome spects f ocial ontroln ndustrialociety. n the on-trary,t is treateds a phenomenonhathasbeen superseded,en-deredobsolete y ater mprovements.n DennisLloyd's ntroduc-tion oJurisprudence1965) thework fMaine,Malinowski,oebel,andGluckmanppears n a section n"Custom ndthe HistoricalSchool,"whichdeals argelywith herelation etween ustomndlaw.Lloyd's reatments farmore ophisticatedhan aton's 1951),but t s still ar romxtractingnygeneral ociologicalignificancefromhe tudyf ocieties uitedifferentrom ur wn.Malinowski's ork,hen, ersuaded eople outside heanthropo-logical ield hat herewas such thing s law n nonindustrialocie-ties,ndpreparedhewayforhe eceptionf hework fHoebel ndGluckman.utthisknowledge as received nly obe placed n avery arrow iche eservedssentiallyor xotica ndhistoricalack-ground, atherhanbeingunderstoods somethinghatmight avetheoreticalelevance o thepresent,ither ecauseof similaritiesrbecause f ontrastsnsystems.na way,Malinowski'sdeassufferedthe ommon ate fmany ulturalnnovations. hen xportedromanthropologynd introducednto nother iscipline,urisprudence,anthropologicaldeas were nterpretednwaysthatwoulddisruptpreexistingurisprudentialchemes s little s possible; heywereselectivelyncorporated,utnotusedvery reatively.Withinnthropology,heconceptionf aw thatMalinowskiro-poundedwasso broad hat twas virtuallyndistinguishableromstudy ftheobligatoryspect fall socialrelationships.t couldal-most e saidthat y tsvery readthndblurrinessf onception a-linowski'siewmade tdifficultoseparate utordefines lawanyspecial rovincef tudy. aw wasnotdistinguishedromocial on-trol n general. chapera 1957) has reviewed ll of Malinowski's"theoriesf aw,"bywhichhemeansMalinowski'sefinitions,ndconcludeshat nthropologistsngeneral averejectedMalinowski'swayofdefininghefield. chapera 1957: 153-54) ists omeofthemost amous efinitionsfothernthropologistss follows:Some f thoseworkingn societies ith onstitutedudicialnstitutionsrestricthe ermithero"any ule fconductikelyobe enforcedythe ourts"Schapera938:38]or o"thewhole eservoirfrules.. onwhichheudges raw orheirecisions"Gluckman955:164].Wider


7/29/2019 2949194

9/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 259definitionsave been suggested y others, o includesocieties ackingcourts r similar pecialized genciesof enforcement.adcliffe-Brown[1952: 208,212] .. . adopting ound'sdefinition"socialcontrolhroughthesystematicpplicationf theforce f politicallyrganizedociety"),speaks f sanctionss legal"when hey reimposed y a constitutedu-thority,olitical,militaryrecclesiastic,"nd addsthat The obligationsimposed nindividualsn societieswhere here reno legalsanctions illbe regardeds mattersf customrconvention,utnotof aw.". . . Hoe-bel [1954: 28], again, aysthat A socialnorm s legalif its neglect rinfractions regularly et,n threatr nfact, y theapplicationfphysi-cal force yan ndividualrgroup ossessinghe ocially ecognizedrivi-legeof so acting."Although ifferingndetail, hedefinitionsust quotedall agree, n con-trastwithMalinowski,hat heessentialharacteristicf"law" s sociallyapproved seofforce.... The implications thatMalinowski'sefinition,inCrime ndCustom,snotonthewhole cceptable ohis colleagues.For all the egal, anthropological,nd academicattention hatCrimeand Custom received t stakedout a widerfieldof inquiry hanan-thropologistswere ready to consideras an undividedwhole, andpointedto sociologicalproblems hatstudents f urisprudencewerenotprepared oconsider utsidethe exoticTrobriand etting.Morerecentformal efinitionsf aw are as much atvariancewiththe egal conceptions fMalinowski s are those ofSchapera,Gluck-man, Hoebel, and Radcliffe-Brown.ohannan (1965) sees law as"doubly institutionalized,"s that"body of bindingobligations...whichhas been reinstitutionalized ithin he legal institution."helegal institutions thatbody that settles disputesand counteractsflagrantbuses ofsocialrules.ForBohannan, hen, hedifferencee-tween egal and other ules s that egal rules are givendouble legiti-macy: theyexistas rules n social institutions,ut become law onlywhenthey re enforced y legal institutions.ospisil (1958) defineslaw as "rulesor modes ofconductmade obligatory y some sanctionwhich s imposedand enforced or heir iolation ya controllingu-thority." ohannan,then, emphasizes egal institutions,ospisil thepotential anctions manating rom controllinguthority. ot onlydo both authorsobviouslytake into account the elementof force,whichMalinowskipassed over ightly, ut likesomeof theirprede-cessors, hey lsostress n institutionalontextn whichdispute ettle-


7/29/2019 2949194

10/50

260 SALLY FALK MOOREment nd aw enforcementakeplace. Thecurious esult f Bohan-nan's definitions to focuson the institutionsf enforcementndrepair,ndto divorcehese rom he ules, orms,ndprincipleshatarea partofordinaryocial ife.Pospisil's efinitionoes nothavethis ffect,ut ts tressn authorityaises roblemsnthe nalysisflegalrelationshipsetween ocial nitswhere heres no superveningauthority.Pospisil 1967) has gone urthern describinghe nternalffairsfgroups,nd has spoken f multiplicityf egal ystemso whichn-dividuals re subject, achsystemeingpartof the apparatus f aparticularroup.M.G. Smith1966) makes n analogousrgumentwhen eassertshat orporationsrethe rameworkf aw. Some n-thropologistsaveurged heuse ofH. L. A.Hart's efinition1961),which ombinesrule pproachoobligation ith rule pproachoinstitutionsKuper nd Kuper 965).Hart onceives f aw as a com-bination fprimaryules fobligation ith econdaryules frecog-nition,hange, ndadjudication.Definitionsf aw, hen, avemoved romhebroad nd somewhatvagueMalinowskianefinitionshat peakof themutual ightsndobligationsf ndividuals,ndof he anctionsnd ncentivesesidinginordinaryocial elationships,orelativelyecent pecialized efini-tions hat mphasize otonly orce, utalso the nstitutionalndor-ganizationalontextsf egalobligation.his sanimportanthangebecause t alsoreflectshedirectionnwhich gooddealofresearchwork asgone.Anevenmore ecent efinitions that fMichaelBar-kun, political cientist,hosewritings stronglynfluencedyan-thropologicalork. e says,Law s that ystemfmanipulableym-bolsthat unctionss a representation,s a model f ocial tructure"(Barkun 968:98). To the xtenthatBarkunestrictsawtoa sym-bolicsystem,find isdefinitionoo imited; utas an addition opreviousefinitionsthasmerit.tsprincipaleficiencysthatt doesnot, y tself, ive placeto the rganizationalndaction ontextsnwhichhe ymbolsreused. tdoesnot ace heproblemf pecifyingthe pecial spects f ocial tructureithwhich he awdeals.How-ever, lthoughheformal efinitionsf aw nanthropologyavenotcaught pwith ractice,ecentwritingsnanthropologyaveoftenbeenpreoccupied ith he deas n aw and theway they reused


7/29/2019 2949194

11/50

LAW AND ANTBROPOLOGY 261(Bohannan 957,Gluckman965b,Moore 958). Barkun's efinitionthus mbodiesnanextremeormneaspect fcurrent ork.TheConcept fLaw ImplicitnEmpirical tudies

This brings s to theemphasesn theactualwork hathas beendone, s opposed o those ntheformal efinitionsofar onstructed.In Crime ndCustom,Malinowski1926) used hisTrobriand atanot omuch odescribeegal rules hemselves,uttoillustrateheprocess ywhich eoplewere onstrainedo adhere o rules nd cus-toms;he wasnot concerned ith eportingherulesfor heir wnsake.More han decade ater, ycontrast,neofthe andmarksnthe aw-anthropologyieldwas a carefulnd thorougheport n egalrules,chapera's andbookfTswana aw and Custom1938). Thisbook s significantnseveral cores.Notonlydid tset an unprece-dented tandard or hedetailed eportingfrules, ut t didso with-outthe lightestod nthedirectionftheoreticaluestions,implyproceedingna businesslike annerodescribe s succinctlys possi-blesuch ules f awaswere nforcedytheTswana, swell as thesocialorganization,onstitution,ndcourtystemhatmplementedthese ules. hebook's ormat asguided y tspurpose.twas notwrittenrimarilyor nthropologists,ut was undertakent there-questoftheAdministrationftheBechuanaland rotectorate,toplaceonrecord,or he nformationndguidance fGovernmentf-ficials ndof heTswana hemselves,he raditionalndmodernawsandrelated ustoms ftheTswana ribes"p. XXV).Therehavebeenmany ooks ikeSchapera's ince, articularlynthefield fAfricanaw,butfewmatcht nquality. orourpresentpurposesthas tvofoldmportance.irst,trepresents,t tsbest, nelawyer-likeenre fdescription,settingutof"customary"ules.Second, ecause twasconceivedndexecutedor pplied ndprac-ticalpurposes,t s a type frecordhatsstill erymuch ndemand,andone that ontinuesobemade nareaswhere he ndigenousawhasnotheretoforeeen recordednwriting.ne couldargue,withsomeprofessionalanity,hat ecauseSchapera'sworkwasdonebyan anthropologisthohad completed field tudy f thepeopleswhose awhe wasrecording,t ssuperioromany therttemptsodothe ame hing ynonanthropologists.


7/29/2019 2949194

12/50

262 SALLY FALK MOOREIn 1943,Schaperapublished monographn tribal egislationamong heTswana, ndthis emainsheonly argework n legisla-

tionn nAfricanribe. hesubjectf hismonograph,ike hat f heHandbook,s ofconsiderableracticalnterest.nnovationymeansof egislationsa major ocus f he ffortsfgovernmentsll over heworld oday, utnotnearlynoughs known bout egislationromsociologicaloint fview.There resigns ntheperiodicaliteraturethat nthropologistsrebeginningo be more nterestedn the ub-jectthantheyhavebeen in thepast (Caplan 1967,Colson1966,Freedman968). t s significantn this egardhat chapera'smono-graphs about o berepublished.It was not until hepublicationf Llewellynnd Hoebel'sTheCheyenneWay (1941) that nthropologyroduced bookfocusedon egalcases.Theauthorsreatedndividualasesas emergingromproblemshat equiredolution,hebasicgeneralask eing omain-tain rder. hey eportowviolationsf he uleswerehandled,ndhowparticularisputeswere orted ut.The casematerialnd thedescriptionf thesettingn which asesarosewereelicitedargelyfromlderlynformantseminiscingbout hepast.Thebook tronglyaffectedhedevelopmentf egal nthropologyy tsuseof ases ndby ts pplicationf he ase-lawawyer's oint fview oexoticma-terial. he book's reoccupationith asescontinuess anotherma-jortrendnthefield,s does tsconcern ith echniquesfkeepingorder.WhatdelightedlewellynntheCheyenneccounts,incehehimself asaneminentrofessorf aw,was thepracticefthe aw-yer's rt, he raftkills f heprofession.e greatlydmiredhe n-genuity ithwhich oodrules ouldbe worked ut oftroublesomeand difficultituations-ruleshatwouldendure nd be useful notherases.He wasa specialistnthe aw of ales nd contracts,ndhencewas, nhisown milieu, erymuch wareof therelationshipbetweenommercialracticesndcourt ecisions.orLlewellyn,he"troublease" was an opportunityordisplayingorensickills, ormakingseful awoutofwhat eemed he eastpromising aterials.Llewellynnd Hoebelfound his ery kill n theCheyenne'seso-lutions fdispute,nd in theirwaysofdealingwith ulebreaking.Theywere lso struckythepolicing,rder-keepingechniqueshatwere eportedohavebeen oeffectiven the ribewhen tassembledas a whole achsummer.


7/29/2019 2949194

13/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 263Hoebel's nterestnthe egitimatepplicationf forcewas evenmore videntn 1954,whenhe broughtut n ntroductoryext ook,

The Law ofPrimitive an. n thisbook,mentionedarlier, oebelsketchedhe ociety,ulture,nd aw of handfulfpeoples angingin organizationalomplexityrom heEskimo o theAshanti. achdescriptionspartlyulturalndpartlyrganizational,utnot yste-maticallyither. here s an occasional,utnotregular,mentionfcases.Eachdescriptions accompaniedya list fwhatHoebelcon-siders o be thebasic uralpostulatesn which he egal systemfeach people s founded. hesepostulatesrea rather nsystematicassortment.oebeldoesnot ndicate he criteria e used todecidewhat houldbe included; ordoeshe specificallyitehis sources,though e ndicateshat e drewhispostulatesrom n examinationofcases.Thebook lso ncludeseveral eneral ssays n thenatureand developmentf aw, nwhichHoebelasserts, s was indicatedearlier,hat hemost ignificanthangesthe hift rom hathecon-siders rivateaw enforcementykinsmenndassociates) o publiclaw (enforcementy government),romersonal etaliationndre-coupmento mpersonalustice. espitehis nterestn enforcement,Hoebel's reatmentf aw sverytronglyultural,ndheemphasizesthat econceivesf awas dealingwith he nforceableideof pat-tern fvalues.Verymuch n theRuthBenedict ein,Hoebelassumesthat achculturexemplifiesfew utofthe otal ange fpossiblevaluesand styles. is treatmentf aw alternatelymphasizeshevaluesexemplifiedyenforceableules ndthenature f theagen-ciesof nforcement;edoesnot ntegraterreconcilehe wo.

In1955 new pproachmade ts ppearance henGluckmanub-lished heJudicialrocess mongheBarotse,detailedxaminationof heway nwhichheBarotse uta andled ases.Thiswasthefirstpublished ook to describe heproceedingsefore tribunaln atechnologicallyimple ociety rom hepoint f view of an anthro-pologistwhohad actuallyeenthem. hese werenotcasesrecalledby nformants,ike hosen TheCheyenneWay LlewellynndHoe-bel1941),but asesobservedstheywere rgued ver,hrashedut,andruled n.Thebookwasa studyf he echniquesf he udgesndealingwith hedisputesutbeforehem,fthekinds fobjectivesthey xpressed,ndoftheexplicit rincipleshey ought o apply.Caseafterase s reporteds itcameup ncourt,omenconsiderable


7/29/2019 2949194

14/50

264 SALLY FALK MOOREdetail.Gluckman asusedhis field nowledge f Barotse ociety oillumineases, ather han heotherwayround.He describes he u-dicialuse ofgeneral rinciplesnd rules s formingkind fhierar-chy-themost mportantrincipleseing hemost eneral ndvague,andthe eastmportantules hemost pecific.heJudicial rocesss,more han nythinglse,Gluckman'snalysisnd interpretationfBarotseudicial xplanation.Accordingo Gluckman,heBarotseudges pply he tandard fthe ReasonableMan" nassessinghebehavior fparties o cases.Gluckman'sritics avefixed n theReasonableManas ifhe weresome ort fPiltdown oaxmadeup ofunsuitablyoinedparts,ndusually mplyhat e sa constructf he bserver. luckman1965a)hasreplied y howinghat heReasonableMan sanexplicitonceptin BarotseurisprudenceEpstein 954hasconfirmedheReasonableMan's xplicitxistencelsewhere),ndexplainshe tandardftheReasonableManlargelynterms froleexpectations.e acknowl-edges,however,hat he deahas other acets swell.As see it, heReasonableMan is bestexplained otas the critics akehim-as apersonificationf ome eal, veragemember f he ociety-buts aconceptnunciatedyBarotseudges oencompassndcopewithwholevarietyf awkwardudicialproblemsndstandards. e is adevice, technicalool fthe udiciary,ather han nactual,nvari-ably learmodel fproperole ehavior.oubtless luckmansrightinassertinghat tandard ole xpectationsere mong heresourcesBarotseudges ould nvoke oexplain ecisions,nd that hey id sointhename f heReasonableMan.But hese ole xpectationsouldhardly avebeenspecificor ll situations.he idea that here s astandard f reasonable ehavior ills hegap.It handles wkwardlyuncertaintandardsy treatinghem s nominallyefinitend bylumping hemconceptually ith ordinaryole expectations.oomuch rint asalready eenexpendedn this ubject,ut t s worthnoting, ot nly ecause f tshistoricalignificance,utbecause hevery onfusionnthesurroundingrgumentonceals n importantissue hat s only eginningo urface,he uestionf he elationshipamong udges' tatements,heactualbases of udicialdecision,ndnormsndpracticesnordinaryocial ife. hequestionsvery om-plex, ndthedistinctionsetweenhese evelsmust e clearlymade


7/29/2019 2949194

15/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 265(and haveusually otbeen, s argumentbout heReasonableManshows) norder hat nalysismaygo forward.

Whatonefinds n TheJudicial rocess s an analysis f explicitBarotseudicial easoning-whathe udges aid and did, he easonsthey aveforwhat hey id,and thecases that licited hesedeci-sions.No wholly omparable tudyhas been done since, lthoughTheJudicial rocess tself asrecentlyeenreprinted ith he ddi-tion f ome etrospectiveommentsyGluckman.In 1957,with hepublicationfPaul Bohannan'susticend Judg-mentmong heTiv, nthropologycquired tsfirstasebook f dis-pute ettlementn an acephalous ociety. iv politicaltructure assimply lineage ystem, hich ontrastedramaticallyith he truc-ture fthe entralizedarotse ingdom,ndthewhole egalprocesswas verydifferent.oreover,ohannan resents isethnographicdata in a form erydifferentromGluckman's.ohannan istin-guishes heTiv viewof heirwn aw, the olk ystem,"rom he n-thropologist'snalysis f t,which ecalls the nalyticystem."o-hannan'sechnique funfoldinghe olkoncepts fTiv aw stotakeTivterms ndexplain hem t the ametime hathe gets n withdescriptionf court ases.He argues 1957: 20) that heTiv haverules f onduct,utthat hese ules renot houghtfbytheTivasa "body frules,"s a corpusuris. hushesays heTiv have"laws"butnot law."Bohannan hus rgues hat he dea of body frules,thecorpus urisGluckmanmentionsn connection ith he Barotsedoesnot xistnthefolk onceptsftheTiv.TheTiv,accordingohim, o not hinkither f awsorofcustomss organizedna body,(though hey ave word or bindingules f onduct"), utratherconceivehemmerelynebyone, s applied nthe pecificocial it-uationsnwhich hey ome p.Bohannan'sontrastf folk"ystems ith analytic"ystemssbyimplication critiquefGluckman'sork; ndsincewritingheTivbook, ehasput t ncreasinglylearlynthat orm. e evidentlyeelsthatwhatGluckmanresentednTheJudicialrocesswas toomuchcolored yGluckman'snalysisf heBarotseystem;hatt was nottheBarotse iewof heirwn ystem,ratany ate hat he wowerenot ufficientlyistinguished.ohannanrgueshat oexplainheTivsystemyusing he ermsi.e., ocabulary)fourown ystemf aw


7/29/2019 2949194

16/50

266 SALLY FALK MOOREdoesviolenceoTiv deas ndfolk ystems.n other ords,ny naly-sis nterms ther han hose fthepeople tudiedmposesn alienform n thematerial.There re a number fpuzzlinghingsbout he mphaticallyer-minologicalpproachhat ohannandvocates. fundamentalues-tion swhetherertain ords, er se, may ndeedbe taken o repre-sent he asic ategoriesf people's hought.s the emanticontentof terms hebest ndicationf mental lassification?retherenotmanymental ays f lassifyingdeas, nly ome fwhich rerepre-sentednthemeaningsfparticularinglewords? everalwordsmaybe associated,or xample. urther,nemaybedisposed o askhowthe nthropologisthooseswhichwords o expand n andwhich odisregard.here re also numerousuestionsbout themanipula-bility f classificationsn actual ituations,nd about thefact hatgeneralegaltermsmay encompass variety fsituationshat revery enuouslyelated. ny nthropologytudent howould iketotry isband t egalanalysis hroughhedoor fterminologyhouldbe assigned,s anintroductoryroblem,hefact hat noursocietybothmarriagend thepurchase ftwo dillpicklesmaybe charac-terizeds"contracts."Anotheruzzlinghingbout he erminologicalpproachshow,withint, ne s tocopewith hose spects f tructurend ordern-herentnan ndigenousystemorwhich heremaybe noterms.orexample,hegrammarfa languagessurelysmuch part f thelanguagendconceptuallassificationsitswords. ut mong eoplewhohavenot nalyzedhegrammarf heir wn anguage,hererecommonlyo terms ormanygrammaticalategories.Most (all?)peoplesdistinguishetween erious nd trivial reaches f legalrules, utnot ll formalizehese ntonamed ategoriesike felony"and"misdemeanor."hen he nthropologisterceivesuch uncon-scious" runexplicitrdernbehaviorndreportst, s thispartofthe analytical ystemrinherentn thefolk ystem?s it imposedfromhe utside rmerely erceivedrom he utside?WhenGluck-mantells s thatBarotseudges egularly anipulateegalconceptsinanorderedmanner,s that rder art f heBarotse olkystem,heGluckmannalyticystem,rboth?t sinterestinghatwhen,nhisconclusion,ohannan ltimatelyresentshe"analyticystems"e


7/29/2019 2949194

17/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 267has worked utof heTiv materials,one f hese reanalyses ftheTiv substantive-terminological-legaloncepts ithwhich o much fthebook s concerned.nstead, ohannan'snalyticystem eals ex-clusively ith iv proceduralnstitutions.The questionfwhetherhe tudy f ndigenouserminologys theoptimumoute o theunderstandingf lien ystemsf aw s distinctfrom hequestionfwhethert s desirable o try s far s one can todistinguishetween rawdata" andanalysisn one'swritings.t ispossible o have doubts boutthefirst,s I do, without aving heslightestoubt bout he econd,boutwhich havenone.nBohan-nan's ook, he wo uestions avebecome nebecause fhisparticu-larmethod fexposition.is bookalsoblends hese woquestionswith thirdssue:are deasandconceptsundamentalarts f egalsystems?ere gain, agreewholeheartedlyhat heyre.In 1965Gluckmanublished he deas n Barotse urisprudence,record f he torrsectureshatGluckman eliveredt theYale LawSchool.Althoughhis ook akes pthe hemef egal deas, t doptsa point fdepartureuitedifferentrom ohannan's,erhapsnpartbecause he ectures ere ddressedo naudience f awyers. luck-manoutlinesuch pecificndconventionalegal topics s treason,successionnd nheritance,ightsn and,marriagendaffiliation,n-jury ndresponsibility,ebt ndother uite oncreteommonocialcircumstances,ndthenproceeds ountie herelevant ackageofrelated arotseoncepts. haracteristically,eusesthedichotomousmodel ftribal s againstmoredifferentiatedocieties,ndseeks oformulateeneralizationsbouthowthe deas in Barotseurispru-dence rerelated othe act hat heBarotse re tribalociety,per-atingwithin he imitationsfa relativelyimple echnology.findthedichotomous odel esssatisfactoryhan hemore omplexmor-phologicaleries hatGluckmanlsouses onoccasion. ut thecon-tributionf hebook ies nthe act hatGluckmaneeks orelate herecurrentdeas in Barotse ubstantiveaw to thecircumstancesfBarotseife. t is a boldattemptorelate aw tosocietyna broadcanvas, scholarlypeculationna grand cale. He plucks arallelexamplesromther ocieties ere nd there. is objectives to for-mulategeneralizationsrom heBarotsematerialhatwill hold inother lacesand other imes, iven imilar undamentalocial cir-


7/29/2019 2949194

18/50

268 SALLY FALK MOOREcumstances.heextendedestingf hehypothesesuggestednTheIdeas inBarotse urisprudence,hedetailed omparisonf the egalnorms,deas, nd socialprocesses fmany ther ocieties,emainsobe done. wouldguess hatwhen hese omparisonsre made, hedichotomousodelwillgiveway oa muchmore omplex ypology.Butthe timulusalueof uch broad ormulationfproblemss in-estimable.t sa vigorousttemptorelate ubstantiveules nd deasto thekinds f ocialrelationshipshat xist n a particularort f o-ciety.Many eoplehaveworkednoneoranotherspect ftherela-tionshipetweenegalproceduresnd their ociopoliticalettings,butfewhaveattemptednythingfthekindwith ubstantiveaw.Gluckman'ss a pioneeringffort.Anothermportanthemen law and anthropologyas beentheprocess fdispute ettlementtself.nSocialControlnan Africano-ciety 1963) P. H. Gulliver escribeshe ndigenous ays fsettlingdisputesmong heArusha, Masai tribe iving nMountMeru nTanzania.TheArushawereoriginallyn acephalous eople organ-ized npatrilineages,ge-grades,nd ocalities. heirndigenousegalsystem idnothave udges, hough hegovernmentas ntroducedsystemf ourts. ulliver'study ealsprincipallyith he ettlementofdisputesutside he ourts.hepartiesustomarilyrgue ut heircasesatpublicmeetings,achparty ppearing ith flock fsup-portersnd locally minentpokesmen,hoparticipatectivelynthe ettlementf ases.Partisanshipnone ideor he ther enerallydepends npreviousocial ies ather han n themeritsfthe ase,and theoutcome fa dispute as much odowith hequality ndquantityf upport man anmuster. ulliverxplainsndetail heorganizationalasis of Arushaocietyn which hecompositionfthesedispute alaversdepended,nd also describes substantialnumberf he aseshe heard.He assertshat ormsreofnegligibleimportancenthe ettlementfArusha isputes,nd that owherenArusha roceedingsidhefindny ign f he reasonableman."Hedoes ndicate hatnormsrecontinuouslyited n argumentnthesettlementrocess, uthe concludeshat he relativestrength"ftheparties,atherhan henorms,eterminesheoutcome.Gulliver'sonclusionontrastsheArusha ispute ettlementro-cesswith hat ftheBarotse. heArusha adno udges, ndsettled


7/29/2019 2949194

19/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 269disputesnthebasisof he elativeocial trengthf he woparties,demonstratedhroughocial action t themoots ndassemblies.ncontrast,heBarotse adjudges,whowere upposed o decidedis-putes nthebasisofnorms. rom hese woprocesses fdispute et-tlement,ulliveronstructstypologicalontinuum,ith heArushatype"political") ear neend, heBarotseype "judicial")near heother,nd most ther eoples omewherenbetween. omeofGulli-ver's heoreticalonclusionsbout heArusha ependheavilyn hisinferencesbouttheplace of normsn thosedecision-makingroc-esses hat akeplace nbargainingituations. yownfeelings thathismodel assimplifiedheplaceandnaturefnorms. ven hemost"impartial"udicial ction anbe understoods a process f electionamong orms o rationalize decisionmade at leastpartlynotherbases,rather han s a simple application"fnorms. Medecision-making rocesss a complex ne,and inbargaining rocessest isdoubly omplex. orms resometimeshoughtfas a simple ched-uleofquite pecificules,withoutnternalonflictsralternativep-plicationsndGullivereems o treat hemo; however,hey oseallsuch ppearancend areseentofunctionuitedifferentlyhen neobserveshemnvoked s countersn egalargument,r as explana-tions atherhan eterminantsf udicial ecision. hesereservationsnotwithstanding,tmust e saidthat ot nly asGulliver onsidera-bly nlargedherange fethnographicnowledgef egalprocesseswith isArusha ook, uthe hasalso, s canreadily e seen, aisedfundamentaluestionsbout he nalysisfdisputeettlements.Thesewriters-Malinowski,chapera, oebel,Gluckman,ohan-nan,and Gulliver-arebyno means heonly nthropologistshohavewrittenooks n law.Someother ubstantialorks fthe astdecades, hough ot ommentednhere, ppearntheBibliography.But havediscussed hese ix t ength ecauseofthe mportanceftheir ork,ndbecause heir orkncompassesheprincipalypes fdescription,esearch,rgument,ndconstructionfhypotheseshathavebeenproduced.t isperhapsworth otinghat lthoughll sixwritersend odealwithegalproceduresntermsf heirociopoliti-calcontexts,achapproachesubstantiveaw na differentay.Ma-linowskipproachest piecemeal s an aspectof socialrelations.Schaperareatstasa straightforwardetofrules,nforcedycourts.


7/29/2019 2949194

20/50

270 SALLY FALK MOOREHoebeltrieso abstractpatternfvalues, mbodyinghemn"juralpostulates."luckman ealswith he deas nBarotse awas expres-sions f preindustrialayof ife, ominatedytheneed omaintainmultiplexelationsnd certaintatus elations. ohannan oes notfind ny nalogousverall atternn Tiv substantiveaw,but nsteadseeks o identifytsprincipalegal perceptualategories, hichheassumes obe encapsulatedn particularerms. ulliver oesto thepoint f rguinghatnorms ave almost oeffectn theoutcomefArusha isputes,ndhe explicitlyoncentratesnprocedure.The varied pproaches f hese ix uthorsestifyo thegraveliffi-culties ttendingny ffortocharacterizeubstantiveulesn a com-prehensivend ystematicanner. here s, nfact, seriousuestionaboutwhetherubstantiveules anbe,oreverneed be, assumed oform single ystemf nterrelatedarts. or example,s I indicatedearlier, ohannaneems othink hatGluckman aspresented a-rotse aw as if t were organized"nto single ystem,nd countersby saying hat he Tiv haveno suchsystematicotion, enceno"corpusuris,"nd henceno ideaof"law," nly hat f laws." AsIsee t,Gluckman assimplyescribingowBarotseudgesused thewhole ody f egalrules ndprinciplesnowno thems a resourcefordecisionmaking.n doing o, theynvoked rinciplesfvaryingdegreesfgenerality.hat hese evelsmay e orderednto ierarchyaccordingo thecriterionfgeneralityoesnot, ome,suggestrigid organization"f all of Barotse ubstantiveaw,but insteadmakes xplicitneregularspect ftheprocess f Barotseudicialexplanation.nfact, one f hesewriters,either oebel,norGluck-man,norBohannan, aspresentedubstantiveaw as a system.n-stead, achhas takenwhathe considersobe the most mportantconsistenthemen culture ndsociety,nd has traced igns f thatthemehroughome ubstantiveules. orHoebel heunifyinghemeis oneofvalues, orBohannan neofperceptualategories,nd forGluckmanhesystemfsocialrelationsna technologicallyimplesociety.Most f he cholarlyiteraturef he astfewyears ddressestselftoonly imitedspects fthese normousroblems. ndalthoughsome hiftsfemphasismaybe discerned,heeffectfthis arlierwork s everywherevident-not urprisinglyinceall theabove


7/29/2019 2949194

21/50

IAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 271writersxceptMalinowskire stillprofessionallyctive.This verysituationives ne a sense fhowrecentlynterestn awhas devel-opedwithinnthropologys a whole.

CURRENT LITERATURESomeTechniques fStudyCases.The argumenthat ase studys thebestfieldechnique orthe nvestigationfdisputeettlement,egalrules,nd egalconceptsis presentedyA.L. Epstein n "TheCaseMethod nd theField ofLaw (1967). In this aper, pstein dentifieshatheconsidersobethe universal haracteristicsf aw andlegal systems,.e.,whatheconsidersobe thebody f nformationccessiblehroughaw cases.He beginswithrules, oncepts,nd categories,nd discusses hemeritsfusing ases rather han nformantsodiscoverwhattheseare.He then onsidersheuniversalityfdisputenhuman ociety,andby mplicationhe oncomitantniversalityfprocedural eansthroughhich rievancesanbe egitimatelyired nddisputesrop-erly onducted.pstein ivides heresolutionfdispute nto hreephases: he nquiryntoguilt rresponsibilityor particularvent;theprocessf djudicationetweenonffictinglaims;ndthemodesofredressndenforcementvailablewhen breach as beenestab-lishedor assumed.He endsbysuggestingery rieflyhat he se-quenceofevents alleda case, althoughtmaybe isolated or er-tain nalyticalurposes, ust econsideredn ts ocialmatrixfoneistofully nderstandtsplace nthe ocialprocess. lthoughpsteintouches n this ast,he concentratesnthegeneralnatomyf awanddispute ettlementather han nenumeratinghevasepoten-tialitiesor esearch hat reopened y using he tudy f aw casesas a standardield echnique.Epstein'soncludingemarkslearlyllude oa theme ommonncertain chools fsocialanthropologyoday. n his ntroductionoThe Craft fSocialAnthropology1967) Gluckman ails theex-tended ase methods a new tool n socialanthropology.e says(p. XV): "Thisnewkdndf nalysis reatsachcaseas a stagenanon-going rocessof socialrelations etween pecific ersons ndgroupsn a social ystemndculture.pstein'sCaseMethod" scil-


7/29/2019 2949194

22/50

272 SALLY FALK MOORElatesbetween eeing aw casesas onekind fcase material o whichtheextendedase methodmaybe applied, nd seeing aw casesasoneway ostudy he deas,values, nd basicpremisesf society.Comparisons.ince o many tudentsf awvigorouslynd nter-minablyontend hat hefields riddledwith erminologicalndcon-ceptual thnocentrism,t srefreshingo find anVelsen 1969: 137)arguing hatmostwritersnAfricanaw,with rwithoutegaltrain-ing, have n mperfectnderstandingf heirwn egal ystem,ithwhich, xplicitlyr mplicitly,heyend ocompare fricanegal ys-tems." ispaper, Proceduralnformality,econciliation,nd FalseComparisons"1969), describeswhathe regards s two prevalentpieces fmythologyboutAfricans compared ithAnglo-Europeanlaw: thenotion hat raditionalfricanribunalsave very nformalprocedurenwhich he aking f vidences not estrictedy hekindof imitingules hat pplynAnglo-Americanourts;ndthenotionthatreconciliations a more ignificantbjective f African ourtsthan heapplicationfrules f aw,andthat he reverses true nAnglo-Americanourts. anVelsen ontendshat alse omparisonsaremadebetween nglo-Americanigh ourts nd ruralAfricanri-bunals ather han etweenhecomparablenglish ay magistrates'courts rAmerican mall-claimsourts nd theirAfrican ounter-parts.Moreover,e argues hatmore ttentionhouldbe given oEuropeanpre-trialeconciliationrocedures,nd to determiningwhether econciliations indeed s prominentfeaturef Africanjudicialprocess s it s supposed o be.VanVelsen'ss a brief aper, ndmore number fsuggestionsthan fullyupportedrgument;ut t ounds note hatwilldoubt-lessbe heard gain nother orms.here s a paucity fsociologicaldataonAnglo-Americanaw (see Skolnick 965),and anthropolo-gists ave barely egun o tackle heparts f theproblemnindus-trial ocietyhat re amenable otheirechniquesf tudy. entativecomparativeeneralizationsre essential ortheprogressf legalanthropology,venthoughhesegeneralizationsre almost ertaintobe revised smorendmorenformationecomesvailable. now-ingtheextensiveange fother ocialphenomenannonindustrial-ized societies, e may expect hatfurtheresearchwilleventuallyenable stospeakntermsfnumerousypes f egal ystems,ather


7/29/2019 2949194

23/50

IAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 273thanpurelyn termsfthegross ontrastshatnowseem odistin-guish resentrban-nationalnglo-American-EuropeanystemsromwhatGluckmanalls tribal"ystems.In one useful omparativeaper,M. G. Smith1965b) hashad alook t some fthevariationsn the egaltheoryfcorporations.ehas attemptedo characterizeheMuslim, rench, nd Britishradi-tions,ndfromhe heoriesnd deologiesmbodiedn them o cometo some onclusionsbout he egal approach fthecolonial owersto dealingwith ndigenous fricanorporatenits. incethis s aswift ndvery eneral eview fa very arge ubject,t touches nmore ubjects han t can copewith dequately; ut Smith's rgu-ment or he mportancefa historicalnalysis f egal nstitutionsispersuasive,s is his tress n the ignificancef egalprocedures.Illuminatingomparisonsrealso possiblewithin single ystemorregion. omeofthecomplicationsnherentnthenotuncommonsituationfa multiplicityf tribunalsredescribednR. E. S. Tan-ner's TheSelectiveUse ofLegal Systemsn East Africa"1966).Tanner peaks fthreeegalsystem perativenthat rea.The "pa-per ystem"ncludes he ourts f he esident agistratesndabove,inwhich hemagistrater udgehashad egal rainingnddealswithjudicialmattersntermsfstatutesnd a writtenecord. he "im-pressionisticystem"ncludes he ourtsnstitutedygovernmentndpresided verby magistratesho havehadsome egal trainingutarenotmembersf he egalprofession.hesemen pply oth tatu-toryawandcustomaryaw,but their eliance nwritten aterialsismoreimited han hat fthe paper ystem"udiciary. heymakesummariesfthe evidence ndreasoningatherhankeeping ullverbatimecords. hey re ntouchwith hepaper ystem,nd alsowith he hird etof egalprocesses. anner escribes his hirdys-tem s havingnoformaltructure,"ut doubt hathe means hisin a sociologicalense.Rather, e seems o mean hat hemoots ndmeetingsffamilyeads nd ofneighborso not akeplace na uni-formlyrescribed ay,butadjust heir rocedurendmembershipaccordingothe mportancef he aseorofthe itigants.hearticlediscusses,ngeneral erms,hevarious onditionsnderwhich nesystems usedratherhan nother.Tanner's hoice f ermss not ltogetherhappy ne, ince,ocio-


7/29/2019 2949194

24/50

274 SALLY FALK MOOIRElogically peaking,rder nd structurexist n all threeevels.Theimportantifferencesrenot ttributableithero thedegree fre-liance n writtenocumentsrtotherigidityrformalityfcertainprocedures,utrathero the ocialcontextnwhich hese ribunalsoperate, he social units r levelsto which hey re attached,hekinds fcases they andle, he ocialorientationf thosewhoplayjudicial oles, nd so on.But Tanner's escriptionas raised n im-portant oint.Wherevarietiesftechniquesre availablefortheresolutionf dispute as therewould eem o be in most ocieties),it is importantodiscover hehow and why falternativehoices.There sroom or great eal moredetailed esearch,nd needforthe ssemblingf dequate tatisticalataon this roblem.t s veryimportantothfor hepurposes fsociologicalnalysisnd for hepracticalnformationf egislatorsndadministrators.egal-anthro-pological-sociologicalesearch fthiskind s as muchneeded nthehighlyndustrializedountriesftheworld s it s intheyoung a-tions.Rules.Goldschmidt1965) has written bookon the awoftheSebeiofEasternUganda, nd introducestwithhis characteristiccandor y indicatinghathe considerstnotmerely descriptiverecord, ut contributiono thegeneralheoryf urisprudence.uthe also ndicateshat ehasnot eviewedhe iteraturen the heoryofprimitiveaw,nordoeshe attemptomparisonsith ny othersocieties.Moreover,edid notobserveny egalaction rom egin-ning o end,norwas any ase narratedo himnfull etail. hecoreof hebook onsists f statementf egalrules s abstractedytheauthor,nterspersed ith erse llustrativeccounts fspecific is-putes nd their utcome.Goldschmidtoes not treathistaskas astudy f thesociologicalontext f aw;his mmediatebjectivesratherhediscoveryfrules,llustratedycases nwhich heywereapplied.Goldschmidt'soncludinghaptersttempto draw ogetherllofthe ules ehas setforth,n the nferencehat hey regoverned ythree asicprinciples. e callsthe result themetaphysicalnfra-structurefSebeilegalbehavior." he three rinciplesave to dowith eneral ebei attitudesoward inship,roperty,ndthe rans-mutabilityfall socialrelationsntopecuniaryerms; he ast oinsthefirstwo nto single ystem.fcourse, luckman,ollowingir


7/29/2019 2949194

25/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 275HenryMaine andE. E. Evans Pritchard,ad said in The JudicialProcess 1955) that hings re inksn nstitutionalizedelationshipsbetween ersons,n insight e furtherevelopedn BarotseJuris-prudence1965b).Goldschmidt,ithouteviewingr citing he iter-ature,sthusmakingtleastone contributiono thegeneral heoryof urisprudencehat eems o havebeenmadebefore. iscommentson changesn Sebei egalrules hat reunaccompaniedy changesonwhathecallsthe ideationalevel" re more ovel, ndthey re-sent n interestingroblemnsimultaneousontinuityndchange.Thedescriptiveore f he ook-therulesllustratedycases-is anadditionoourethnographicnowledge.ThePreventionndSettlementfDispute

Legal nstitutionss alternativesofighting.ohannan's1967) n-troductionohisrecentlyublishedollectionfreadingsn aw andwarfareakes he xpositionfhistheoreticalosition stepfurther.He speaks fsocieties acked y conflicts,nd ofothershathave"solved"heir onffictsndreplaced hemwith heruleof aw. Hethuscharacterizes differenceetween euding ocieties nd ourown.Negotiationndbargainingeemtohavenoplace inBohan-nan's cheme.There rebasicallywo forms fconflictesolution:administeredules ndfighting."he readingsn the bookare se-lected o llustratehis uality. art isdevoted oa fewdefinitionsof awbyRedfield,ospisil,ndBohannan imself.art I isentitled"TheEthnographyfLaw: TheJudicialrocess." ndPart II con-sidersFeuds,Raids, ndWars." ohannaneels hat thenext reatstep n egal nstitutionsust e inthefield f nternationalawandother icentricower ituations,"ndspeaks ftheworld's eedfora new"codeofaggression"Bohannan 967:xii).Inthis ontextohannanstreatingaw as a solutionosocial rob-lems-essentially,s a means fpeacefullyesolvingonffictsf n-terestnd as a systemor hemaintenancef ocialpeaceandorder.What s interestingbout his,ndaboutBohannan'secision ore-print isownarticle n"'The ifferingealms ftheLaw" (1965),is that t emphasizes fundamentalualitynhisapproach o thesubject f aw.Onthe nehandhe definesaw nterms f nstitutionsthat ettle isputesnd"counteract'ross busesofnorms;ndontheother andhe emphasizes erception,ognition,key oncepts,"


7/29/2019 2949194

26/50

276 SALLY FALK MOOREand deasas the undamentalasisof aw (Cf.Bohannan 957, 965,1967).Thispull n twodirections,rawing oward n institutionalapproachnoneside nda cognitivepproachn the ther,ssome-what ike he plit ne sees betweenHoebel's ttentionothedevel-opment f public entralizednstitutionsf aw enforcement"ndhisnotion f "juralpostulates"Hoebel 1954).It is a duality hat unsdeep nAmericannthropology.y contrast,henGluckman1965b)talks bout egal deas,he is tryingoshowhowparticularonceptscanbeexplainedntermsf heirnstitutionaletting.e isnot reat-ing he deas sif heywere systemf ognitiveategoriesrvalue-laden principleshat nthemselves aygivefundamentalhapetothesocial system;ather,e assumes hat he egal deasand cate-gories reexpressionsf the socialandhistoricalettingsnwhichthey refound. e gives nanalyticriorityo nstitutionsndcon-nects hemwithdeas,whereasHoebelandBohannan o notmakeany similarttemptofit ogetherhe frameworkf deas andtheframeworkf nstitutions.Anewbook hat eeks oreconcile hese woframesfreferencesMichaelBarkun's aw without anctions1968). The titlewillatonceremindnthropologistsfthe nthologyribeswithout ulers,which arkun asstudied arefully.is argument,ollowinghat fMasters 1964), assertshat here re importantarallels etweenordern statelessocieties nd internationalrder.Barkun urthercontendshat hese arallelsffecthedefinitionndanalysisf egalsystemsngeneral. e is a politicalcientist,uthisargumentrawsheavilynanthropologicalataand deas. nterpretingaw asfound-edmore nconsensushan nforce,e defineshe onsensusor con-flictmanagement"sincludingot nlyhared roceduresut haredperceptual ategories. is definitionf aw as a system fmanipu-lable ymbolshat unctionss a model f ocial tructureasalreadybeenmentioned.For all Barkun's ormalmphasis n law as a set of nterrelatedsymbols,eultimatelyoncedes hatlegalsystemsave ome mpiri-calreferents"1968: 151),andgoeson tosaythat aw s a means fboth onceptualizingndmanaginghe ocial nvironment.is dis-cussionhus oesfull ircle-fromocialrelationshipso deasaboutsocialrelationshipsndbackagaintoempiricaleferentsndman-


7/29/2019 2949194

27/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 277agement, ot ustto "representations"f the social environment.deformationrofessionnelfcertaincademics reoccupied ith n-ternationalffairs ould eem obe theregular iftingutof a fewoptimisticonclusionsromheir onvictionsbout heeffectivenessof ommononceptsnthe bsence f ommon olitical rganization.Optimism otwithstanding,arkun'ss a very p-to-the-minutec-count; ndit isparticularlytimulatingnitsrepeatedndcreativeuse of hedistinctionetweenhe ymbolic anifestationsf aw andthebehavioraleferentsf aw. t is a book obe read-and arguedwith-butdecidedlyo be takeneriously.

Non-"legal"nstitutionssa means f iringegal ontroversy.egalinstitutionss a vehicle or he xpressionf other nterests.ubert(1963) has argued hat he egalprocessnvolveshe ransformationofdyadic elationshipsnto riadicnes.Oncea disputes ata pointwhere t s notgoing obe settled etween heparties ut s goingto nvolve thers,he uestionfwhich others" ayhave mportanteffectsotonly nprocedureuton outcome;talsomay ffecthebreadthf ignificancefthedispute. o theextent hat ecourseoa particular odeof settlementnvolvesthers,tmay lso involvethepersonalnterestsf hose thers,rthe nterestsssociated iththeir ositions.Primitiveeoples ften ealwith ruptingostilitiesytranslatingthemnto orceryrwitchcrafterms, escribinghemndresolvingthemymbolicallynterms f he pirit orld.fthis rocessnvolvesassemblinggroup fpeople ndcarryingut publicnvestigation,explanation,ndresolution,hat akes laceoftenesembles legalhearing.ocialevents hatgetout ofhandresemblemanifestati-onsof he pirit orldn that echniques ust eprescribedndappliedtobringheuntamednder ontrol.ccordingly,udreyutt1965-66) describesTheShaman's egalRole" mong heAkawaio, Ca-rib-speakingeople ntheGuianaHighlands. heAkawaio ive nautonomousillagesnd oint-familyettlements,achrecognizingleader;but eaderships a matterfpersuasionnd influence,otcoercion. heredressfgrievancesndthe ettlementfdisputerelargelynthehands f hepartiesoncerned,hough ossip ndscan-dalplaytheir art naffectingheoutcome. heonlykind fpublicmeetingver disputes a shamanisticeance o discover hecause


7/29/2019 2949194

28/50

278 SALLY FALK MOOREof icknessrdeath.Buttdescribes series fcases to showhow, nthe ourse f hese eances,he hamanttributeshe auseof n ill-ness ovarious ormsf nterpersonalostilityr ncorrectehavior.The seance penly irsdisputesfwhich ll thepersons resentreaware, ndaddspublic ocialpressureootherffortso resolve is-putes r imit antisocial"ehavior.hebasicoccasion or his ctionamong heAkawaios always medical nquirynform uta dis-pute n substance.Disputesmay lsobetransformedyabsorbingonfrontationse-tween he ndividualmembersf competingolitical nitsnto hegeneral,ong-termompetitionetweenhe oliticalntities.eudingisthe lassic xample,ut herereothers. eidelman1966-67)de-scribes heuse of ocally un overnmentourtsn theUkaguruhief-doms fTanzania,nd shows ow heudgmentsf hese ourts ereusedto furtheraguru oliticalims t the xpense ffourminoritytribal roupsivingnthe ame rea.Politicalnd udicial olesweresomewhatonfused: vigilante agurugroup pprehendedeopleandbroughthemo court,ometimesor iolationsf aw, nd ome-times or iolationsf tsownregulations.eidelmanhows,hroughthe descriptionf22 law cases nvolvingon-KagurundKaguru,thatmembersftheminorityribeswereregularlyealtwithmuchmore eremptorilyndseverelyhanKaguru.n some ases, hevin-dictivenessf heKaguru gainsthemembersfminorityribeswasmitigatedythe nterventionf Kaguru atron,rby special ela-tionshipsetweenhedefendantndtheKaguruheadmen r courtholders, utwithouthis id a non-Kaguruvidentlyid not standa chance gainst Kagurun court. eidelmanites heKaguru itu-ation o show hedivergenceetweenhedeclared imsofthegov-ernmentolicy f ndirectuleand theeffect f thatpolicy t thelocal evel.However eplorablehisuse ofthecourtsmaybe, it isdifficulto magine practical olicy hatwouldhavepreventeda-gurupolitical ominance romssertingtselfn some form,incethere re48,000Kaguru ndbarely 000non-Kaguru.The use ofcourtsnd other rocessesfdisputeettlementn thestruggleor olitical ower s notunusual. arnes 1961) discussedthis seas it occurredmong hePlateauTonga nd theNgoni.Na-der 1965a) attributesifferencesndispute ettlementroceduresinpart odifferencesnpoliticaltructure.ulliver1963) hasmade


7/29/2019 2949194

29/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 279thepolitical ettlementneof histwobasic types fdispute ettle-ment. awcases hatnvolve oliticalssues,ndsettlementshat e-pendonpolitical actors,reeasy o findn ndustrializedocieties,swell s agriculturalnes.Acceptingribes, f course,s another lassicway for judge touse hisoffice or ndsother han he simple ettlementf disputes.Ottenberg1967) examineshe uestion fbriberynd corruptionnlocalgovernmentn southern igeria.He treatst as a socialphe-nomenon, otas a moralmatter. singM. G. Smith's efinitionfcorruptions "the seofpublic fficerauthorityor rivate dvan-tageandgain,"Ottenbergevelops he rgumenthat orruptionsthenatural esult f he nteractionftwopoliticalystemsna soci-ety, he onsequencefcontact etween woquitedifferentoliticalstyles. e seesas inevitablencountriesndergoinghange consid-erable iscrepancyetween hat s egal ndwhat sactually one nthewayofpolitical ehavior. e emphasizeshat nNigeria riberybrings elations ith trangersnto inewith raditionalatternsfgift iving ndreciprocitytandardmong insmenndfamiliars.eargues hat riberysthusncertainocial ircumstancesheguaran-tor ndregulatorfsecure elations etweentrangers.uthavingpursuedhat ineof rgument,ttenbergskswhetherorruptionsnotuniversal,xsitingnall societies utvaryingn form.Someofthequestions xaminednOttenberg'saperhave to dowith ifferentocial rculturaliews fwhat sproper ehavior,ndsomehaveto dowith heobjectivexistence f thephenomenonftheuse ofofficeor ersonal ain. t followshatf hereretwodis-tinct olitical tylesncontact, ersonsommittedo onewillthinkthat eoplecommittedo theotherrebehavingmproperly.his scertainlyikely. utthemeaningf uch ulturallyrsocially eter-minedmoraludgmentssdistinctromhe uestionfwhetherhereisregular ersonal xploitationfpolitical fficerauthority.hesemaybe twovery ifferentatters. ad thedistinctionetween ul-tural ttitudesndobjectiveehavioralhenomenaeenmaintainedthroughouthepaper, hediscussion ouldhavebeen clearer. s itis,Ottenbergoesnot lways xplainwhich eisdiscussing. e has,however,made some nterestingommentsn a practical roblemthathasconsiderablenalytic ignificance.Inheritancendthe ortingfcompetinglaims. here re certain


7/29/2019 2949194

30/50

280 SALLY FALK MOOREcompetinglaims hat egularlyome to a head throughn eventthat s not n itself artof a dispute.A redistributionfproperty,positions,rrights ay enecessitatedy eventsike death, mar-riage, he accession f a new officeholder,r themoving f settlerstonew ands.Competinglaims ikethesemaybe handled nstitu-tionally ya meeting fclaimantsnd others o work ut an alloca-tion frights. nlike heprocedures entionedarlier, hesemeet-ingsdo notoccurbecause ofsomeexisting ispute, ut the claimsthey oncernnherentlynvolvehekind fcompetitionhat slikelyto boil up into confrontationnd a fight. hiskindof eventhasreceived great eal of ttentionn anthropology.ut thas seldom,if t all,beentreated s a topic elated o processes fdispute ettle-mentndmechanismsfdispute reventionnd control.t certainlymerits his reatment.A common ocial nstitutionf thiskind s themeeting f kintoarrangehedistributionf decedent's roperty.ome ocieties avean explicit etofrulesgoverningow this s to be done,who are tobe theprimaryecipientsfpropertyndprerogatives,ndwho aretobe thecontingenteirs. ut n other ocieties hematterfdis-tribution ay emostlyeft othediscretionf pecificurvivingin.ShepardsonndHammond1966) haveexamined avaho nheri-tance atterns. aving een oldbyone nformanthat every amilydoes tdifferently,"hey ried odiscover hat ariablesffectedhedecision. hepapermentions fewcases,butdoesnotreport nyfiguresn thepatternsfdistribution,othat hepaper sessentiallya descriptionf thevariables hatmay ffectachcase,and a dis-cussion f those spects fNavaho ife hat reassumed ytheau-thors o militategainstmore igidly ormulatedules f nheritance.Shepardsonnd Hammondee theNavahonheritanceatternsonethat ends odisperse ather hanpreserventact heassetsofanydecedent,ndthey elate his ispersalo other conomiconditions.Their pproachsto rationalize avahonheritancen termsfpres-entNavaho ocial ndeconomicrganization,ndthenhowhow hetwofit ogether.

Ifanyone verdoubted he ntimateinks etweennheritancendsocial tructure,oody's eath,Property,ndtheAncestors1962)hassurely emovedhisdoubt.But tostudyherulesbywhich he


7/29/2019 2949194

31/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 281propertynd statuses fdeadpersonshould e distributedn a par-ticular ociety ccording o expressed ocal norms, nd the evengreaterumber fways nwhich hese oldings reactually istrib-uted,maybe more han n exercise emonstratingongruence e-tweennstitutions.nalytically,he tudy f nheritancean ncludevariationndchange s often s stability.Since nheritances oneway o maintainocial ontinuities,nheri-tancepracticesn a changingociety re ikely oreflecthe extenttowhich ontinuitiesre n factperpetuatedythismeans, s wellas the margin f change rvariation ccommodated. . G. Smith(1965a) has raised hese uestions f nterpretationn thevery om-plexsetting f Hausa society. e describes ow ndigenous ausarules,MalikiMoslem aw,and colonialNigeriantatutes nd ordi-nanceshave nterwoven,o that he Hausa actually racticemanymodes f nheritancendsuccessiont the ametime. f one recog-nizes he lementshat aveproduced hese ariationsuring he astcenturynda half, ne sforced o consider ausa inheritancerac-tice s expressingherelationetween ontinuityndchange. mithargues hatHausa societys in a state f movingquilibrium,ndthat ts nheritanceawsreflecthat tructuralondition.Thecontentionhat egalnorms hould e looked tin a historicalperspectives extremelymportantortheunderstandingf legalinstitutions-and,yimplication,mportantor he study f othernorms nd institutions.his kind of investigations not possibleeverywhere;ut venwheret snotpossible o reconstructhepast,anawareness f hepast's mportances a safeguardgainsthemostsimplistic,ausal explanations, hich ake simultaneityn time scertainvidence f"functional"r "causal" onnection.aws of n-heritancehat ppear o be reproducingsocial ituationrom en-eration ogeneration aynfact eaccommodatinghangeshat renotacknowledgeds such.Declarations hat here as beenconti-nuity f egalnormsver hegenerationsrenotnecessarilynindi-cation hat uch s beenhistoricallyhecase.Thepast maybe for-mallynvoked o egitimizehepresent; et ctualpracticesmaybeonly electivelyerpetuated,ndchangemaybe accommodatedn-der hecloakof ncestralustom.Certain apers n theDerrett1965) volume ninheritancend


7/29/2019 2949194

32/50

282 SALLY FALK MOOREsuccessionnNigeria-particularlyhose fOttenbergn theAfikpoIbo,Harris ntheMbembe, ndP.C. Lloyd n theYoruba-aresoliddescriptivessays n theway n which nheritancend successionreflect asic socialrelationships,nd in somecases accommodatechangingonditions. ttenberguggests typologyf systemsfinheritancend succession asedontheextent owhich hetwore-flect rescribedull ole-succession,nd converselyn theextent owhich uccessionnd nheritancereseparablend not automatic."Harris escribes owtheMbembe llexpresshewish hatmovablegoodswere nheritedgnatically,ut ontinueopass them nmatri-lineally,s theydo land,despite onditionsf landshortage.ikeColson 1966), Harris escribeshe operatingontextf therules,and gives tatisticalata on the ways nwhichmen acquire and.Lloyd's aper sa brief escriptionf heorganizationalackgroundandrules elatingotheYoruba oncept ffamily roperty.e hasexpanded n this ubject lsewhere,nd has alsoproduced verydetailed nd useful olume n Yoruba and aw (P. C. Lloyd1962).But the paper n the Derrett ollectionhat ttemptso drawto-getherhe argestheoreticalmplicationsf aws of nheritancendsuccessions that fM. G. Smith1965a),whose mphasis nhis-toricaldepthprovides dimensionhatcomplicateshe factsbutclarifiesheanalyticalssues.

LEGAL NORMS AND SOCIAL CHANGETheoreticaluestions

Classicdiscussionsn urisprudencendsociologyometimesp-posetheAustinianmperativeoncept f awto oneoranother er-sionofa consensusheory.he consensusheory uggestsn someform hatawresides ssentiallyntheminds ndpracticesfpeopleina society,atherhan nthecompulsionmposed ystatutesnd"commandsf thesovereign."inceanthropologistsave,on thewhole, peratedn societieswherewrittenaw is minimal rnon-existent,hey avenotbeen troubledyany ack ofcongruencee-tween tatutesndpractice,nd areseldom oncerned ith aw asthe ommand fa sovereign.ospisil 1958) is theonly nthropolo-gistwhohasstronglymphasizedheauthoritativelementn law,and Schapera 1943) is theonly ne to havedealt t all extensively


7/29/2019 2949194

33/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 283withegislation. nthropologistsavecopedwith hedifferencee-tween tatednorms nd observed ractice y absorbing oth ntoideal-real r multiple-normodels.Many awyers nd law professorsiew aw as an instrumentorcontrollingocietynddirectingocial hange, utmost nthropolo-gists re concerned ith aw as a reflectionf a particularocialor-der.This differencenperspectiveas had considerableffect. narticle hat describes omeof theseclassic dilemmas s Clifford-Vaughanand Scotford-Norton'sLegal Norms nd Social Order:Petrazycki,areto, urkheim"1967). It is revealing,hough verygeneral iscussion,ecause ttouches nall of hese uestionsatherunselfconsciously.n particular,t describes etrazycki'siew thatlaw is both a prescriptivend descriptive evice, .e., thatnormsbothreflectnd direct ocialorganization.As anthropologyecomesmore reoccupied ith he nsightshatthestudy f society ver ime angive t,we mayexpect hat awwillbe considered ore ftennthis omplex ouble mage; nd wemay ome oknowmore ftheconditionshatdetermine hen awreflectsnd when t directs.We may xpect otonly xtendedasestudies f hekind hat pstein 1967) callsfor, utmore tudies flegal norms ndrules n changingircumstances.ne of the mostimportantecent apers n aw, think,swrittenlong hese ines:Elizabeth olson's LandLaw and Land Holdings mong heValleyTongaof Zambia" 1966). Colson onfines erself o theevidence,anddoesnotpursuehe onsiderableheoreticalmplicationsfwhatshehasdescribed.heshows hat venthoughhreeValleyTongavillages xperiencedundamentalhangesnthepatternf andten-urewhen heyweremoved rom heir raditionalreatoa newonebecauseof theconstructionf theKaribaDam, they id notrecog-nizeany hangen theirand aw.Furthermore,tnoneofthe imesshestudied heTongacouldthe ystemf andtenure e regardedas a "stable quilibriumasedonthefunctioningfthe andrules."Rather, he andtenureystem asalways nstable, hanging ithland conditions,heextentfexhaustedand, he mount ffallow,etc.Nevertheless,hetherubjectedograduallyhangingandcon-ditionsr othe udden hangesausedby hedam, heValley ongadidnot lter newhit he egalrules overningand enure.The egalrules f enurentheTonga ituationad to do with he


7/29/2019 2949194

34/50

284 SALLY FALK MOOREacquisitionnd use of and.Theybestowed ifferentights epend-ing nthemode f cquisition-whetherhroughinmaternalrpa-ternal), hrough se,as in the case of previouslynoccupied ushland. As onemightxpect,whenColsonexamined iguresor woyears efore ndfor ive ears fterhepopulation ad beenmoved,shefound hat heproportionf andacquired rom inhad shrunkdramaticallyrom neperiod o the ther,ndthat he andacquiredby cultivatingpenbushhad increasednormously.he systemf"norms"1ould ccommodatehis hangewithouttselfhanging. hestory olsondoes not ell tlength,utalludes obrieflynd tanta-lizingly,s thathaving o dowithwhy henew ands fterhemovewere treated s bush andsunder heold rules, hough eadmen,chiefs,nd administratorsadargued hat hey hould e permittedto distributehe and.Theconstructionhat heold egalrules elat-ing to bush and should pplyto newterritory,atherhan omescheme fdistributionhroughfficials,ould eem o ndicate hattherewerepolitical mplicationsnmaintaininghetraditionalegalrules ndnotpermittingnnovationn modes f andallocation.

Whereas olson's aperdeals with socioeconomichange romwhich ertainegalrules merged nchanged, aplan (1967) haswritten paperdescribinghe ocioeconomichanges hat esultedfromhe lterationf egalrules.He traceshe ffectsfgovernmentland egislationndother ircumstancesnthe tatus f ocal head-menntheLimbuan egion fNepal. n the ighteenthenturyocalheadmen adgrantedandtoimmigrantettlers;n thenineteenthcenturyhe tatus f heseandswaschanged,othat heywerehelddirectlyromhestate ndnotthroughocalheadmen.Atpresent,manyheadmen re no better ff han heir ollowers,nd a groupof Limbu,grown ffluenthroughmilitaryervice, ave usurpedmost f thepower nd influenceftheLimbuheadmen y buyingcontrol ver xtensiveandsthroughhepurchase fmortgages.Caplan'sverymodest onclusions that actorsutside hesmall-scalesocial renanormallytudied y anthropologistsust e takeninto account o explain ocal circumstances.e is certainly ightaboutthis.The historical aterialnhispaper,however, as otherinterestingmplications.ttouchesn, utdoesnot nalyze,uestionsrelatingo theway nwhichegislationffectsolitical ontrol nd


7/29/2019 2949194

35/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 285the xtento which he egislativeower s used tothis nd n differ-entkindsof polities. aplan'smaterial mplies hat ocal politicalpower n the Limbuan egion s closely onnected ithcontrol fland. t would ppear hat herewere t various eriodswo venuesto that ontrol, ne administrative,he other conomic. ooking tthematerial s a problemn the social setting f aw (though hiswasnotCaplan'sfocus)opensmany heoreticalssues bout here-lationshipetween herespectiveules f aw relatingo administra-tive ndtoeconomic ontrol fproperty. luckman's1965b,1969)distinctionetween states f administrationnd estates f produc-tion n and can be effectivelyxtended nd exploitedn analyzingthis ind fmaterial. uestionsbout he ircumstancesnderwhicheffectiveolitical owerrelates o legal rules ffectingne or theothermight e verylluminatingf nsweredna comparativerame-work.Questions fPolicy

Landrefo-rm.urely neof hemost hewed-overuestions fpol-icy affectingheprimarilygriculturalarts f theworld s that ftheredistributionf andandchangesnthe and aw. From heUNdown, here asbeen constantearch or iableways f mprovingpresentandholdingystemsomake hemmore roductive-andnsomeplaces ess politicallyxplosive. egislations themost om-monly onsideredechniqueormakinghese hanges. here s anenormousiteraturen this ubject,ndmore ooks ndpapers reconstantlyppearing.Aktan 966,Apthorpe 964, lok1966, eder1967,Ruilliere 966, impson 967,Thambyahpillai966).Anthro-pologists aynothavemuch f hand nmakinghepolicy ecisionsthatwill determineolitical ttemptso deal with heproblem,uttheywill doubtless avemany pportunitiesostudy subject heyhave somewhat eglected:he egislativentroduction,nd thecon-sequences, fplanned hange.On thewhole, pplied nthropologyhas most ommittedtselfoexamininghesematters;utthemoreacademicallyndtheoreticallyindedmaywell find esearchrob-lems n tduringheyears ocome, specially hen here re moreand moreattemptso produceplanned changeamongthe verypeoples hat nthropologistsavestudied n thepast.


7/29/2019 2949194

36/50

286 SALLY FALK MOORERosenberg'sMaoriLand Tenure nd LandUse" (1966) reviewsthe uestionfwhetheregislationriginallyesigned o protect he

indigenous aori and-tenureystemsrom xploitations now nter-feringwithMaorieconomic evelopment.osenberg rguesthatcompleteecurityfcommunalandtenuremaynotbe theoptimumarrangementor conomic evelopment,ince tpreventshemort-gaging f and andhencepreventsMaorifrom aining hecapitalneededfordevelopment.e examines he twoaltemativesf ndi-vidualizingand enurend ncorporatingheoint wners,ndfavorsthesecond.For anthropologistsnterestedn law,theattemptsthandlinguchpracticalroblems rovide he losesthingoa labo-ratory xperimentvailablenreal social ction.Rosenberg'srticleisnot before-and-aftertudyikeColson's1966),butrather pre-legislativeecommendationor particularolicy.Reformffamilyaw. Freedman'sChinese amily aw inSinga-pore:The Rout fCustom"1968) ouchesntwofundamentalat-ters: hecomplexitiesf aw inplural ocietiesnd theuses ofcul-turallyndpoliticallyoundedmodels fthefamilyn udicial ndlegislativection. n the colonial eriod he Chinese n Singaporewerenot onsideredndigenes,ndwerehence onsideredobe sub-ject oEnglishaw,modifiedoaccommodateertain eaturesf heirinstitutionalife.Freedman emonstrateshe curious onsequencesofcombiningn English amilymodeland an impreciselynownChinese amily odelndeciding ourt ases.Judges ecognizedhestructuref theChinese amilyo someextent,ut hereand therethey ppliedEnglish aw to it.The resulting elangewas neitherEnglish orChinese. olygamy,or xample, asrecognizeds oneof he acts fChineseife; utby ome uriouspplicationfBritishideasof quality,oncubinesndsecondary ives adthe ame egalstatus smajorwives.Freedman etails hecomic ddities hat n-sued fromhisvaguely efinedttempto applythefamilyaw ofEngland o the Chinese amily.Complicatingewelementsreaddedto analready nottyubjectwhen reedmanxplainshat woyears fteringaporeecame elf-governing,tpassed pieceof egislationalled TheWomen's har-ter," hichwassupposed ogivewomen nstantaneousqualitywithmennall (legislatable)matters.heCharterroposed sort f deo-


7/29/2019 2949194

37/50

LAW AND ANTHROPOLOGY 287logical edesigningf he amily.reedmaneviewsheprovisionsfthe tatute,ndargues hat t s essentiallyEnglishaw ustifiedythe principlesf Asiansocialism." e is understandablykepticalaboutwhetherhis ttempto create new form fthe family ylegislation ill ucceed,nd ndicates hat s knownftheCharter'seffectince tspassage.Freedman's rticles stimulatingot onlybecauseof thepeculi-arities f the Singapore ituation,ut becausethatvery ituationsuggests research roblemf wide currentpplication:hestudyofthepreconceived odels f ocietynwhich udicial ndlegisla-tive ction re founded. ttemptsoremoldocietyhroughegisla-tionpresumedeasof what ocietys, how tworks, ow tcan bechanged, ndwhat t shouldbe. Althoughudicial nnovationndlegislationyno means lways avethe ntendedffects,hemodelson which hey re based mply way of ookingt social ife, nda"folk" ociologyfchangemplicitn egislation,hatmaybe a wayoffindingutmore bout herelationshipf deasto social ction.Buxbaum 1968b), ikeFreedman,as writtennChinese amilylaw in a common-lawetting,ut he extendshe comparison,is-cussing hineseawin all ofMalaysia.He has alsoedited volume(Buxbaum 968a) thatncludes his ndseveral ther apers,llpre-sented ta 1964 onferencenfamilyaw andcustomaryaw n Asia.Mostof thepapers renotsociologicaltudies, utdescriptionsflegalrules;many escribetatutorynactmentshathavesought ocodifyrchange he ustomaryaw ofthefamily.omeofthese a-persare interestingociological ocumentsn themselves.or ex-ample, . TakdirAlisjabbana, ritingn"Customaryaw andMod-ernizationn ndonesia,"ejectsustomaryawoutofhand s archaicandbackward,nd ooks omodernizingegislationo stimulatendguidesocialgrowth. his attitudeowardegislations an almostmagical nstrumentfrapidreforms one characteristicector fthoughtnmany ountries,evelopingnd ndustrialized,nd as in-dicated bove, s itself ready-madeield ornvestigation.The definitionf groupmembership.n plural ocietiesn whichdifferentustomaryawsapply o theaffairsf differentorporategroups r socialcategories,nd n societiesn which ertain roupsare ingled utfor referentialrdiscriminatoryreatment,nemust


7/29/2019 2949194

38/50

288 SALLY FALK MOOREdefine hat onstitutes embershipn a group. his s a legal prob-lemvery losely ied o a sociologicalne.Galanter1967) discussesitwith elationo the scheduled astes, ribes,nd backwardlassesof ndian ociety."ndian egislationasauthorizedhegovernmentto bestow pecialbenefitsnd preferencesn persons elonging othese groups. eck (1967) deals withPhilippine egislation hatrestrictshe privilege f conducting etail rade to citizens, husdiscriminatinggainstocalChinesemerchants.errett1968b) dis-cussesthe udicialdifficultiesn determininghether person sor snot Hindufor hepurpose fapplying law. n theworld fmultitribalndother lural ocieties, roup ndcategorymember-shipwillfrequentlyropup as a legal problemwithpolicy ignifi-cance.Cases and egislationnvolvinghis ssuecannot elp but beloaded with nformationndinsightsnto hangingacets fsocialstructure.ecisions n"conflictf aws"casesare always olicy e-cisions t bottom.The codificationfcustomaryaw. n recent ears here asbeena runningattlen some fthedevelopingountriesver heextentto which ustomaryaw shouldbe reformedrrejected,r ifpre-served, ywhatmeans t shouldbe recordednd standardized.number f countries,aving ecided hat ustomaryaw shouldbewrittenown, ave tarted fficialchemesor oing o.A greatm-petushas also come romcademic uarters.n 1959Professor.N.Allott,t theSchool fOrientalndAfricantudies f heUniversityofLondon, stablishedheRestatementfAfricanaw Projectwithsupport rom he Nuffieldoundation. his projects still n fullswing en years ater, ursuinghe enormousaskoftryingo setdown nwritinghecustomaryawsofAfricaneoples.Allott im-self sa veritableactoryfpapers n theprojectnd ts mplicationsandonthe uturefcustomaryaws n A

Documents

2949194