Legal Pluralism: a means of manipulation (Legal Pluralism” Law & Society Review, Vol. 22, No. 5 )

Legal Pluralism as discussed in the Sally Engle Merry reading is the convergence of state laws into the normative orders within the grandeur social structure. Both state and normative laws function together, prevalently in colonial societies, to "modernize the Third World and create social justice in the First World." Laws created by a colonizing state infiltrate the pre-existing normative orders of a classified colony that all function within a joint social structure.                                  

Given the example I created to better understand the concept of legal pluralism and Merry's analysis in the reading, I have settled on the conclusion that Legal Pluralism really only exists in an integration of cultures produced by economic activity/exploitation. As legal pluralism was practiced in colonized regions of the Third World, I feel that in this modern era legal pluralism is greatly practiced within the sphere of globalization and open markets. As markets began to open, by force or intention, varying cultures, languages, laws, and means of negotian began to converge and operate all together. Although there are specific rules and regulations that may be instituded onto many Third World nations, regulaters still attempt to adjust their laws to fit the production style and resources of the nation. Where legal pluralism is practiced is also where human and land exploitation is prevelant. In order to exploit people and their resources, the imposition state laws need to function alongside normative orders so the social structure can gradually shift until it is dominated by the imposing laws. As these laws gradually rule over the social arrangement of a nation then exploitation can take place as a means of control that operates within the new social structure. In my opinion legal pluralism is a manipulative tool for a economic gain. 

While the concept of legal pluralism seems ideal; multiple rules and laws co-existing and transcending boarder, it plays out very differently in today's world. In the past, people mainly traveled to different nations for trade, and it was in the general vinicity of their country where many normative orders are shared and respected. Therefore, when disputes needed to be settled between differing cultures (legal pluralism) the resolution did not exploit nor infringe upon the rights/law of one culture over another. There was not a heirarchy of rights/laws, the ways of a culture worked in equal with one another. And legal pluralism is only used in the process of commerce. When traders and merchants return to their respective nations, the rules and ways of the market do not preside over a culture. 

Today, the legal pluralism is less of a means to quell disputes but a means to press upon a dominating culture's rights/laws onto a subordinate in order to take full advangtage of its resources and labor. There is rarely ever any equal parts negotiation and the laws become presiding rule over the subordinate.