Multivalent Nature of Legal Traditions

¶ … Multivalent Nature of Legal Traditions

4A comparison of the bivalent logic and the multivalent logic

The need for multivalence for a legal tradition's stability

How to sustain diversity

In this paper, we present an analysis of the multivalent nature of legal traditions with a view of exposing the underlining principles of the concept. The relevance and significance of the multivalence to the legal tradition systems is also analyzed.

The multivalent nature of legal traditions

When Glenn suggests that all legal traditions are 'multivalent', what does he mean?

Multivalent is the quality of having various values and meanings. According to Glenn the quality of multivalence does allow the competing of values that emanates from various traditions to coexists (Halpin,2006).In his book Glenn does confuse the multivalent approach using a multifaceted approach. The multivalent logic does move beyond the bivalent values of the otherwise traditional logic that does specify that one or more of the two values as well as the state of affairs. As an illustration Glenn states that we denote (true or false; p or not-p). There is an addition of other states in cases where the affirmation as well as the negation is not made out. Such a case is the 'possibly p'. Within the multivalent logic there is a possibility of having coexisting values of 'possibly p' as well as 'possibly q'.In such a system, it becomes almost impossible to recognize the existence of p and q in the system which is otherwise characterized as bivalent logic. In this case the bivalent logic, it occurred that q did amount to a case of not-p. This point is clearly illustrated in one of Glenn's example (Glenn,2007, p361). In which p is taken to refer to a certain state of jurisdiction while q is used to refer to a party of determination of jurisdiction. In this case it is perfectly right to treat the two cases as being mutually exclusive options that do belong to different legal traditions. This then brings out the reality that the multivalent logic does permit the coexistence of both traditional responses as a perfect response to the problem. This is due to the fact that it allows for the granting of jurisdiction that is state determined as well as third party determined. The reality is that the multivalent approach does allow us to provide an expression of the responses in a rather conditional state. The coexistence of both responses has however not been granted by the multivalent view of the legal traditions.

In some cases, there is need to opt for the state determination as well as party determination of the jurisdiction. In each of the cases however, there is a need to come up with a decision of allowing the determination of the jurisdiction to be by the state or by other parties.

A multifaceted approach has been developed to the issue of multivalence of traditional laws by drawing on a grouping of richer resource sourced from both traditions. Each decided case does however fall within the bivalent logic of p or not-p. In addition we do require additional resource to be used in the determination of choice from the various traditional responses. It can however be categorically stated that Glenn's attempt to draw massive support for the totalizing force of tradition is a huge failure (Halpin,2006).

The merits that are used for the multifaceted approach that draws from an extensive base of traditions in order to explore the many facets of issues that may be overlooked is in need of further research.The finishing sentences (Glenn, 2007, p 365) do suggest that the applicability of 'multivalent thought' does permit for a nonviolent process of selection from amongst a vast variety of legal solutions that are available for the process of regulating social relations.

A comparison of the bivalent logic and the multivalent logic

"Multivalence" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "the quality or state of having many values, meanings, or appeals" (Webster Dictionary,1976). The concept of multivalent logic therefore is premised on the utmost recognition that a few things in this life are black or white as opposed to being in shades of gray (Nguyen,2009).The bivalent logic does see the world as being true or false, all or nothing. In a way the bivalent logic does trade accuracy for simplicity (Kosko,1993).The gap in between is filled with fuzziness

The bivalent thought does involve the proposition that one can never have their own cake and then eat it too (Glenn,2007,p351). The bivalent thought does imply that there exist clear and distinct boundaries as well as separate concepts to the traditional legal systems. The bivalent thought does prevent the mixing and confusion over the various boundaries. The multivalent thought does however suffer from a great challenge. This is because it asserts that all of the categories in existence are inherently vague and that all of the efforts of separations are artificial and arbitrary. This does extend to the physical world in which very sharp physical boundaries are currently dissolving under the influence of the laws of quantum physics. The bivalent logic is behind most of the construction of the western society. The multivalent thought is however also becoming dominant in the western theoretical thinking. The multivalent thought can be manifested in various spheres that are recognized in the western society and the rest of the world alike. In mathematics for example, the theory of sets exists in order to recognize the partial membership to one or more of the sets simultaneously.

The need for multivalence for a legal tradition's stability

There is a great need for multivalence for the legal tradition's stability. This is because the respect for diversity does lie in the multivalent logic as well as its acceptance as pointed out by Glenn (2007). This is because it acts as the middle ground and a space for the reconciliation of various inconsistent legal concepts which are part and parcel of the complex legal tradition. This does exclude the incommensurability as well as the relativism that exists in the complex traditions (Glenn, 2007). The latter of which are independent as well as neither universal in the context of seeking an exclusive adherence. This concept of multivalence is therefore respectful and tolerant to all forms of changes. In order to accept the values of a complex tradition, there is a need of sustaining its diversity. The denial of its inherent value is a promotion of its intolerance via a manifestation of elements of fundamentalism. The acknowledgement of the complex tradition's value has the consequence of increasing the level of communication amongst the legal communities which in turn leads to the promotion of understanding as well as the peaceful settlement of all forms of legal disputes.

How do multivalence within given legal traditions help to promote diversity between different legal traditions?

The plausibility of Glenn's view on sustainable diversity of various different legal traditions cannot fully rely on the number of abstract moves meant to promote the totalizing reach of legal traditions. The existing practical differences that are revealed in a serious survey of the legal traditions are enough to bring out the need of harmonization and the harmonious coexistence of different legal traditions. It is very necessary to view the various traditions within a common perspective. This is in line with Glenn's support for the existence of commensurability of values that exists within various legal traditions (Glenn,2007, p46-47).This strategy can be viewed as being part of a way of providing a final resolution of all the differences that exists within the global legal tradition. Glenn does this by relating the legal traditions to each other and then allowing for the different legal traditions to borrow from each other. Glenn proposes the use of multivalence for the purpose of maintaining a diversity of traditions to coexist harmoniously (Glenn, 2007, p354-65).

Sustainable diversity is essential in law. This is made possible by the multivalent option that allows for the interdependence of the various legal traditions as well as the necessary consequences that come about as a result of the applications of the traditions. The multivalence approach provides the necessary stability for the main traditions which is evidently lacking in the cases of simpler ones as well as the cases of legal movements. The multivalence approach provides a way that allows for the movement to take place within the legal traditions. This therefore results in a scenario that does not allow the disaffection of one of the tradition's branches to imply exit on the disaffected part or an overall loss in terms of adherence to the main tradition.

How to sustain diversity

The process of sustaining diversity amongst all the major traditions is indeed inevitable. The multivalent approach advocates for the keeping in mind all the reported sources of conflict, the inconsistent principles as well as the sources of incommensurability. This is never hard to do since it is through these terms that conflicts are usually defined. The multivalent approach does tell us that the opposing principles do serve to appropriately define the field of play. Two valuable sources of information do exist:

The first one does fall within the conflicting traditions themselves. They are never useful in the solving of the disputes by invoking worldly views. They are indeed a complex set of legal traditions since they do succeed in the reconciliation of otherwise different theoretical views. The second source of information is facts. Multivalence is an important factor in the explanation of the various contemporary issues that affect our complex societies. A society that consists of different groups of people who have multiple legal claims. There are also various legal traditions as well as identities that do overlap in extremely close proximity. There are also several conflicting principles. The conflicting principles do lead to a general weakening of the state legal system. The multivalent though does provide a way of reconciling the various legal traditions, family law, succession and potential status in a way that is considered nonviolent.