Glenn's multivalent logic and legal traditions coexistence

¶ … 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.

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.

The concept of multivalence within the given tradition is indeed an inherent limit to the process of external expansion. The existing internal ambiguity does create doubts regarding the process of external expansion. The main questions on this regards the nature of what is to be expanded and the reasons as to why it is necessary to competing the internal views as well as the external ones. Such doubts are welcome in the multivalent thought and d represents various truths such as:

Religious

Ecological

Ethical and Rational ones.

Each of these is a representation of enormous efforts that extends over a protracted amount of time. Each and every major complex tradition does provide a different thing to the world that is not provided by another. The fact that the legal theme does persist and therefore the traditions too persist. They are a perfect reminder of the fact that we must qualify as well as limit ourselves. Each of these therefore is important in ensuring that diversity exists (Anton, 1995).

The sustenance of diversity means that we do accept and not tolerate the major and complex legal traditions of this world. We are also put in a situation that demands that we see the traditions as being mutually independent so that the loss of any of them implies the loss of the rest. One also has to see the traditions as their own in certain circles since each of them are dependent of each other. It implies that we have to consider the western bivalent thought as being inadequate and then subsequently abandoning them

The attainment of diversity in law is meant to have positive impact in the legal process since it leads to an improved level of communication between the various layers of the world. This in turn enhances the prospects of peaceful settlements of disputes in order to enhance peaceful missions. The individualistic traditions may therefore borrow and utilize informal notions of normatively in order to complement themselves. The collective tradition on the other hand may borrow and utilize the instruments of self-empowerment in order to complement them too.

The recognition as well as the acceptance of the rather diverse nature of the legal traditions of this world has major implications for various identities which people in this world do accord them. The recognition of the tradition of others is in a way a person's way of adhering to these traditions.