Fortunately, there are some comparative law ideas that seem to entail the changed circumstances. For example, it has been argued byVernon Valentine Palmer that we should have at least different shades of grey instead of mere black and white. He specifically has proposed that we should have a sliding scale of methods fitted to the purpose of present comparative study.59 His idea is not built upon dichotomy, but rather on a certain theoretical flexibility according to which: From there we can draw a more general conclusion, like Palmer:“The message from Mount Olympus must not be that comparative law is always forbidding and difficult.”60 But we can say something more: instead of dichotomy i.e. black and white, we need to take into account various factors that enrich the number of also epistemologically relevant factors: purpose of study, abilities of comparatists, costs; how much money and time is justified to spend (for the given purpose), how large the research-group is etc. However, these are not only practical questions because they have also theoretical consequences concerning the methodological fit for the given purpose. But what does it mean to really abandon the dichotomous base of comparative law epistemology? And is this completely justified to ask? Yes, it is by all means. But what does it actually mean to genuinely assume a non-dichotomous pluralistic understanding of epistemology? This is a central question or even as Oliver Brand says a Gordian knot for comparative law: Can we allow methodological pluralism or should we try to obtain consensus?61 Now, it might be useful to concretise the idea of flexible methodology by using the idea of method scale.And, from these rather sketchy outlines above, we may go on and rely on a specific epistemic concept developed by Jürgen Habermas: interest of jaakko hu sa 125 Law(2007) 133-150. 59 Palmer,“From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology”, 4 Global Jurist Frontiers (2004) No. 2.,Article 1. 60 Palmer (2004). 61 See Brand (2007) p. 408. It would be a serious blow if all matters had to be analysed from one angle or perspective, or treated with the same detail and depth, or prepared to the same degree or in the same way. Instead there should be a sliding scale of methods and the best approach will always be adapted in terms of the specific purposes of the research, the subjective abilities of the researcher, and the affordability of the costs.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=