part ii • legal cultures • jørn øyrehagen sunde might be done through abstract writing and talking, but is most efficiently done through different practices that link values and attitudes to actual consequences. The substance of the law, whether institutional practices or the practices of individuals and groups of individuals, hence drives the making, upholding, and changing of a legal culture. Because of the interplay between what Friedman defines as structure, substance, and culture, I have defined legal culture as ideas and expectations of the law made operational by institutional or institution-like practices.20 Yet even when defined, legal culture can still appear more of a notion than a fact. As Friedman puts it elsewhere in this volume, ‘there is also such a thing as legal culture, and that’s how I used the term. But others have used the term in other ways. In many ways I think it’s an unfortunate phrase, because peoplemisunderstand it; I use it simply to mean ideas, opinions, attitudes, and expectations about law. Other people use it with a different meaning, and that creates a great deal of confusion.’21 Friedman chooses not split legal culture into different elements.22 There is a long tradition of doing so to make legal culture more manageable as an analytical tool. In a pioneering article on ‘Foundations of European Legal Culture’ (1985), Franz Wieacker investigates (i) personalism, (ii) legalism, and (iii) intellectualism in European legal culture.23 Mark van Hoecke and Mark Warrington in ‘Legal Cultures, Legal Paradigms and Legal Doctrine’ (1998) elect to operate with (i) concepts of law, (ii) legal sources, (iii) legal method, (iv) argumentation, (v) legiti20 Having previously focused on Friedman’s definition of legal culture inThe Legal System (1975), I failed to note the relationship between structure, substance, and culture, hence my ‘Champagne at the Funeral:An Introduction to Legal Culture’, in id. et al. (eds.), Rendezvous of European Legal Cultures(Bergen:Fagbokforlaget, 2010), 20; ‘LegalCultural Changes in Europe: Teaching Future Prospects on the Basis of Legal History and Comparative Law’, in Kjell ÅModéer et al. (eds.), How to Teach European Comparative Legal History(Lund: Juristförlaget, 2011), 51; ‘Live and Let Die: An Essay Concerning Legal-Cultural Understanding’, in Maurice Adams et al. (eds.), TheMethod and Culture of Comparative law: Essays in Honour of Mark van Hoecke (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 231; and ‘Managing the Umanagable’, in Søren Koch et al. (eds.), Comparing Legal Cultures (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 2017), 15. 21 Interview with Lawrence Friedman in this volume. 22 The same is true of Jaako Husa, New Introduction to Comparative Law(Oxford: Hart, 2015). 23 Franz Wieacker, ‘Foundations of European Legal Culture’, American Journal of Comparative Law38/1 (1990), 1–29. 130
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=