This article criticizes overtly normative, rigid and paradoxical positions found within the methodological debate of comparative law and comparative legal studies today. The author studies possibilities for a new method by which to conceive the nature of methodology concerning comparative study of law. The article advocates for a common sense based flexible understanding of comparative late modern methodology. Both mainstream and non-mainstream methodologies are analyzed from a theoretical point of view. Methodological contradictions between these two are regarded to be artificial as to their foundational nature. The author makes suggestions for a more open way by which to conceive methodology, which is capable of evading some of the problems found at the extreme ends of the methodological debate between functionalistic and culturally/contextually-oriented schools of thought. This article suggests that all-or-nothing nature of methodological debate should be avoided because it is unrealistic and reflects poor self-image of comparative study of law.
- comparative law,
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jaakko_husa/19/