How Can General Jurisprudence Be Possible

William Twining, who is a contemporary English jurist, argues that we should revive the general jurisprudence in Anglo-American traditional jurisprudence in face of globalization. His aim is to promote the health of discipline of law and jurisprudence which is a theoretical part of law as a discipline. However, in the existing studies on Twining's general jurisprudence, some people have treated his work as"the lamp lighter's tragedy". Others have viewed his efforts as"Utopia". In my opinion, the two perspectives are not concerned about the central issue in Twining's general jurisprudence. Therefore, in order to reveal the internal intensions in Twining's general jurisprudence and the question—the possibility of understanding other culture, that is, the limits of commensurability of cultural analyses of knowledge—which underlies his theory, this paper attempts to place his general jurisprudence into its theoretical tradition and then examine his analytical approach and primary propositions, and his process of realizing general jurisprudence. The full text is divided into five major parts altogether.PartⅠproposes the question and establishes the framework of the argument. By surveying the existing studies on Twining's general jurisprudence, the core question of this paper is proposed. Firstly, what is meant by Twining's"general jurisprudence"? Secondly, according to Twining, how can general jurisprudence be possible? In other words, what is the process that was used to realize it? Whether his way is valid? Thirdly, what is the more important question that underlies his general jurisprudence?PartⅡanalyzes the Twining's analytical approach. The argument of this part is the preliminary part before the research. In view of the facts that Twining's analytical approach includes two aspects which are connected with each other tightly: reconstructing the tradition of general jurisprudence in Anglo-American Jurisprudence and introducing the fact of globalization, thus, first of all, this part analyzes how did Twining retrospect and reconstruct the tradition of general jurisprudence in Anglo-American Jurisprudence. Twining attempted to get bases and sources for his general jurisprudence through classifying the traditional Anglo-American Jurisprudence as three categories--analytical jurisprudence, normative jurisprudence and empirical jurisprudence--and reconstructing its aspiration to a general jurisprudence. In the next place, this part analyzes the double roles which globalization played in Twining's general jurisprudence. On the one hand, the challenges which globalization has presented to traditional western (mainly Anglo-American) legal theory constitute the drive that made Twining to reflect and revive general jurisprudence. On the other hand, varieties of global phenomenon compose the crucial foundation by which Twining justified general jurisprudence. By surveying Twining's Analytical approach, this paper concludes that there are two theoretical tendencies in Twining's general jurisprudence: the generality of theory itself and the geographical globalization of application.PartⅢsummarizes and reconstructs the primary propositions in Twining's general jurisprudence. Firstly, Twining's general jurisprudence refers to"the theoretical study of two or more legal traditions, cultures, orders (including ones within the same legal tradition or family) from the micro-comparative to the universal". Secondly, the subject-matters of Twining's general jurisprudence involve all the levels of law in the world as a whole—that is, global law, international law, regional law, transnational law, inter-communal law, territorial state law, sub-state law, and non-state law. Finally, the central issue of Twining's general jurisprudence is: how far is it meaningful, feasible, and desirable to generalize—conceptually, normatively, empirically, legally—across legal traditions and cultures? To what extent are legal phenomenon context-specific and culture-specific?PartⅣanalyzes and illuminates the process through which Twining attempted to realize his general jurisprudence. In other words, according to Twining, how can general jurisprudence be possible? First of all, this part illuminates Twining how introduced the debate on emic and etic in anthropology and how connected it with the controversy over the folk and analytic concepts in legal anthropology. According to this analysis, this paper concludes that Twining has classified these debates as two approaches: one is the functionalist and the other is the hermeneutic. He argued the two approaches had respective limitations, thus we should approach a compromise between the two. Consequently, Twining refused the strong legal relativism and adopted the standpoint of moderate legal relativism. In the next place, this part analyzes Twining's refutation of strong legal relativism and his justification for moderate legal relativism in detail.PartⅤreviews Twining's general jurisprudence as a whole. Basing on the four parts above, the aim of this part is not only to reveal the internal intensions in Twining's general jurisprudence, but also to reveal the more crucial question that underlies his legal theory. Firstly, the empirical and descriptive way that Twining viewed globalization makes it impossible to construct a substantive ideal picture about general jurisprudence. At the same time, it is possible that his general jurisprudence may become another form of western hegemony. Secondly, there are several limits in Twining's analytical approach. On the one hand, in light of the fact that he didn't think law had a core concept, Twining can't explain the essence of law. On the other hand, the dichotomy between fact and value is indefensible. And this dichotomy conflicts with his assumption that few of intellectuals can break away very far from their intellectual roots. Furthermore, related to the two aspects given above, even if he attempted to make a compromise between emic and etic, folk concepts and analytic concepts, how can he, who has deep-rooted biases of western cultural tradition, go into the spirit world of non-western people? That is to say, how can he understand and cognize the imagination on the future by the locals from the local perspective? Thirdly, the more crucial issue which hides beneath the question -- how can general jurisprudence be possible--thus stands out: that is to say, the issue about how to understand other culture. In other words, it's the issue about the limits of commensurability of cultural analyses of knowledge. This issue is not merely a problem which Twining and other researchers have confronted personally, but also everyone, who conceives an intellectual undertaking and who conceives some imaginations on the social order and its implication to his or her own life, must ponder over seriously. Of course, any researcher who makes efforts to study law and globalization in China should take it into account.