Metamorphosis of Functionalism — or Back to Basics?
| Author | Jaakko Husa |
| Published date | 01 December 2011 |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1101800408 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Debates |
548 18 MJ 4 (2011)
LeGAL De BAtes
MetAMoRPHosIs oF FUnCtIonALIsM
– oR BACK to BAsICs?
J H*
‘As Functionalism awoke one morn ing from uneasy dreams it
found itself transfo rmed in its bed into a gigantic insec t.’1
§1. UNEASY DREAM FROM ADMIRATION TO LOATHING
e story of so-cal led functionalism in compar ative law is a bizarre one: from the heights
of the methodological t hrone, where it was once praised, lately it has found itself despised
and ridiculed. e fa ll of functionalism creates a dichotomy: either you keep admiring
it or you despise it. From a sceptical perspective there is no point discussing functional
method in s cholarly comparat ive law.2 However, for those who see functionalism as
one tool in a larger toolbox this contempt comes as a surprise. As Michaels says, so-
called functional comparative law ‘stands for every thing that is bad about mainstream
comparative law’ to its opponents.3 Yet, there are those who see a use for f unctionalism.4
Even those who regard functiona lism with suspicion may state that it ‘stil l has its
virtues a nd valuable applications today’ or that comparative law ‘should build upon
funct ionalism’s legacy’.5
* Chair of Lega l Culture and Lega l Linguistic s, University of Lapland , Invited Fellow of Maast richt
Institute of Eu ropean Private Law (M-EPLI), a nd Adjunct Professor of Compar ative Legal Science ,
University of Helsin ki. is paper was w ritten for the ‘Legal Deb ates’ section of the Maastric ht Journal
on the basis of more ex tensive presentation given i n M-EPLI Round Table in Maastr icht on 17June 2011.
1 Paraphrasi ng Kaa (‘Als Gregor Samsa eine s Morgens aus unruhige n Träumen erwachte, fand er sic h in
seinem Bett zu e inem ungeheueren Unge ziefer verwande lt’), F. Kaa, Gesammelte Werke, M. Brod (ed.),
Band 1–9 (Fischer, Frank furt am Mai n 1950), p.57.
2 See M. Graziad ei, ‘e Functional ist Heritage’, in P. Legrand and R . Munday (eds.), Comparative Legal
Studies: Traditions and Transitions (Cambridge Universit y Press, Cambridge 2 003), p.100–127.
3 R. Michaels, ‘ e Functionalist Method of C omparative Law’, in M. Reimann a nd R. Zimmermann
(eds .), e Oxford Han dbook of Comparative Law (Oxford Univer sity Press, Oxford 20 06), p.340.
4 A.E. Platsa s, ‘e Functional a nd Dysfunctiona l in the Comparative Method of Law ’, 12 Electronic
Journal of Comparative Law 3 (2008), www.ejcl.org/123/art12 3–3.pdf (last visite d 29Octobe r 2011)
(‘the leading pr inciple’, ‘functiona lity has a futu re’).
5 O. Brand, ‘Concept ual Comparison s: Towards a Coherent Methodology of C omparative Lega l Studies’,
32 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 2 (2007), p.420; Whytock, ‘ Legal Origi ns, Functiona lism, and
the Future of Compa rative Law’, Brigham Young Universit y Law Review 34 (2009), p.1904.
To continue reading
Request your trial