Somewhat related to my last post (just minutes ago) on developing rule of law in post-conflict situations, I reflect upon a conversation I had after a rugby match between BC Law and Yale:
I was talking with a Yale graduate student in archeology about his work in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. From my own experiences in East Africa, I always wondered about how people go about and research ancient history in places so unexplored such as East Africa.
He basically confirmed my suspicions and said, “You just go into towns and talk to people and ask about their grandparents.”
And so I believe that in developing reforms such as rule of law (and especially IP-related law in terms of corporate investment) you really need to go in and figure out what’s been going on per a cultural basis–and that needs to happen not by asking theorists or by positing your own assumptions as to how things should be, but rather talking to the people and seeing what their thoughts are first.
In my experience, the thickest barrier between this type of anthropological and humanistic work and the work desired of the “development set” is that you have to get “down and dirty” with the culture. Unfortunately, many of the “development set” find it difficult to sit in a mud hut sitting on seasons of cow shit and work through the culture into understanding what has happened before their Nikes have touched the ground.
But to develop legal systems it takes time to figure out what has happened before–socially, culturally, and psychologically–for modern patterns and practices to take hold.