“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 37 (2026), pages 732–740.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2026-37-732-740

Ulyhanets Viktoriia
The Impact of the Debate between Max Gluckman and Paul Bohannan on the Development of Legal Anthropology in Africa

ISSN online: 2617-9776 print: 0869-2491

This article examines the intellectual debate between Max Gluckman and Paul Bohannan concerning the nature of legal concepts and the methodological foundations of legal anthropology, with a particular focus on African legal systems. The emergence of legal anthropology in Africa took place under conditions of colonial and postcolonial legal pluralism, which raised fundamental questions about the possibility of interpreting non-Western legal systems through the conceptual framework of Western jurisprudence. In this context, the debate between M. Gluckman and P. Bohannan became one of the most influential theoretical discussions in the field during the mid-twentieth century.

M. Gluckman’s approach was based on the assumption that, despite cultural differences in substantive legal norms, the logic of legal reasoning and argumentation is universal and can be analyzed using abstract legal categories developed within Western legal thought. Drawing on extensive fieldwork among the Lozi and other African societies, he sought to demonstrate the rationality of African legal systems and to challenge colonial assumptions about their alleged primitiveness. By contrast, P. Bohannan argued for a radical cultural relativism, maintaining that legal concepts are inseparable from the cultural contexts in which they arise and that translating indigenous legal categories into Western legal terminology inevitably distorts their meaning. His studies of Tiv law emphasized the need to analyze legal phenomena strictly in indigenous terms.

The article analyzes the theoretical implications of this debate and its impact on the subsequent development of legal anthropology in Africa. It demonstrates that the Gluckman–Bohannan controversy went beyond terminological disagreements and addressed broader issues concerning the limits of comparative analysis, the epistemological status of legal anthropology, and the balance between universality and cultural specificity in the study of law. The article argues that Gluckman’s position, despite its limitations, provides a more productive framework for comparative legal anthropology, as it allows for the recognition of cultural specificity while preserving the possibility of analytical comparison. Ultimately, the debate contributed to the shift in legal anthropology from a static, norm-centered understanding of law toward a processual analysis of dispute settlement, legal reasoning, and social change in African societies.

Keywords: legal anthropology, philosophy of law, sociology of law, methodology of law, legal theory, legal relativism, legal culture, legal system, legal pluralism, anthropological and legal research.

 References

1. Johnson J. Law, Dispute Resolution, and Justice. A Companion to the Anthropology of Africa / ed. by R. R. Grinker, S. C. Lubkemann, C. B. Steiner, E. Gonçalves. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019. P. 82.

2. Yokan M. Z. Almanac of African Peoples Nations. London, New York: Routledge, 2017. P. 456–457.

3. Dyv. detalʹnishe: Gluckman M. Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1965. 339 p.

4. Yokan M. Z. Almanac of African Peoples Nations. London, New York: Routledge, 2017. P. 675–677.

5. LaBonne K. Manchester School. URL: https://anthropological-theory.fandom.com/wiki/Manchester_ School (data zvernennya: 14.12.2025).

6. Moore S. F. Certainties Undone: Fifty Turbulent Years of Legal Anthropology, 1949–1999. Law and Anthropology: A Reader / Ed. by S. F. Moore. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. P. 348.

7. Ibid. P. 348. 

8. Ibid. P. 348.

9. Ibid. P. 348.

10. Ibid. P. 348–349.

11. Ibid. P. 349.

12. Ibid. P. 349.

13. Ibid. P. 349.

14. Ibid. P. 349.

15. Ibid. P. 349.

16. Ibid. P. 349.

17. Ibid. P. 349.

18. Gordon R. J. The Enigma of Max Gluckman: The Ethnographic life of a “Luckyman” in Africa. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press, 2018. P. 358.

19. Ibid. P. 358.

20. Ibid. P. 358.

21. Ibid. P. 359.

22. Ibid. P. 359.

23. Ibid. P. 359.

24. Ibid. P. 359.

25. Ibid. P. 359.

26. Ibid. P. 359.

27. Ibid. P. 359.

28. Dyv. detalʹnishe: Bohannan P. Justice and Judgment among the Tiv. Waveland Press, Inc. 1989. 221 p.

29. Bohannan P. Africa and Africans. Garden City, New York: The National History Press. 1964. P. Preface.

30. Bohannan P. Justice and Judgment among the Tiv. Waveland Press, Inc. 1989. P. 210.

31. Ibid. P. 214.

32. Bohannan P. Africa and Africans. Garden City, New York: The National History Press. 1964. P. 199.

33. Goodale M. Anthropology and Law: A Critical Introduction. New York: New York University Press. 2017. P. 15.

34. Ibid. P. 15–16.

35. Gluckman M. Concepts in the Comparative Study of Tribal Law. Law in Culture and Society / ed. by L. Nader. Berkley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1997. P. 373.

36. Moore S. F. Certainties Undone: Fifty Turbulent Years of Legal Anthropology, 1949–1999. Law and Anthropology: A Reader / Ed. by S. F. Moore. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. P. 350.

37. Ibid. P. 350.

38. Rouland N. Legal Anthropology / transl. from French by P. G. Planel. London: The Athlone Press, 1994.145.

39. Ibid. P. 145.

40. Ibid. P. 145.

41. Goodale M. Anthropology and Law: A Critical Introduction. New York: New York University Press. 2017. P. 16.

42. Ibid. P. 16.

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 02.01.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 03.03.2026
Дата публікації: 24.03.2026