ABSTRACT
The study of the plurality of legal orders must abandon the pluralist 'paradigm'. It is at best superfluous; at worst, it is confused. The first contention concerns legal pluralism as a descriptive approach to law and does not mean that all the claims of legal pluralism are wrong, but that they are poorly made by this so-called paradigm. The second concerns legal pluralism as a normative approach. Yet pluralism can above all be explained as a political attitude, which defines its claims and arguments so poorly that one may suspect it of being an aesthetic position. This is because the political stance of legal pluralism is generally inexplicit and undefended. Much more than an instructive example of this is the epitomic Romano, with whom every discussion on legal pluralism should start. According to some scholars, the source of legal pluralism is to be found in ethnology.
