Culture all around? Contextualising anthropological expertise in European courtroom settings

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debate on the role of anthropological expertise in the legal sphere by broadening the analytical field of vision. Rather than focusing on the anthropologist, his or her positionality, the epistemic status of anthropological knowledge or the ensuing ethical questions – as the other contributions to this themed section do – we turn the question around. Based on empirical data from a survey conducted among European judges on judiciary practice and sociocultural diversity, our focus here is on the question of how judges perceive, assess and accommodate sociocultural diversity in their daily decision-making. We furthermore investigate the conditions under which external expertise is called upon in specific legal settings and situations. We develop a conceptual argument for rethinking the role of anthropological knowledge and research in legal practice and argue for the need to pursue new forms of collaborative ethnography with judges that go beyond participant observation of their courtroom interactions. Working together with the judges who give decisions on cases, we claim, can provide scope for both critical reflection and applied problem-solving.

Courtroom Ethnography in the Context of Terrorism: A Multi-Level Approach

“…Vetters and Foblets (2016, p. 289) argue that culture-sensitive methodical approaches necessitate a “collaborating ethnography” which makes “judicial decision-makers’ practical cultural analysis and reflection visible.” Similarly, Dequen (2013) analyzes how references to social norms and “common sense” as culturally embedded terms lead to the intersubjective negotiation and construction of the “refugee figure” in French administrative proceedings. With a perspective on the interconnection of gender rights and justice, Enright and colleagues (2016) argue for the situatedness of gender in criminal justice practices by rewriting judgments concerning (violence against) women in Ireland from a feminist perspective.…”

The role of lawyers, judges, country experts and officials in British asylum and immigration law

“…Other anthropologists argue that lawyers operate with different epistemological premises to anthropology, which can create serious ethical dilemmas and which requires them to position themselves strategically in relation to the court (Hoehne, 2016). Yet other anthropologists argue that anthropologists should ‘collaborate’ with courts and lawyers (Vetters and Foblets, 2016) despite clear evidence that lawyers and judges ‘instrumentalise’ anthropological methods by appropriating their research and knowledge (Riles, 2006). While arguments about supposed differences in disciplinary training are no doubt correct, they completely miss the point: the legal system provides judges with the power to conduct a hearing and decide the value of all the evidence submitted to the court.…”

Introduction. Un nouvel agenda pour l’anthropologie du droit ?

“…As part of a larger attempt to create a platform for European scientists, legal practitioners and judges who address questions revolving around cultural diversity and its accommodation in law, the survey aimed to (1) identify the main legal issues and challenges courts in Europe are faced with in relation to questions of cultural diversity; (2) find out what techniques and tools are currently used by judges to address these issues; and (3) identify which tools are of most help to judges in their daily practice. The analysis of survey data and in-depth discussions with some of the participating judges led to a theoretical and methodological reflection on the role of anthropological knowledge and research in legal practice and a call for collaborative courtroom ethnography with judges (Vetters and Foblets 2016).…”