Das Verhängnis von Ethnozentrismus und Kulturrelativismus in der Rechtsvergleichung

The Fate of Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism in Comparative Law - Causes, Manifestations and Effective Strategies. This article addresses different forms of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in comparative law and seeks to generate alternative approaches. At first glance, cultural relativism seems to be the only alternative to ethnocentrism. However, this either-or fallacy results from an epistemological simplification of the relationship between the Self and the Other and may be transcended by the re-conceptualisation of this relationship. In this way, we can generate alternative approaches in comparative law that go beyond both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. In general, ethnocentrism means that one's own norms and standards are universalised and thereby serve as an allegedly neutral basis to learn about, represent, judge and criticise the Other. On the other hand, cultural relativism traces all norms and standards back to the culture where they have been generated and confines their scope of application to this culture of origin. Hence, different cultures are incommensurable\ value judgements and critique of one culture from the perspective of another culture are not allowed. This article discusses different forms of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism with regard to four topics of comparative law: The role of our own standards for value judgements about foreign law\ the methodological handling of our prejudices when we try to understand foreign law and its Otherness\