TANZANIA, July 17, 2025 — When artifacts collected during colonial times are viewed by indigenous communities as extensions of the human body, not mere objects, property rights become a problematic framework for discussing their return.
This conflict between Western legal concepts and indigenous worldviews is the focus of Professor Jonas Bens’s groundbreaking research.
Professor Dr. Jonas Bens, a Heisenberg Professor of Ethnology at the University of Hamburg, bridges law and ethnology to explore how different societies regulate issues like ownership, often leading to clashes with imported “modern law.”
Professor Dr. Jonas Bens conducting research on differing legal systems in Boma N’Gombe, Tanzania, participating in a workshop with Maasai representatives.
Clashing Legal Worldviews
Bens’s work examines how European legal systems, particularly those centered on capitalist property rights, have been spread globally over the last 500 years through colonialism. These systems frequently collide with alternative legal ideas, such as those found in indigenous traditions.
A prime example is Bens’s research into ethnological collections in museums. Many items in these collections, acquired under duress during the colonial era, are now subject to restitution debates. In northern Tanzania, for instance, Maasai communities often perceive objects taken by Germany not as possessions, but as integral parts of the human body.
“Such fundamental understandings are not that unusual,” Bens noted. In Amazonian indigenous communities, for example, collection objects are seen as kinship members or ancestors, non-human actors with their own power.
From these perspectives, ownership is not the appropriate legal framework. Discussing property rights in such contexts can even be perceived as a form of colonial violence, especially when museums initiate restitution talks based on these Western legal concepts.
Research Methods Uncovered
Bens employs ethnographic observation and in-depth conversations, directly engaging with people. This contrasts with research into state law, which often relies on written codes.
Understanding conflicts between these systems requires examining the historical, political, social, cultural, and economic contexts. Bens stresses that ethnological research aims not just to resolve individual conflicts but to critically analyze how conflicts operate.
By learning something about others, we also learn something about ourselves.
Self-Discovery Through Cultural Understanding
Bens emphasizes that this research extends beyond other countries. “We want to find out what distinguishes people, cultures and societies, but also what they have in common,” he explained.
This comparative approach sheds light on domestic conflicts in Germany, such as debates around gender and sexuality. Bens notes that societies have historically held diverse views on these matters.
Migration also presents a complex normative landscape. While modern law emphasizes fixed national borders and nationalities, Bens questions the universality of these rules, suggesting they often serve the interests of a powerful few. He advocates for a human-centered approach to conflict resolution, asking if rules truly protect those with less power and money.
International Law and Its Tensions
Bens has also researched international legal systems, like the International Criminal Court, which address war crimes and crimes against humanity when national courts fail.
He notes that these supranational bodies often conflict with national or local normative orders. In Africa, international criminal law is frequently perceived as a continuation of colonialism, with European powers imposing their rules.
Conversely, marginalized individuals often turn to international legal frameworks when their national laws fail. This creates a tension where governments may reject international systems, prompting the critical question: Is current international law, including human rights, eroding?
A Critical Legal Lens
Bens advocates for a legally critical perspective. He argues that modern law, particularly its liberal variant, often asserts universality, dismissing other forms as “pre-modern.”
Legal anthropology, he suggests, offers a way to critique modern systems. This perspective is vital when authoritarian movements challenge liberal legal frameworks. Bens concludes, “Then it becomes all the more important that we analyze exactly what is going on here and ask the question from a very broad perspective: In which society do we want to live in and what rules do we want to sit down?”
