Cultural Autonomy and State Law: Minority Governance Practices and Legal Recognition
Keywords:
Cultural autonomy, state law, minority governance, legal recognition, legal pluralismAbstract
This study aimed to explore how minority communities in Tehran understand, practice, and negotiate cultural autonomy within the framework of state law and formal legal recognition. This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 24 participants from Tehran who had direct experience with minority governance practices, cultural associations, community mediation, legal assistance, or rights-based advocacy. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, followed by theoretical sampling until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews focused on community decision-making, informal governance, interaction with state institutions, perceived legal recognition, cultural rights, and tensions between collective autonomy and individual legal protection. Interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize transcripts, code data, compare emerging categories, and support the development of final themes. Analysis generated five main categories: autonomy as everyday community governance, conditional and uneven legal recognition, boundary negotiation between state law and community norms, protection of vulnerable insiders, and legal translation through mediation. Participants described cultural autonomy not as separation from state law but as a practical capacity to preserve language, rituals, dispute-resolution practices, kinship obligations, and community authority while remaining legally accountable to the state. However, recognition was experienced as partial, administrative, and dependent on the discretion of institutions and officials. Participants also emphasized that community governance requires internal accountability, especially where women, youth, migrants, or economically weaker members may be pressured by informal authority structures. The study shows that cultural autonomy is best understood as a negotiated legal and social practice rather than a fixed institutional status. Effective legal recognition requires flexible state frameworks that acknowledge minority governance practices while safeguarding equal citizenship, access to formal justice, and individual rights within minority communities.
Downloads
References
Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous peoples in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton University Press.
Borrows, J. (2010). Canada’s Indigenous constitution. University of Toronto Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. University of Chicago Press.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.
Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18(24), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Clarendon Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys: Navigating the new international politics of diversity. Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
Merry, S. E. (2006). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. University of Chicago Press.
Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and social change: The semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 719–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/3052967
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Phillips, A. (2007). Multiculturalism without culture. Princeton University Press.
Santos, B. de Sousa. (2002). Toward a new legal common sense: Law, globalization, and emancipation (2nd ed.). Butterworths LexisNexis.
Shachar, A. (2001). Multicultural jurisdictions: Cultural differences and women’s rights. Cambridge University Press.
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2008). Understanding legal pluralism: Past to present, local to global. Sydney Law Review, 30(3), 375–411.
Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton University Press.
United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295). United Nations.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (1994). General Comment No. 23: Article 27—Rights of minorities (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5). United Nations.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
