Tamanaha argues that it shouldn"t be necessary for the us to create a social understanding of law prior to being able to use legal pluralism. But we should seek to learn law through the lense of different social groups and how they see law. Tamanaha says that law is symbolic on it"s own and the term contains the significance of power and confidence. And i agree with tamanha"s approach because he highlights specifically that we don"t need to socially understand what law is before we can use the term of legal pluralism. The central argument of santos & rodriguez is that a top- down view of law, worldwide integration and politics reveals their deficiency to notice the bottom up opposing to the changing ideas of law around the globe.