Book Review: Shallow Equality and Symbolic Jurisprudence in Multilingual Legal Orders

diasporic subjects, migrants, and refugees. Consequently, Oorschot fails to see how patriarchal and ableist logics, among others, determine the evaluation of the case-file. Though Oorschot attempts not to offer a pure theory, her thinking distills legal procedure to the juristic. For her, the only ‘truth’ to be found is in the practices of case-making. Yet a case-file does not merely tell a story of its inception, reception, and mediation; it also conveys a normative truth or an episteme. Thus, Oorschot leaves unexamined how different beings or bodies of law speak and decide on different legal areas (criminal, civil, public, etc). Indeed, if law is multiplicitous Oorschot unintentionally shows it is also anxious about how other (legal) spheres disrupt its monosemy and monopoly and so it seeks to control and determine its own operation and practices.