Most of you know that through Juris Diversitas and in a series of (repetitive) articles over the last few years (see here), I've tried to encourage jurists to see the comparative enterprise as a deep reading of normative-legal complexity (in the past and present and in principle and practice). I've done this in the language of 'hybridity'.
'Hybridity' is only rarely used in legal and normative scholarship. When employed by comparatists, it is a mere synonym for mixed legal systems of positive, state law. But, building on the work of comparatist Esin Örücü and 'legal pluralists', I've suggested that 'hybridity' may be used with more precision as a constructive term-of-art in an holistic, relational analysis of the legal-normative complexity of different time-spaces. (I know, I know ...)
In doing so, I've intentionally borrowed from other disciplines. In post-colonial studies, for example, 'hybridity' serves as part of a critique of binary, reified thinking about cultures and their members. It emphasizes the deep and dynamic complexity of individual identities in colonial and post-colonial contexts. In short, I've applied an analogous approach to institutional legality and normativity, revealing its inherent complexity. Anyway, you know where to find more on the subject.
Of course, 'hybridity' has a life of its own. Most recently, the editors of Glocalism: the Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation created a special issue on, you guessed it, 'hybridity'. The articles can be found here. I suggest that you have a look.