No abstract

Drawing from detailed courtroom discourses on divorce cases in China, this article provides a micro‐level comparison between two styles of case handling: mediatory and legalistic. The two styles differ in discourse multiplicity, discourse interchange, interruption, and dispute processing. It finds that in terms of dispute resolution, the mediatory style seems to fare better than the legalistic style. One major reason for the difference is that the legalistic style tends to suppress rather than uncover what truly matters for the litigants. The mediatory style also seems to better fit the cultural expectation of suburban and rural China. The findings compel reconsideration of the extent to which rule formalism in transitional China should be promoted.