Abstract
This article takes a close look at the state of comparative constitutional studies as constitutional scholarship is taking a comparative turn. It first surveys the field and identifies four varieties - doctrinal, law-and-society, documentary, and cultural - of constitutional comparison and then critically investigates the state of comparative constitutional studies. Through this two-stage engagement, this article aims to make two main analytical points. First, at the core of each of the four varieties of comparative constitutional studies lies an interpretive exercise oriented by its distinctive purpose. Second, the social sciences' growing influence on constitutional comparison has entailed a myth of scientism in the field, which may inadvertently impoverish comparative constitutional studies as a whole. It concludes with a cautionary note on the comparative turn in studying constitutional ordering. With its prevalent focus on formal institutions and norms in constitutional orders, the comparative turn may unwittingly limit studies of the multifaceted constitutional phenomenon.