昂格尔法律发展观探析

The Research on Unger's Concept of Legal Development

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

行政法学院

作者：

李绍祥

导师：

姚荣茂

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

辩证;法律发展观;法律概念;社会形态

摘要：

《现代社会中的法律》秉承了昂格尔在《知识与政治》一书的主题,对现代西方的主流意识形态予以猛烈的抨击。但同前书不同的是该书集中体现了昂格尔的法律发展观,通过法律这个主题揭示出现代西方的法治危机。昂格尔是一个风格显著的写作者,他的写作技巧和思路给不了解他思想的读者阅读它的著作带来的障碍。在解读该文本时,笔者站在一个读者的立场提出了这样一个问题：什么是昂格尔的概念工具?本文正是以这个问题为叙事线索,试图梳理出该书中被昂格尔刻意隐藏起来的法律发展观。本文在写作技巧上采取与昂格尔叙事相反的解释方式。笔者把第一章和第四章合并起来疏解,先找出昂格尔的“方法论中的先决条件”。该先决条件正是昂格尔方法论中的人性观。在第二部分,笔者通过对概念的概念分析,找出昂格尔概念工具的具体内容：规则性和标准性、公共性和实在性、普遍性和自治性。第三个部分笔者再次颠倒了昂格尔的叙事结构,把该书的第二章和第三章贯穿起来,通过先描绘三种社会形态的特征,再找出各社会形态下的法律要求的方式,指引出昂格尔概念工具的具体内容。接着我试图把他提供的人性视角注入到对规则性和标准性、公共性和实在性、普遍性地和自治性的关系的考察之中。通过分析,笔者认为昂格尔的法律发展观正体现在这三对概念与人性的关系之中：部落社会习惯性法的规则性要求和标准性要求是人性的直接表达,因此也是和人性混同的。贵族社会的官僚法的公共性和实在性是人性的异化结果。但它第一次使法律拥有了自己的骨与肉。自由社会中法律秩序的普遍性和自治性在人性的线索下呈现出分离趋势：普遍性因主张平等而回归到人性要求,但是自治性却因为要求把人类的法律事务全部交由一个完全先在的形式决定而变得更加异化。这种极度背离与内在矛盾成为人们对现代法治的基本印象。在后自由主义社会中对实质平等追求加强了法律的普遍性要求。而福利与合作国家对实在性、公共性和自治性的破坏更是使后现代的法律彻底向着基本人性回归。本文第五部分作为结尾,笔者批评了昂格尔对马克思辩证法的回避,同时指出了昂格尔在现代法治的构建上只给了我们正确但模糊的指引。

学科：

法学理论

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

李绍祥. 昂格尔法律发展观探析[D]. 西南政法大学,2010.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 昂格尔法律发展观探析
  • dc.title
  • The Research on Unger's Concept of Legal Development
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20070301010046
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李绍祥
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2010
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 姚荣茂
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 辩证;;法律发展观;;法律概念;;社会形态
  • dc.subject
  • Dialectical;; Concept of Legal Development;; Concept of Law;; Social Formation
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 《现代社会中的法律》秉承了昂格尔在《知识与政治》一书的主题,对现代西方的主流意识形态予以猛烈的抨击。但同前书不同的是该书集中体现了昂格尔的法律发展观,通过法律这个主题揭示出现代西方的法治危机。昂格尔是一个风格显著的写作者,他的写作技巧和思路给不了解他思想的读者阅读它的著作带来的障碍。在解读该文本时,笔者站在一个读者的立场提出了这样一个问题：什么是昂格尔的概念工具?本文正是以这个问题为叙事线索,试图梳理出该书中被昂格尔刻意隐藏起来的法律发展观。本文在写作技巧上采取与昂格尔叙事相反的解释方式。笔者把第一章和第四章合并起来疏解,先找出昂格尔的“方法论中的先决条件”。该先决条件正是昂格尔方法论中的人性观。在第二部分,笔者通过对概念的概念分析,找出昂格尔概念工具的具体内容：规则性和标准性、公共性和实在性、普遍性和自治性。第三个部分笔者再次颠倒了昂格尔的叙事结构,把该书的第二章和第三章贯穿起来,通过先描绘三种社会形态的特征,再找出各社会形态下的法律要求的方式,指引出昂格尔概念工具的具体内容。接着我试图把他提供的人性视角注入到对规则性和标准性、公共性和实在性、普遍性地和自治性的关系的考察之中。通过分析,笔者认为昂格尔的法律发展观正体现在这三对概念与人性的关系之中：部落社会习惯性法的规则性要求和标准性要求是人性的直接表达,因此也是和人性混同的。贵族社会的官僚法的公共性和实在性是人性的异化结果。但它第一次使法律拥有了自己的骨与肉。自由社会中法律秩序的普遍性和自治性在人性的线索下呈现出分离趋势：普遍性因主张平等而回归到人性要求,但是自治性却因为要求把人类的法律事务全部交由一个完全先在的形式决定而变得更加异化。这种极度背离与内在矛盾成为人们对现代法治的基本印象。在后自由主义社会中对实质平等追求加强了法律的普遍性要求。而福利与合作国家对实在性、公共性和自治性的破坏更是使后现代的法律彻底向着基本人性回归。本文第五部分作为结尾,笔者批评了昂格尔对马克思辩证法的回避,同时指出了昂格尔在现代法治的构建上只给了我们正确但模糊的指引。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Unger's law in modern society inherit the subject of his previous work knowledge and politics:giving a fierce invective to west dominant ideology. But comparing with the previous book, this book differ in that this book displays intensively Unger's legal concept of development and reveals the crisis of the legal order of west society by the subject of the law. Unger is a writer full of personalized style. His personalized technique and thread of the writing hinder the person who had no acquaintance with his works to comprehend his work. When I comprehended this book, I, standing on position of a reader, put forward this question: what is the Unger's conceptual apparatus? This paper just put this question as the clue to comb thread of this book. My way of interpretation is contrary to Unger's mode of narrative. I try to combine the comb of the first and forth chapter to find out Unger's methodological presupposition. That just is the view of the human nature in Unger's methodology. In the second part, by analyzing the concept of the concept, I find out that the content of the conceptual apparatus is regularity and normative, public and positive, general and autonomous. In the third part, I overturn the Unger's structure of the narrative again to point out the conceptual apparatus by linking the second chapter and the third chapter to depict the character of social formation firstly and then to find out the legal require under the all kinds of the social formation. Then I try to inject the view of the human nature to the course of relational inspection of the regularity and normative, public and positive, general and autonomous. By this analysis, I think that Unger's legal concept of development just hind in the relation of human nature and these three couple concept:in the tribal society, the require of regularity and normative of the custom is the directly reflection of the human nature, so it is mixed up with human nature. In the aristocratic society, the require of public and positive of the bureaucratic law is the alienation result of the human nature, but that make the law have its own blood and flesh. In the liberal society, the require of the general and autonomous of the legal order take on the tendency of detach under the clue of the human nature:on the one hand, require of the general of the law return to the human nature because of its equality claim, on the other hand, the require of autonomous of the law become more greatly alienation, because it demand people leave the legal affairs to a preexistence format. This extreme departure from the inherent contradictions becomes a basic impression of the modern rule of law. In the post-liberal society, the pursuit of substantive equality strengthens the universality of the law required. The welfare and cooperative state's damage to public, positive and autonomous of the law make post-modern law return toward basic human so thoroughly. In part five, as the end of this article, I criticized Unger's avoidance to the dialectics of Marxism and pointed out Unger also give us right but vague guidelines on the rule of law in modern building.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D909
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2010-03-01
回到顶部