论文部分内容阅读
对清代地方社会的诉讼实态,由于史料的来源和分析的视角不同,现有的研究得出了“反诉讼社会”、“诉讼社会”两种截然不同的结论。“反诉讼社会”论者站在官方的立场,运用官箴、典籍一类的文献,更多的是表达了官民对无讼社会的理想诉求;而“诉讼社会”论者则是爬梳档案、方志、县官记录一类更接近民众实际生活的数据,力求探知到当时地方诉讼的实际状态。“反诉讼社会”论作为上层的政治理想无可厚非,事实上,官方为实现这一理想,也有一系列的制度设计;而检讨“诉讼社会”论,疑问不少。“健讼”、“无讼”实则是一个话语的表达,官方及书写者关于“健讼”的描述与“无讼”一样,是一个基于道德和现实层面的价值判断,它并非指可以测算的诉讼规模。
Due to the different sources of historical data and the different perspectives of analysis, the existing research has drawn two completely different conclusions: “counter-litigation society” and “litigation society”. On the other hand, “anti-litigation society” scholars stand in the official position and use the literature of official proctor and classics more to express the ideal demands of officials and civilians for the unorganized society; Is to crawl files, Fangzhi, the magistrate records a class closer to the actual life of the people, trying to find out the actual state of the local litigation. In fact, the government has a series of system designs to realize this ideal. However, the review of the theory of “litigation society” has many doubts. In fact, “no lawsuit” is the expression of a discourse. The official and the writer’s description of “lawsuit” is the same as “no lawsuit” and is based on the moral and realistic aspects Value judgments, it does not mean that the scale of litigation can be measured.