论文部分内容阅读
马克斯·韦伯有关中国传统法律乃是“卡迪司法”的论断至今仍困扰中国法律史学界。但对该命题在纯粹经验研究层面上的回应,不足以构成理论层面上的扬弃。因此,有必要在有关中国传统法律的经验研究的基础之上,与韦伯展开积极的理论对话。韦伯在支配社会学框架下对中国的思考,是影响其有关中国法律之表述的关键因素。在其支配社会学理论建构中,“家产官僚制”由于混合了家产制与官僚制两种支配因素,所以是一种非理性支配与合理性支配间的混杂或中间状态,该支配下的司法与行政因而并不体现为完全的恣意和擅断。然而,韦伯对于世界历史之不断合理化的设想,诱使其将中国置于合理化进程的最初阶段,而将现代欧美世界置于其终点。在这种思维的作用下,韦伯有意无意间忽略帝制中国“家产官僚制”中官僚制的面向,且刻意放大其家产制面向,从而使其笔下的“中国法”呈现为一幅实质非理性的“卡迪司法”画面。有必要强调的是,在其部分论断的局限得以澄清之后,韦伯的一系列概念和洞见仍将有益于未来学者对中国法律传统的研究。
Max Weber’s thesis that Chinese traditional law is “Cadillac” still plagues Chinese legal historians. However, the response to the proposition at the level of purely empirical research is not enough to constitute a theoretical sublation. Therefore, it is necessary to hold an active theoretical dialogue with Weber on the basis of empirical research on Chinese traditional law. Weber’s thinking on China in the framework of dominant sociology is a key factor influencing his formulation of Chinese law. In its construction of sociological theories, “bureaucratic system ” is a mixed or intermediate state between irrational and rational domination due to the mixing of the two dominating factors of the system of production and bureaucracy. Therefore, the judiciary and administration do not show complete arbitrariness and arbitrariness. However, Weber’s assumption of the continuous rationalization of world history has led it to place China at the very beginning of the process of rationalization, while putting the modern European and American world at its end. Under this kind of thinking, Weber deliberately or unconsciously neglected the bureaucratic system in the imperial China and the “bureaucratic system of property”, and deliberately magnified its home-based system so that his “Chinese law” as a In essence, irrational “Kadi justice ” screen. It is important to emphasize that Weber’s series of concepts and insights will continue to benefit future scholars’ research into the legal traditions of China after the limitations of some of their assertions have been clarified.