论文部分内容阅读
20世纪上半叶,法律概念与术语的本体论问题曾引发人类学界、法学界诸多学者的持续讨论。英国人类学家格拉克曼以社会人类学视角对传统的有关法律概念确定性的追求进行批判,创造性地提出了“模糊论”解释范式;以巴罗策部落社会为考察对象,借由一种“身份-头衔”的实践性分析进路,证实了部落社会法律概念与术语是真实存在的;与博安南就如何翻译部落社会法律概念与术语展开争论,论证了部落社会法律概念与术语具有可翻译性。格拉克曼的探究,意在揭示部落社会的法律文明与现代工业社会的法律文明之间不存在本质差异,为法律人类学知识传统的建构作出了重要贡献。
In the first half of the twentieth century, the ontological issues of legal concepts and terms have led to continuous discussions among many scholars in the anthropology and legal science circles. Grackman, a British anthropologist, criticized the pursuit of the certainty of the traditional concept of law from the perspective of social anthropology and creatively put forward the paradigm of “fuzzy theory.” Taking the Barossarian tribal society as the object of investigation, An “analysis of the identity-title” approach proves that the tribal social legal concepts and terminology are real; and Bo Annan on how to translate the concepts and terms of tribal social law argued that the concept of tribal social law And the term is translatable. Grackman’s exploration is intended to reveal that there is no essential difference between the legal civilization of the tribal society and the legal civilization of the modern industrial society and that it makes an important contribution to the legal tradition of legal anthropology.