从规则到过程:法律人类学纠纷研究的理论进路与现实启示

From Rules to Procedure: Theoretical Path and Lessons Learned from Disputes Research in Legal Anthropology

20世纪40年代风靡一时的纠纷案例研究法不仅为人类学涉足法律研究提供了方法,更指明了研究对象;循此发展延伸出两种纠纷研究范式。一种是二战后的"规则中心范式"研究路径,它倡导大规模地收集并分析非洲、东南亚等非工业社会的纠纷案例,希望能够回溯式地构建出一套由各种法律规则所组成的法律体系。20世纪60年代,新一代美国人类学家主张放弃前辈的范式,转向"过程主义范式"。它主张法律人类学应在广义的社会文化的范围内审视与法律相关的实证问题,该范式关心的是纠纷解决的实际过程以及涉案当事人的行动逻辑。此后,关注法律与社会互动关系的过程研究渐渐成为法律人类学的主流研究范式。20世纪80年代,相关学者总结:两种范式代表了司法型和政治型两种不同的纠纷处理思路。在不同的文化中,规则的地位和作用各有不同,司法型与政治型两种纠纷解决方式同时存在并互相影响。近年来,有学者反思,两种范式均以纠纷研究为基础,把法律简化为纠纷,暗含着狭隘的法律认识论,法律人类学遭遇危机似乎与此有关。不过,纠纷研究依然有着独特的知识贡献,时至今日也仍然是法律人类学的主流研究对象。中国法律人类学应当明确纠纷研究的目的、坚持"过程主义研究范式"并尽可能地超越纠纷研究。

The dispute case study method created in the 1940 s not only provides the method for anthropological involvement in legal research,but also points out the research object,thus developing two kinds of dispute research paradigm.The first is the"rule-centered paradigm"after World War II,which advocates the large-scale collection and analysis of disputes in non-industrial societies such as Africa,Southeast Asia,expecting to build up a set of legal systems composed of various legal rules retrospectively.In the 1960 s,American anthropologists advocated to abandon the paradigm of their ancestors and switch to the so-called"procedural paradigm".This paradigm suggested that anthropology should examine the empirical questions related to the law within the scope of the generalized social culture,and they were concerned about the actual process of the dispute settlement and the logic behind actors’behaviors.Since then,the process of focusing on the relationship between law and society has gradually become the mainstream of legal anthropology.In the 1980 s,some scholars concluded that the two models represented two different types of dispute settlement including the judicial type and political type.In different cultures,the status and role of the rules are different,and the two kinds of dispute settlement methods of the judicial and the political type are both existed and mutually influenced.In recent years,some scholars have reflected on the two paradigms and concluded that both being based on the research of the dispute as simplification of the law may imply a narrow legal epistemology.The crisis in legal anthropology seems to have something to do with it.However,dispute research still provides a unique knowledge contribution,and remaining as the mainstream paradigm of legal anthropology up until present.Legal anthropology in China should clarify the purpose of dispute research,while adhering to the"process paradigm"and trying to go beyond dispute research.