法之规范性的社会基础:法哲学视阈中的哈贝马斯与福柯之争

The Social Foundation of Legal Normativity:Recasting the Habermas-Foucault Debate in Context with Legal Philosophy

法之规范性的基础和来源一直是法哲学的核心问题,从社会理论出发可以对这一问题展开新的探索。哈贝马斯与福柯对此有着不同的解读。哈贝马斯试图用交往理性观来重建现代社会,主张法律虽然可变,但是必须来自以道德普遍性原则为基础的商谈民主程序;而福柯则否认作为现代社会之根基的“主体”和“理性”等概念,认为它们都是在特定情境下被微观权力所塑造,因而法之规范性基础也是暂时的、情境的、流动的。他们的争议某种程度上可以概括为普遍主义与情境主义的对话。综合视角的社会-法律理论建构应该兼顾两者,在“薄”的普遍性基础上寻求具体社会实践的规范意义。

The foundations and origins of normativity of law have always been a key question in legal philosophy which can be newly explored from the perspective of social theory where Habermas and Foucault provide different answers.Habermas attempts to rebuild modernity with the communicative rationality,arguing that,although laws are changeable,they must come from the process of discourse democracy based on the principle of moral universality.Foucault,on the other hand,denies the concepts of subject and rationality as the foundation of modern society,believing that they are all shaped by micro-power under specific circumstances,so that the normative foundation of laws are still temporary,conditioned and fluid.To some extent,their debate can be summarized as the dialogue between Universalism and Contextualism.The expected construction of Social Legal Theory from a comprehensive perspective should give consideration to the both,seeking the normative meaning of specific social practice upon a sort of normative foundationwhich is universal but thin.