论文部分内容阅读
由于宏观暴力、金钱暴力和象征暴力这些压制性因素对法学学术交往的扭曲,法学学术批判和交流在很多情况下是很难达成合法性共识的,是无效的。学术交往有其自身的运作逻辑和规则,不同于政治领域的权力逻辑,因此,政治干预并不能在法学界制造合法性,而只会破坏合法性。根据哈贝马斯的交往行为理论,法学学术批判存在三个有效性维度:真实性、正确性和真诚性,而中国法学学术批判在这三个方面可能还存在着一些严重的问题。只有满足了这三个有效性维度,法学学术批判和交流才能不断地达成有效的短暂性共识,才能为法制改革提供知识支持。
Due to the distortions of the academic exchanges of law, such as macroscopic violence, money violence and symbolic violence, the academic criticism and exchange of legal science are difficult to reach a consensus of legitimacy in many cases and are invalid. Academic exchanges have their own logic and rules of operation, different from the logic of power in the political field. Therefore, political intervention can not create legitimacy in law circles, but only undermines legitimacy. According to Habermas’s theory of communicative action, there are three validity dimensions of legal academic criticism: authenticity, correctness and sincerity. However, there are still some serious problems in the academic criticism of Chinese law in these three aspects. Only by satisfying these three validity dimensions can the legal transient criticism and communication continue to reach an effective temporary consensus so as to provide the knowledge support for the legal system reform.