法学学术批评的两种形态及其意义  

Two Forms and Significance of Legal Academic Criticism

作　　者：张翅翔 雷磊[1] ZHANG Chixiang;LEI Lei

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《学术月刊》2024年第11期103-115,共13页Academic Monthly

基　　金：2021年度教育部哲学社会科学研究后期资助重大项目“时代镜像中的法理学研究”(21JHQ012)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：法学学术批评可分为内部批评和外部批评两种形态。外部批评往往无法触及批评对象的真正关切,易于忽视批评对象的理论预设,自始隐含不同的概念和话语体系,或将本来不属于批评对象的任务强加其上。而通过彰显法学知识研究的视角和对象的多样化,外部批评能够指明批评对象的内在缺陷及其效用限度,促使其明确反省自己的经验或理论预设,并吸纳批评的合理内核。内部批评易忽视对共同预设的反省,丧失对“大问题”的关怀,或用学说研究替代问题研究本身。内部批评相比于外部批评具有更强的针对性,能直接促进理论学说的演变与发展。在当下中国语境中,应将内部批评作为建构中国法学知识体系的重点,但也让外部批评充分发挥补益作用。Academic criticism in law can be divided into two forms:internal criticism and external criticism.External criticism often fails to touch the real concerns of the object of criticism,easily ignores the theoretical presuppositions of the object of criticism,implies different concepts and discourse systems from the very beginning,or imposes tasks on the object of criticism that do not belong to the object of criticism in the first place.However,by highlighting the diversity of perspectives and objects of legal knowledge research,external criticism is able to point out the inherent defects of the object of criticism and the limits of its usefulness,prompting it to reflect explicitly on its own experience or theoretical presuppositions and to absorb the reasonable kernel of criticism.Internal criticism tends to neglect the reflection on common presuppositions,lose the concern for the"big problem",or replace the problem study itself with doctrinal research.Compared with external criticism,internal criticism is more focused and can directly contribute to the evolution and development of theories and doctrines.In the current Chinese context,internal criticism should be the focus of constructing the knowledge system of Chinese law,but external criticism should also be allowed to play a complementary role.

关 键 词：法学学术 内部批评 外部批评 中国法学知识体系 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]