塔玛纳哈：一种现实主义的法律理论 | 东方明珠大讲堂3万字实录

特邀主持人

李俊

华东政法大学社会发展学院教授

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen! Welcome to the 59th session of "Speeches of the Invited Speaker Series" of East China University of Political Science and Law. Today we are greatly honored to invite an internationally renowned scholar, professor Brian Z. Tamanaha as the keynote speaker. Now he is university professor at the Washington University School of Law. He is very famous in the field of jurisprudence and social legal studies. He has published 11 books and nearly 90 articles and book chapters. Some of his words have been translated into 12 languages and published world. Well, the most important thing is that his epidemic sort has had a significant impact on the Chinese legal bill.

大家早上好，欢迎参加华东政法大学第59期东方明珠大讲坛。今天非常荣幸地邀请到国际知名学者美国圣路易斯华盛顿大学布莱恩·塔玛纳哈教授作为主讲嘉宾，他在法理学和社会法律研究领域非常有名，已出版11部著作、近80篇论文，作品被译成12种文字在全世界出版。他的学术思想对中国法律界产生了重大影响。

At first，please welcome professor Luo Peixin, vice president of East China University of Political Science and Law，deliver the welcome speech.

下面有请华东政法大学副校长罗培新教授致辞。

致辞人

罗培新

华东政法大学副校长、教授

尊敬的塔玛纳哈教授，非常感谢您今天莅临东方明珠大讲坛，再次请允许我代表华东政法大学对您的到来表示最热烈的欢迎。在中国法学界，您可谓声名远播。目前您的一些著作和多篇论文被翻译成中文，国内还有大量的专著和论文专门研究您的理论。很多中国读者都通过《论法治：历史、政治和理论》这本书知道您的名字，也非常巧，这部作品由我们学校的李桂林教授翻译完成，这是您被介绍到中国的第一本著作，已成为国内法治理论研究必读的经典之作。此外，《法律工具主义：对法治的危害》、《一般法理学:以法律与社会的关系为视角》等著作，也在中国国内产生了广泛的影响。最近出版的《法律多元主义阐释：历史、理论与影响》再次引起了中国学界广泛的关注和讨论。

华东政法大学历来高度重视国际学术交流，目前已经与美国、英国、法国等国家的多所高校，以及世界知识产权组织，亚洲法律学会等国际组织签署了合作协议，建立了多个中外合作研究中心，近年来举办了多场国际学术交流活动，今天的讲座主题是“一种现实主义的法律理论”，虽然在这方面我并没有专门的研究，很高兴以后有机会能够多向您请教。此前我在中国政府部门工作，多年的政府法律实践工作告诉我，法律不能在陈旧的规则和形式主义的逻辑中固步自封，而应当积极地寻求变革，以回应现实社会的需要。

非常期待塔玛纳哈教授即将开启的精彩演讲，希望您以后有机会能够多来中国，特别是到访上海，与我们进行更加深入的面对面的交流。在这里还要特别感谢季卫东教授，感谢特邀主持人李俊教授，特邀学术翻译钟浩南博士，也感谢陆宇峰教授领衔的科研处同事精心组织了这场活动，谢谢大家。

特邀主持人

李俊

华东政法大学社会发展学院教授

Thank pressor Luo very much for your warm welcome speech. In this session, we also invite professor Ji Weidong and professor Lu Yufeng as our special guests. Professor Ji Weidong, a very known scholar at home and abroad in the field of sociology of law and comparative law who has made great contributions to legal education and research in China. Now, he is the Dean of China Institute for social legal studies, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He used to be tenured professor of Kobe university law school in Japan, professor Lu Yufeng, director of Scientific Research Office and the Dean of Academic for China's rule of law of East China University of Political Science and Law. His research direction is legal system theory. He does well in using an autopoietic social system theory to study legal issues in risk society, global society and digital society. Professor Peng Guibin, deputy director of Scientific Research Office also attends this session. The interpreter for the discussion session is Doctor Zhong Haonan from Academy for China's rule of law of East China University of Political Science and Law. My name is Li Jun, the moderator of this lecture from the school of Social Development, East China University of Political science and law.

非常感谢罗校长热情洋溢的致辞。本期东方明珠大讲坛特别邀请了上海交通大学中国法与社会研究院院长季卫东教授，华东政法大学科研处处长、中国法治战略研究院院长陆宇峰教授担任与谈嘉宾。季卫东教授是国内外非常知名的学者，为中国法学教育与研究作出了巨大贡献，他曾是日本神户大学法学院终身正教授，研究方向为法社会学和比较法学。陆宇峰教授的研究方向是系统论法学，运用当代前沿的“自创生”社会系统理论剖析全球社会、风险社会、数字社会的法，初步构造了“系统论法学”和“系统论宪法学”的理论体系。华东政法大学科研处副处长彭桂兵教授也莅临本次讲座，担任本次与谈环节翻译的是华东政法大学中国法治战略研究院助理研究员钟浩南博士。我是本次讲座的主持人李俊，来自华东政法大学社会发展学院，现在让我们热烈欢迎塔玛纳哈教授给我们带来期待已久的讲座。

主讲人

布莱恩•塔玛纳哈

美国圣路易斯华盛顿大学教授

Thank you for that introduction. Thank you for inviting me. I'm honored by this invitation, as you said, the topic will be based on a book I published in 2017. That book I has been translated into Chinese and I'm hoping I have been told, but we shall see that it will be out by the end of this year. I believe it's coming out with Tsinghua press, but I'm not sure about the status of the translation at this moment. What I proposed to do for everyone here tonight is just talk about some really fundamental ideas in the realistic theory. Clearly, I cannot talk about the whole book, but I want to focus on the very basic foundation of ideas.

感谢你们对我的邀请，我十分荣幸。本次讲座的主题基于我在2017年出版的一本书。这本书已经被译为中文，译者告诉我将于今年年末由清华出版社出版。显然，我不可能谈论整本书，所以我今晚想聚焦于书中的基础观点，给各位谈论一些法律现实主义理论中的基本观念。

And the description that was just given, I think is a quite good description of my perspective. I'm not a sociologist. I do legal theory so I do jurisprudence, but what I call the branch of jurisprudence that I do is a branch of jurisprudence that is oriented towards understanding law within society. It doesn't take law in isolation. It's also oriented towards understanding law in empirical terms. It's not just a philosophical Enterprise where I sit and imagine things. It’s looking at law concretely. So, to put it in a nutshell, the theory that I have been trying to develop focuses on what law does, what law is used for, what people think of law, how people act in relation to law and the social consequences of law. So, I'm mentioning that because it's all about what people see do and think about law and then what the consequences of that. Furthermore, this perspective portrays law as a complex of institutions which evolve over time in connection with surrounding social, cultural, economic, political, technological and ecological factors. This description of law I'll elaborate on later. I'm just giving you a general sense of the perspective and it comes down to a really basic thing. Let's look at what law is and does. Let's understand law in terms of how it developed in relation to society.

刚才主持人对我的研究视角做了很好的介绍。我不是一个社会学家，我研究法律理论，因而研究法理学。但是我所从事法理学的研究进路，并不是孤立地研究法律，而是倾向于把法律置于社会中进行理解。这种研究进路还倾向于以经验的方式理解法律，因而不是一种坐着空想的哲学事业，是要实实在在地观察法律。简而言之，我试图发展的这种理论关注的是法律做了什么、法律被用于做什么、人们如何看待法律、人们在法律上是如何行动的以及法律的社会后果。因此，这种研究完全关于人们对法律的所见、所思及其相应的后果。此外，这一视角还将法律描绘为一种制度的综合体，它与周围的社会、文化、经济、政治、技术和生态要素相联系，并随时间而演变。我后面将会详细阐述这种对法律的描述。上述所言只是一些关于这种视角的一般性的观点，并把它归结为一些非常基础的观念。也就是，让我们看看法律是什么以及做了什么，并通过观察法律在与社会的关系中如何发展来理解法律。

What I plan to talk about is the first the epistemological underpinnings. Epistemology means knowledge or theories of knowledge and how we know what we know. The ontological aspect and ontological is the nature of existence, what it is. And finally, the methodological aspects of this realistic theory. That is how we are to proceed methodically in understanding law. The insights I cover will range across what I call pragmatism, naturalism, historicism and holism. And I'll take up each topic in turn and the social construction of law. If time permits, I'll go beyond that, but I will certainly at least cover those.

今天我打算谈论的， 首先是法律现实主义理论的认识论基础 。认识论是指知识或者知识论，关于我们如何知道我们所知的。 其次是法律现实主义理论的本体论面向 ，本体论是指存在的本质 。最后是方法论面向 ，即采用什么方法推进对法律的理解。其中涵盖的观点包括我所称的实用主义、自然主义、历史主义、整体主义以及法律的社会建构。如果时间允许的话，我将谈论这些主题以外的更多内容，但我的演讲肯定至少会涵盖这些主题的内容。

Let me first briefly talk about pragmatism. I don't know how well known this philosophy of law is in China. The pragmatism is really the only native developed or American-developed philosophy. It was developed in the late 19th century and early 20th century and the big names behind it were Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, who was a famous sociologist.

首先简要谈论一下实用主义。 我不知道在中国人们对这一哲学流派知道多少。实用主义事实上是唯一的由美国本土发展而来的哲学流派。它产生于19世纪末20世纪初，它背后的伟大名字包括查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔士（Charles Sanders Santiago Peirce）、威廉·詹姆士、约翰杜·杜威和著名社会学家乔治·赫伯特·米德。

Let me talk about the basic ideas of the pragmatist because these ideas provide the underpinnings for the approach that I developed. The pragmatists were developed and influenced by Darwinian evolutionary theory. So, it was in heavily influenced by Darwinian evolutionary theory which had emerged in the mid-19th century, by probabilistic explanation, Bayes reasoning, by the scientific model of inquiry and experimentalism. The pragmatists believed that science was really just an extension of all human inquiry. It's continuous with all inquiry. So, what did the pragmatist believe? So, they believe that humans engaged in actions within natural and social environments, they followed habits and customs. We use tools, we have concepts and ideas and beliefs. We engage in projects and we learn from failures as well as successes. We adapt over time to changing circumstances. And through these actions, we build a corpus or a body of collective knowledge. And this knowledge is incorporated within language, ideas, concepts, theories, social practices, rules and institutions, instruments and even technology. So, the pragmatist view is all of this. Everything is developed through human activities in the world, trying to achieve projects, learning from our attempts and then building bodies of knowledge based upon that. Now, like all species, the pragmatist argue that humans have natural traits, natural needs, and they engage in natural social environments. And these activities are aimed at surviving, basic human need, procreating and improving the conditions of our existence.

让我来谈论一下实用主义的基本观念，因为这些观念为我所发展的研究进路提供了基础。实用主义受到产生于19世纪中期的达尔文进化论的深刻影响，受到盖然性解释、贝叶斯推理以及探寻和实验的科学模型的影响。实用主义者认为科学事实上无非是所有人类探寻的延续和延伸。他们认为人类是在自然和社会环境中从事活动的，并遵循习惯和习俗。人们使用工具，拥有概念、观念和信念，实施计划并从成功和失败的中学习，随时间推移而适应不断变化的环境。通过这些行动人们建立起一系列集体知识。这种知识融入了语言、观念、概念、理论、社会实践、规则和制度、工具甚至技术之中。因此，实用主义认为一切通过人类在世间的活动——试着实现计划、从尝试中学习以及基于此建立起知识——发展而来的。实用主义者主张，像所有物种一样，人类也有其自然属性、自然需求，并且在自然和社会环境中实施活动。这些活动都是为了生存，为了满足人类的基本需求，为了繁衍和改善生存状况的。

Let me quote from john Dewey just to give you a sense of how much he took this perspective. So, Dewey wrote: “man lives as animals live, eating, fighting, fearing and reproducing.” That's just a fundamental view of us as human social animals.

Now the pragmatist took from their study of science, a theory of truth, they articulated a theory of truth and that their theory of truth is that true ideas and this again is from Dewey. It's a quote: “true ideas are those that we can assimilate, that we can validate, that we can corroborate and that we can verify and false ideas are those that we cannot.” Theories are the facts that we verify, are themselves framed by concepts and theories.

But they're subject to an external reality. If the theories don't conform to the reality or the facts don't conform to the reality, then the facts have been refuted. As Dewey said, “our ideas must agree with reality, be such realities, concrete or abstract, be they facts or be they principles under penalty of endless inconsistency and frustration.” In other words, we can have theories and we can believe in facts. But if they're not true, we will fail in our projects. We will be frustrated in our projects. So, here's another quote. “If meaning, if ideas, meanings, conceptions, notions, theories, and systems are instrumental to an active reorganization of the given environment, to a removal of some specific trouble or perplexity, then the test of their validity and the value lies in accomplishing this work. If they succeed, they’re reliable, sound, valid, good, and true.”

让我引用约翰·杜威的一段话，让你了解他是如何看待这一观点的。杜威写到：“人类像动物一样生活、进食、争斗、恐惧和繁衍”。这就是人作为一种社会动物的基本观点。实用主义从他们的科学研究中提取了他们的真理理论，他们表达了一种真理理论。这里再次引用杜威：“真实的观念就是那些我们可以理解、确认、证实和验证的观念。错误的观念则是那些无法如此的观念”。理论是那些我们证实的事实，这种事实本身又是由概念和和理论所表达的。但是理论受到外部现实的制约。如果理论与现实不符或者事实与现实不符，那么事实就必须被推翻。如杜威所说：“我们的观念必须符合现实，无论该现实是具体的还是抽象的，是事实还是原则，否则就会受到无尽不一致和挫败的惩罚”。换言之，我们可以有理论也可以相信事实。但是如果它们不是真实的，那么计划就会失败。所以，这里再引用他的另一句话，“如果观念、意义、构想、想法、理论和体系，是主动改造既有环境以及消除某些麻烦和困惑的工具，那么检验它们有效性和价值的标准就在于它们是否能够完成这种工作。如果它们成功了，那么它们就是可靠的、完整的、有效的、好的和真实的”。

Now an important way of understanding the pragmatist is to know what they were arguing against or who were they arguing against. They were arguing against what was a dominant form of philosophy in the late 19th century and early 20th century. And this philosophy was based on philosophers proclaiming universal truths, necessary truths, absolute truths. The pragmatist view is there's no such thing. These truths, James said the truths of philosophers were based on abstractions, from verbal solutions, bad a priori reasoning, assumed principal closed systems. His responses, no, we must turn to concrete activities. Look at facts, look at action, look at power, and see which of these we can observe in action, and see which of these we can confirm, which of these we can disconfirm.

一种理解实用主义者最重要的方式就是去知道他们反对什么或者他们反对谁。他们反对的是19世纪和20世纪初的一种占支配地位的哲学形式。这种哲学基于一些哲学家们的主张，他们声称存在普遍的、必然的和绝对的真理。而实用主义者们则认为不存在这回事。詹姆士写到，这些哲学家所谓的真理建立在抽象、纸面的解决方案、糟糕的先验推以及假定的封闭系统的基础上。他的回应是：不，我们必须转向具体的活动，去观察事实和权力，并且去看其中的哪些可以观察到确实发挥着作用，哪一些可以证实，而哪一些无法证实。

Part of the objection of the pragmatist is these philosophies based on universal and abstract truths besides being mostly just made up by the philosopher, made up by claims about what is self-evident and what is not self-evident. The claims of philosophers about what is self-evident often was just their own assumptions. Instead, the pragmatist said, no, we cannot have these absolute and universal truths because the world is open. The world has multiple existing perspectives and it's constantly developing over time. Here's a quote. We live in an “infinitely verogated”, “verogated” means all kinds and all sorts of things. Quote, “so multiplex and far reaching that it cannot be summed up and grasped by any one formula.” This is a universe they said that's still evolving over time. We cannot have universal truths forever because our social existence is plastic as open ended. And what happens to exist remains to be seen.

实用主义者们提出的部分反对在于，这些基于普遍和抽象真理的哲学大多只是哲学家们的编造。他们通过关于何为自明何为非自明的主张，编造了这种哲学。相反，实用主义者们说到：不，我们无法拥有绝对和普遍的真理，因为世界是开放的。世界拥有多元存在的面向，并且它持续地随时间而发展。下面我引用一段话：“我们生活在一个无穷多样（infinitely verogated）的世界中”。“verogated”意为所有种类和所有类型的事物。引用：“它是如此的多元和宽广，以至于人们无法凭借单一的公式来总结和理解它”。他们认为，宇宙依然在随时间演化。人类无法拥有永恒的普遍真理，因为社会存在是开放可塑的，将会发生什么还有待观察。

Now just to explain where they got these ideas from, it's important to note that, as I said, they really began with the philosophy of science at the end of the 19th century in the beginning of the 20th century. Scientists and philosophers themselves were beginning to question theories of absolute truth, precisely because they had learned during this period, a several decade long period, that things they formerly believed to be universally and absolutely true were no longer understood that way.

为了解释他们从何处获得了这些观念，注意到这一点是很重要的：如我之前所说，实用主义事实上是伴随着科学哲学而兴起。在十九世纪和二十世纪初，科学家和哲学家们正在对绝对真理的理论提出质疑，之所以如此正因为他们在数十年间已经认识到，它们曾经认为普遍和绝对正确的东西，不再像他们曾经理解的那样了。

And the two best examples of that, which they discussed in their work in the late 19th century, was the development of non-Euclidean philosophy. Prior to that, Euclid geometric system was thought to be absolutely true. But when non-Euclidean geometry developed, they realized that this is just a theoretical framework and that there can be alternative frameworks. Another discovery and this was after the turn of the 20th century that led to the same conclusion was the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Newton's theory, his mechanistic theory of gravity was thought to be universally true, but along comes Einstein to develop a completely different theory of physics that was then understood because of this new theory. It was then understood that these theories are just theoretical paradigms and that attempt to allow us to understand reality. But any given paradigm is not absolutely true because some other theory can come along and explained new facts that the others theories didn't explain.

在十九世纪晚期的作品中，他们讨论的两个绝佳的例子。一个例子是非欧几何哲学的产生。在此之前，人们认为欧几里得几何系统是绝对正确的。但是当非欧几何产生之后，人们意识到欧几里得几何学只是一个理论框架，并且还可能存在其他替代性的框架。在20世纪之交的另一发现即爱因斯坦相对论，引出了相同的结论。牛顿的理论，他的万有引力力学理论也曾被认为是普遍正确的，但是爱因斯坦却提出了一种截然不同的物理学理论。正是因为这些新的理论，人们认识到这些理论无非是用以理解现实的理论范式。但是任何既存的范式都不是绝对正确的，因为还会出现其他理论，这些理论可以解释另一些理论解释不了的新事实。

So, it was based on these recent scientific developments in their writing that had an impact on their philosophy of truth and the nature of knowledge. They took from these lessons that the idea of absolute truth is a fiction something we cannot achieve, but we can, and this is very important, know many truths, not universal and absolute but truth that we believe in act on, prove reliable, are able to corroborate. And those are truths developed within communities of enquirers working on trying to establish particular ideas, the truth of those ideas and particular projects.

因此在他们的著作中，正是这些新近的科学进展，影响了他们的有关真理和知识本质的哲学。他们从中学到，绝对真理的观念是无法实现的假象，但重要的是，我们可以认识许多真理——不是普遍和绝对的真理，而是我们相信起作用的、被证明可靠的、能够被证实的真理。并且这些真理是在探索者社群中发展出来的，这些探索者试图证实某种观念，证实那些观念的正确性以及特别的计划。

That's pragmatism. I don't want to go any further on it. But that core set of ideas informs the approach that I develop.

这就是实用主义，除了那些对我所发展的理论进路有影响的核心观念以外，我不打算进一步展开了。

The second idea I want to talk about is naturalism. Now naturalism has different meanings, but the core meaning of naturalism is that only natural phenomena exist. There is no supernatural phenomenon. And everything that exists exsits or occurs within natural processes.

我想讨论的第二个观念是自然主义。 自然主义有不同的含义，但是其最核心的含义是：只有自然现象存在着。不存在超自然的现象，所有存在的事物都在自然进程中存在和发生着。因此，自然主义大体上把人类视为社会动物。

So, naturalism basically views humans as social animals. Again, to focus on Dewey. Dewey wrote thought itself, thought, our thinking, our ability to think, “has its origins in”, this is a quote from Dewey, “biological adaptive behavior. And the ultimate function, the purpose of thinking is control of the conditions of our environment.”

下面再次把关注点投向杜威。杜威写到，思想本身、我们的思维、思考的能力，以下引用自杜威的原文，“源于生物的适应性行为，而其最终的功能即思维的目的，则在于控制环境的条件”。

So, he's using this naturalistic theory of the development of thought itself, that as social animals were trying to survive. What do we need as social animals? food, clothing, shelter. We're physically vulnerable. We are roughly equal in our ability. We live in environments that could pose dangers to us and we have scarce or limited resources. Other natural traits: we are self-interested, but we're also altruistic. We compete with others, but we also cooperate with others. We have shared meaning and we act together in groups to achieve objectives that serve our needs and desires. So, naturalism, and that again, is just a very brief summary, has many implications for law or for the understanding of law and they operate at different levels of generality. So, all I'm going to give you is to give you just a sampling of different implications of naturalism.

所以，杜威运用了一种关于思想发展的自然主义理论，即思想是在作为社会动物的人谋求生存的过程中产生的。作为社会动物的我们都需要什么呢？食物、义务、居所。我们的身体是脆弱的，能力大体相当，生活在可能会对自身造成危险的环境中，并且拥有稀缺而有限的资源。其他自然属性例如，我们是自利的，但也是利他的；我们与他人竞争，但也会与他人合作；我们拥有共享的意义并在群体中共同行动，以实现满足我们需求和愿望的目标。因此需要重申的是，自然主义是一个非常简要的概况，对法律以及我们对法律的理解有许多潜在影响，并且它在不同的一般性层次上发挥作用。

One example and a really fundamentally important one about naturalism looks at what are natural human traits. And this comes from the studies of anthropologists and psychologists. They've identified some core traits. Now when I say natural traits, I want to emphasize that there's much vast variation and the expression of these traits. But when I say universal traits, I mean all human groups have these. What do they have? They have music, we have tools, we have gift giving, we have cosmology--philosophies of the universe and meaning. We have these general forms of shared traits: music, dance, cosmology.

一个自然主义的十分基本而重要的例子，就是人类的自然特征。这来自于人类学和心理学的研究，它们识别出了一些核心的特征。当我说自然特征时，我想强调这些特征存在着大量的变体和多种表达。但当我说普遍特征时，我是指所有人类群体都拥有的特征。人都有什么自然特征呢？他们有音乐、有工具、有礼物的赠与以及宇宙论，即关于宇宙和意义的哲学。我们拥有这些共享特征的普遍形式：音乐、舞蹈、宇宙论。

But we also have natural traits directly related to law. For example, all secular societies have property rights, have prohibitions against murder, have redress for violent injuries. All human societies have some form of rules related to marriages, to inheritance, to restrictions on sexual relations, debt obligations, and so forth. These core set of rules based on this naturalistic trait and the requirements of living in group society which are fundamental to our interaction with one another. And that's what I mean by natural. We have lots of variation, but there are no societies that that live without some version of these rules. Now again, I want to emphasize the content of the rules varies enormously. All I'm talking about is the existence of the rules.

但是我们还拥有与法律直接相关的自然特征。例如，所有世俗社会都有财产权制度、对谋杀的禁令、对暴力伤害的赔偿制度。所有人类社会都有关于婚姻、继承、性关系限制、债务等的规则。这些核心规则建立在人类的自然特征以及群体社会生活要求的基础上，这些要求对于人们相互之间的互动是十分基础的。这就是我所谓的“自然”。这些规则有许多变体，但是没有哪个社会可以在没有这些规则的某个版本的条件下存续。这里我想再次强调这些规则的内容变化很大。我所谈论的知识这些规则的存在。

Now there's some other naturalistic fact factors. And again, I’m just going to list a few, but one, which I mentioned in the book I'll just tell you, is that there are now leading theories that suggest that humans have evolved to have natural moral intuition that undergird law. These are intuitive moral judgments about right and wrong, about fairness. One person who studied these natural traits suggest and I quote that “even young children have a kind of intuitive jurisprudence because they distinguish between intentional and non-intentional acts. When they talk about punishment, it should be proportional to the wrong. They make other kinds of distinctions. I'm talking about children now. “These distinctions have ideas about what's obligatory, what's permissible, what's forbidden.” These are psychological studies that have been done on children that show that they have these built-in traits that emerge early now. When I say built-in, I'm not determining because we don't know yet how much of this is inbuilt and how much it has a sociological overlay. So, I want to say it's a combination of all these things.

此外还有其他一些自然主义的事实要素。再次，我只想列举一个在一本我将告诉你的书中提到的要素。现在有一些主流的理论认为，人类已经进化出一些强化法律自然的道德直觉。这些道德直觉是关于对与错和公平的直觉的道德判断。一位研究这些自然特征的学者认为，我引用他的话“即使年幼的儿童也有某种‘直觉法学’，因为他们会区分故意和无意的行为。当他们谈论惩罚时，其应当与错误合比例。他们还会做出其他种类的区分”。我现在谈论的是儿童。“这些区分涉及什么是义务性的、什么是被允许的、什么是被禁止的观念”。这些对儿童的心理学研究表明，他们拥有这些很早就出现的内在的特征。当我说“内在”的时候我并不确定，因为我还不知道它们在多大程度上这是内在的，又在多大程度上附加了社会学的要素。所以我想说，这种道德直觉融合了所有这些因素。

One of the pragmatists who wrote about this was George Herbert Mead who was a famous sociologist. So, he wrote early on that criminal punishment itself was a natural impulse. Let me give a quote from mead. He wrote quote “the revulsions against criminality reveal themselves in a sense of solidarity within groups.” What Mead was saying is that the punishment of crime is actually important to the social groups binding themselves together because this revulsion against criminality, going back to the quote, “provides a sense of being a citizen on the one hand, and excluding the transgressors, the criminals on the other hand.” This is Mead.

著名社会学家乔治·赫伯特·米德是就此问题撰文的实用主义者之一。他很早就写到，刑事惩罚本身是一种自然冲动。让我引用一段米德的话。他写到，“群体的团结在某种意义上就表现为对犯罪的厌恶”。米德想表达的是，对犯罪的惩罚对于将人们团结在一起的群体而言是十分重要的，因为这种对犯罪的厌恶“一方面提供了一种作为公民的感觉，另一方面也排除了违法者和罪犯。”

The famous Adam Smith said much similar things. By the way, let me add one other thing that's not widely known that Mead himself was influence by Adam Smith. So, Smith wrote and this is a quote, “Fraud, falsehood, brutality, and violence” excite or prompt reactions of “scorn and abhorrence,” he observed and these natural reactions call loudest for vengeance and punishment. What Smith was talking about and Mead was talking about is that we have these natural social traits in which we have norms that we follow and that we have natural impulses about enforcing those norms when they are violated. Here's again, a quote from Smith. “Nature has implanted in the human breast that awareness of ill desert bad things”, deserving bad things, merited punishment in violations of norms as “great safeguards for the association of mankind to protect the weak, to curb the violent and to chastise the guilty.”

著名的亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）也说过很多类似的话。顺便说一件不为人知的事，米德自己也受到了亚当斯密的影响。引用斯密的话，“欺诈、虚假、残忍和暴力会激起人们的鄙视和厌恶”，他观察到这些本能反应强烈呼唤着复仇和惩罚。斯密和米德所讨论的是这样一种天生的社会属性：我们有要遵循的规范，而且当这些规范被违反时我们有一种天然的冲动去执行这些规范。再次引用依据斯密的话，“自然在人类的内心中植入了恶有恶报的意识”，并且对违反规范应得的惩罚和报应的恐惧是一种“对人类联合体的重要保护，以保护弱者、遏制暴力，并惩罚犯人”。

I'll just add very quickly that we have recent neurological studies that have confirmed that in the oldest parts of our brain, the limbic system people have lodged these impulses that come up whenever people observe bad behavior. One study found that when citizens impose punishment or administer punishment, it activates parts of regions of our brain that are associated with anger and disgust. Again, this is the idea that we have built into us through evolution, through socialization, collectively reactions to norm violating behavior.

我想补充一下，最近的神经学研究证实，在人类大脑中最古老的部分，即边缘系统中，每当人们观察到不良行为时，就会产生一些冲动。一项研究发现，当人们施加惩罚或执行惩罚时，会激活大脑中与愤怒和厌恶相关的部分区域。人类通过进化和社会化，使得这种违反规范行为的反应得以共同地内化于我们之中。

Now, again, I want to emphasize I’m just touching on different areas that naturalism has a way of understanding law and legal phenomenon. So, I mentioned a couple. Now let me mention another. There are naturalistic reasons to that. Perhaps. And again everyone, I want to emphasize I’m just laying out potential hypotheses, right? These have yet to be developed and confirmed, although parts of them have been confirmed. But another possible naturalistic influence is on the emergence of legal systems themselves. And that is that legal systems emerged as the population size and social complexity developed within society because it became necessary to coordinate behavior among great numbers of people. The emergence of legal systems. This now when I say emergence, I’m going back to way back in history of human society. I'm talking about this moving from hunter gatherers to chieftains to early states. These political arrangements, chieftains and early states, in particular, develop institutional apparatuses, courts, police that declared law and enforced law.

现在，我想再次强调，我只是谈论到不同的领域中自然主义理解法律和法律现象的方式。我上面提到过两个方面，现在来讲另一面。我想再次强调我只是在提出可能的假设，这些观点还有待发展和证实，尽管其中一部分已经得到了证实。自然主义的另一种可能得影响在于法律体系自身的产生。因为开始需要协调大量人群的行为，法律体系随着社会内部人口规模和社会复杂度的提高而出现。当谈到法律体系的出现时，我要追溯到人类社会的历史，从狩猎采集者到酋长，再到早期的国家。这些政治安排，特别是酋长和早期国家，发展出了宣布法律和执行法律的机构，如法庭、警察。

So again, I’m just giving examples of different ways. We can develop naturalistic explanations that bear on law. So that's about the emergence of law itself. We also have concrete issues within law that can be understood naturalistically. The great example of that that's being developed a great deal is the naturalistic underpinnings of criminal behavior. Studies have found that certain individuals for biological reasons, for example, related to their brain may be greater prone to violence or to pedophilia, to abusing children, sexually abusing children and other kinds of antisocial acts. There's been a great deal of studies of brain development that suggest that young people, for example, teenagers do not have fully developed brains. They don't make risk assessments the same way. This potentially bears on how they should be treated when they have criminal violations, given the immature state of their brain. And many other implications, again, I’m just listing.

以上只是用不同方式进行举例。由此可以发展出一些与法律有关的自然主义解释，比如法律本身的出现，还可以用自然主义的方式来理解一些法律内部的问题。一个重要的例子是犯罪行为的自然主义基础，人们已经在此方面做了很多研究。例如研究发现，出于一些例如和他们大脑有关的生物学原因，某些人更有可能实施暴力、恋童癖、虐待儿童、性侵儿童以及发生其他反社会行为。大量关于大脑发育的研究表明，青少年的大脑还没有发育完全，他们不以同样的方式来评估风险。考虑到他们的大脑还不成熟，这可能会影响到当他们有犯罪行为应该如何被对待。还有很多其他的影响，我只是列举了一下。

Now I want to end one as I’m going to leave naturalism, but I want to say one thing. When I talk about natural human traits and natural factors, it is not to say that humans are determined. This is not about determinism. The pragmatists believe that the natural influences are not fixed in their extent or their expression and they're not all-encompassing. So, what creates the concrete legal factors out of these naturalistic influences depends on surrounding social, cultural, economic, political, legal, ecological factors. We have natural traits and natural requirements and natural impulses, but these natural impulses are not deterministic in the sense that they shape everything. No, they interact with all these other things. They have an influence, but they were expressed in different ways. So that is naturalism.

现在结束自然主义的话题，但我还想再说一点，当我谈到人类的自然属性和自然要素时，这并不意味着人是被决定的，不意味着决定论。实用主义者认为，自然的影响在程度和表现形式上都不是固定的，自然的影响也不是涵盖一切的。那么，是什么从这些自然主义的影响中创造出具体的法律因素呢？这些因素取决于周围的社会、文化、经济、政治、法律和生态环境。我们拥有自然的天性、自然的需求和自然的冲动，但是这些自然的冲动并不是决定性的，它们没有塑造了一切。它们与所有其他事物发生着相互作用，这些自然属性有影响但却以不同的方式表现出来。这就是自然主义。

Let me now move to two other very important topics within this theory. And that is historicism and holism. Historicism is just the idea that law exists over time. It's laid out in a temporal plane that law is a historical product, that law is an inherited tradition, and this tradition changes over time within society. So, this is just about understanding that law today, even laws that we create now have nevertheless been influence by the fact that they have emerged over time within particular circumstances. The most famous American jurist who wrote about this was Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was a supreme court justice. He wrote. And this is a quote “in the same way we account for the distorted shape of a tree—by looking for the special circumstances under which it has grown, and the forces that have influences over time.” This is a Holmes again, “The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. In order to know what it is, we must know what it has been, and what it tends to become.”

现在转向这个理论中另外两个非常重要的主题——历史主义和整体主义。 历史主义是这样一种观念：法律随着时间而存在。在时间层面上，法律体现为历史的产物，是一种继承而来的传统，并且这种传统在社会中随着时间的推移而变化。因此，这只是为了理解今天的法律，甚至我们现在制定的法律，仍然受到它们在特定情况下随着时间的推移而出现这一事实的影响。在此方面撰写过文章的美国最著名的法学家是霍姆斯，他曾经是最高法院的法官。他写到，“如同解释一棵歪歪扭扭的树一样，要通过观察它生长的环境，以及随时间的推移而产生影响的力量来解释它”。“法律体现了一个国家在许多个世纪中的发展历程，而不能被视为数学书里的公理和推论。为了理解法律是什么，我们必须知道它曾经是什么以及它将会变成什么” 。

Now, in addition to this temporal over time, extension of law. Law also extends spatially, and I'm using that as a metaphor, spatially within society. What I mean by that is that law is interconnected within society, with everything, with the culture, the economy, the polity, social structures, technology, the ecosystem, all aspects of society interconnected. “Interconnected” I should say what I mean by that is intertwined. This is an ontological proposition because it says it's in the nature of law that it's intertwined within society. It's in the nature of law that it extends temporarily. The interconnectedness of law works in both directions. One direction is that society infuses law, it informs law, it comes through law. But the other direction is that law also constitutes society. Law provides the underpinnings for society. So, I will use this phrase “law and society”. By society I'm using all of these surrounding influences are mutually constitutive. One creates one and the other creates the other.

法律除了在时间维度延伸以外，它还在空间中延伸。我所谓的空间是一种隐喻，即社会中的空间。我的意思是，法律与社会中的一切事物互相联系，包括文化、经济、政治、社会结构、技术和生态系统，与社会的所有方面都互相联系、交织在一起。这是一种本体论观点，主张法律在本质与社会交织在一起，并且在时间上延伸。这种法律与社会之间的相互关联体现在两个方向：一个方向是社会注入法律、影响法律并穿透法律；另一个方向则是法律构成了社会，为社会提供基础。所以我也会使用“法律和社会”这个短语。我用“社会”一词意指环境中所有这些相互构成的影响。社会创造了法律，法律也创造了社会。

Historicism and holism are actually the same view. I am talk about one in terms of time and the other in terms of interconnected within society, but they're actually the same view. Just one emphasizing temporal and the other emphasizing spatial. This view was developed up in the late 19th century and early 20th century. They have different names jurisprudentially. Historicism was called historical jurisprudence. The famous theorists for that were Savigny and Sir Henry Maine. The holism was developed in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It was given the name sociological jurisprudence. Now these are just jurisprudential labels, but both theories had the same core idea at the heart of them. And I developed this more extensively in the realistic theory of law book. So, what I want to say only is that what I just said was really represented in different schools of jurisprudence, but those schools of jurisprudence ultimately became merged and developed the same set of core ideas.

历史主义和整体主义的观点其实是相同的。它们一个从时间角度讨论，另一个从社会内部的相互联系角度讨论，但二者的观点其实是相同的，只不过一个强调时间，一个强调空间。这种观点自19世纪末和20世纪初发展起来，在法学上有不同的名称。历史主义被称为历史法学，著名的理论家比如萨维尼（Savigny）和亨利·梅因（Henry Maine）。整体主义发展于19世纪末和20世纪初，被称为社会法学。这只是法理学上的标签，但这两种理论的核心观点是一致的。我在《一种现实主义的法律理论》（A Realistic Theory of Law）一书中展开论述了这一观点。我刚刚所讲的内容在不同的法学流派中确实有所体现，但这些法学流派最终都融合为一体并发展出了相同的核心思想。

I will cut out some of the examples I showed, but I do want to mention one or two important names. I've mentioned Oliver Wendell Holmes. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a member of the metaphysical club in Cambridge that developed pragmatism. So, he was really steeped in pragmatist ideas. But an even more important American jurist who was influenced by these ideas was Roscoe Pound. For those who have not heard of Roscoe Pound, I will just say quickly, he was an enormously influential American jurisprudent writing in the first half of the 20th century. And one of the things he's best known for is his advocacy of sociological jurisprudence. In particular, he was emphasizing the ideas of Rudolph von Jhering, but more generally, he advocated sociological jurisprudence. And importantly, Roscoe Pound identified his debt to the pragmatist. So, in a number of key articles, he cites to the pragmatist. He cites to William James. So, the key ideas within the realistic theory are historicism and holism. And I want to suggest you that these are the same ideas. They go together. The idea's law evolves over time within society, subject to surrounding influences. These set of ideas, holism in historicism, were reflected in different jurisprudential schools which ultimately merged.

我将省略一些例子，但我确实想要提及一到两个重要的名字。我之前提到了奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯，他是剑桥大学形而上学俱乐部的成员，该俱乐部发展出了实用主义，所以霍姆斯的思想确实充满了实用主义观念。另一个深受这些观点影响的、甚至更为重要的美国法学家是罗斯科·庞德，他是一位在20世纪上半叶写作的非常有影响力的法理学者。他最广为人知的是他对社会法学的倡导。他特别强调鲁道夫·冯·耶林的思想，但更广泛地说，他主张社会学法学。更为重要的是，庞德承认自己受惠于实用主义。因此在一些重要文章中，他引用了威廉·詹姆士等实用主义者的观点。现实主义理论的核心思想是历史主义和整体主义，并且我想告诉你们二者的思想是相同的、相辅相成的。法律的观念随着时间推移而演变，并受到社会环境的影响。历史主义中的整体主义体现在不同的法学流派中，并最终融合在了一起。

One other quick thing I want to say about is “mutually constitutive”, because I want to show what I mean by that and because it is really a fundamental idea. It's one thing. So, we can easily imagine how law seeps into legislation. It influences ideas and problems and legislators want to enact them. But law also seeps into judicial decisions because judges are influenced by their background ideas.

另一个我想做简单讨论的是“相互构造”的观念，因为我想告诉你们我用这个词想表达的意思，并且这确实是一个非常基础的观念。我们很容易想象法律是如何影响立法的。法律影响着观念和问题，立法者将之颁行。法律还影响着司法裁判，因为法官也会受到自身社会背景观念的影响。

So that's on the one hand, law in society influences law. But I want to just mention more specifically some examples of how law actually constitute society. And when I speak everyone, I am speaking about the United States because I know the most about us. So, you can reflect on your own ideas about how it relates to China. But specifically in the United States, the law provides the underpinnings for all corporations. Corporations are legal creatures. They are made by law through enabling acts. Corporations are created by law and there are innumerable corporations in American society. In addition, law provides the basis for economic transactions. This is what I mean by “constitutive” now. In other words, every employee in a corporation, myself for example, has an employment contract. So, the law is constituting the employment relationship between employers and employees, but law also provides the basis for corporations, obtaining loans, obtaining financing from banks and so forth. Couple of other examples that I want to provide for you about how law constitute society is that law in our system creates all of the government agencies. They're created by legal enactments again, called enabling acts, that create corporations. I can go on, I could say property rights, mortgage, all of these are constituted by law, but you get the basic idea. So that's historicism and holism.

因此这是一个方面，即社会中的法对法律的影响。但关于法律在现实中如何构造社会，我还想举一些更具体的例子。当我给你们每个人演讲时，我讨论的都是美国，因为这是我了解最多的。所以你们可以自己思考一下，这种理论如何与中国联系起来。具体到美国，法律为所有公司提供了基础，公司是法律创造的产物。它们通过授权法案依法成立。法律创造了公司，并且在美国社会中有数不清的公司。此外，法律还为经济交易提供了基础，这就是我这里所谓的“构成性”（constitutive）。换句话说，以我自己为例，公司里的每个员工都有一份雇佣合同。因此，法律构建了雇主与雇员之间的雇佣关系，同时也为公司从银行获得融资、贷款等活动提供了依据。关于法律构造社会秩序的另一个例子在于，在我们的制度中，法律创造了所有政府机构。政府机构也是通过颁布法律而创建的，这种法律称为授权法案，和创造公司的法律一样。我可以接着举出其他例子，如法律建构了财产权、抵押权等权利，不过只要你们理解基本的思想就可以了。以上就是历史主义和整体主义的内容。

Now let me shift to another set of ideas and this comes closer to sociology. That is the idea that law is a social construction. Now this again means lots of things, but I mean it in a really fundamental way. And this applies, I should add, not just to law but to everything, all institutions we have in society are social constructions. What does that mean? That means that the social world, law included, is the product of our meaningful actions and beliefs and their intended and importantly unintended consequences. So, the social world is created by us collectively based on our ideas, understandings. Everyone who's born today is born into an existing social world and assumes a place in this world and partakes of the language and the knowledge and conventions and practices and institutions that are created on an ongoing basis.

下面让我谈谈另一个与社会学联系更为紧密的观念，即 法律是一种社会建构。 这一观念意味着很多，但我想以一种十分基础的方式解释它。并且我想补充，不只是法律，社会中的所有制度都是社会建构。这是什么意思呢？这意味着包括法律在内的社会世界，是人类有意义的行为和信念的产物，是在人们有意或无意的行动所产生的结果。因此，可以说社会世界是人类根据自己的想法和理解所共同创造出来的。每一个出生在今天的人，都生在一个既存的社会世界中，在这个世界占有一席之地，并享用着不断被创造出来的语言、知识、习俗、惯例、实践和制度。

So, what does this mean? Concretely, all of us exist in a common world that consists of hospitals, schools, petrol stations, office buildings, factories, government offices, courts, grocery stores, movie theaters. All of this are socially constructed. And we take this for granted. It's just the world that we are born into. So, this perspective, again, is a general perspective on society, is specifically applied to legal institutions and seeing legal institutions in this way opens up different insights, allows us to see law in ways that, for example, jurisprudence scholars have missed.

这意味着什么呢？具体来说，所有人都生活在一个共同的世界里，这个世界由医院、学校、加油站、办公楼、工厂、政府、法院、杂货店、电影院等所组成。所有这些都是社会建构出来的，并且我们将这一切都视为理所当然，这就是我们所生在的世界。这种视角也是对一种社会的一般性视角，但特别适用于法律制度。以这种方式看待法律制度可以开放出不同的洞见，使我们可以以法理学学者所忽略的方式看待法律。

Now I'm not going to go into the details of it, but once again I want to refer to Mead, the sociologist who I discuss in the book, developed a social constructionist idea of property. So, he says in this passage or multiple passages, the property exists because people within society have a collective response that enforces property rights. When someone steals, the policeman will arrest that person. The prosecuting attorney will charge that person with theft. The judge will make a finding that the person violated the law by taking property. It is this collective response in all these different institutions that gives rise to the existence of property as a social institution. So, it was a very, and it is a part that I want to emphasize, bottom-up approach to the construction of, in Mead’s case, social institutions generally but to law specifically because he used law as an example of social construction. So going further again, Mead talked about all of these things——stores, banks, churches. People work within organizations and organizations are built on conventional roles, responsibilities, routines, practices and rules, engaging in activities that connect up with everybody else——other people in the same organization, people in different organizations, people interacting with the organization from the outside.

在此，我并不打算具体阐述理论的细节，而是想再次引述米德的著作。在《一种现实主义的法律理论》一书中，我讨论了社会学家米德的观点，他提出了一种对财产的社会建构主义思想。他在几篇文章中写到，财产之所以存在，是因为社会中的人们有一种共同反应来执行财产权。比如当有人偷窃时，警察会逮捕那个人，检察官会指控此人盗窃，法官会判定此人侵占财产因而违反了法律。正是这些不同制度的共同反应，使财产作为一种社会制度得以存在。我想强调的是，这是一种非常自下而上的解释进路，米德将其用于解释一般的社会制度，但这也适用于解释法律，因为他把法律作为社会建构的一个例子。米德更进一步谈论了所有这些社会建构——商店、银行、教堂等等。人们在组织中工作，这些组织建立在传统的角色、责任、例行公事、实践和规则之上，从事的活动将所有其他人联系起来——在同一组织中的其他人、在不同组织中的人，人们还和外面的组织进行互动。

Now, again, I want to emphasize something as I did in naturalism. This is not a deterministic view. It's not the view that roles and responsibilities and rules are determining everything that people do. That was not Mead’s view. Mead emphasized that people have a plurality of perspectives, different views depending on where they come from. And the rules and roles, informal and formal norms, Mead emphasize, have lots of room for flexibility.

So, here's a quote from Mead. There’s “plenty of scope for originality, flexibility, and a variety of such conduct.” People can use rules creatively, can modify or extend rules and institutions and roles. So that's the basic perspective. I bring this perspective of social construction to law.

和之前对自然主义的讨论一样，我想再次强调这并非一种决定论的观点，角色、责任和规则不会决定人们所做的一切。米德并不持决定论的观点。他强调，人们拥有多元的视角、不同的观点，这些取决于他们来自哪里。并且规则和角色、非正式和正式的规则拥有很大的灵活空间。米德写到，存在“大量的原创性、灵活性以及各种此类行为”。人们可以创造性地使用规则，可以修改或扩展规则、制度和角色。因此这是一种基础性的视角，我试着把这种社会建构的基础视角引入到理解法律之中。

So, from this perspective, we can identify the key factor is conventional recognition. What people recognize in what sense, what's law? what count as law? Who are legal officials? People collectively recognize that we know who's a judge, we know who's a policeman, what kind of powers a judge or a legislature policeman have. All of these are based on collective recognition, what judges or legislators have to do for something to count as law, to qualify as law. In other words, the rules of validity are based on collective recognition. So, this idea of social construction basically says what we make as law is literally whatever legal officials and people collectively recognize as law through our conventions and rules.

从这种视角出发，我们就可以发现关键因素在于传统的认可，即人们在何种意义上将什么识别为法律？什么算作法律？谁是法律官员？人们共同承认，我们知道谁是法官，谁是警察、以及法官、立法机关或警察拥有什么权力。法官或立法者要做什么才能使某规范算作为法律、有资格充当法律，所有这些都建立在集体承认的基础上。换言之，有效的规则建立在集体承认的基础上。因此，这种社会建构的观念在根本上表明，被我们视为是法律的事物就是法律官员和人们通过惯例和规则共同承认为法律的事物。

Now this ground of perspective, as I said, brings this ground-up social construction’s view of law, brings difference, allows us to see law in different ways. And I’m just going to give examples again because I want to suggest you concretely what the implications of this are. I'll give you one fundamental insight when we look at law from the collective recognition standpoint. We can see that law is more than a system of rules. Lots of legal philosophers talk about law as rules, the most famous one being H.L.A. Hart. So H.L.A. Hart said law is a system of rules of obligation. One set of rules he called primary rules. And secondary rules are the rules that legal officials use to run the or create the primary rules of obligation, to recognize them, to change them and to apply them.

正如我所说的，这种基础的视角带来了一种对法律的自下而上的社会建构式的理解，使我们能够以不同的方式看待法律。我打算再举一些例子，因为向你们具体地表明这种视角意味着什么。当我们从集体承认的角度看待法律时，可以发现一个基本的洞见，即法律不仅仅是一个规则体系。许多法哲学家都将法律视为规则，其中最著名的是哈特。他认为法律是一套义务规则体系。他将其中一套规则称为初级规则；另一套是次级规制，即法律官员用于创制、承认、改变和适用初级规则的规则。

Now everything Hart said was correct. I'm just saying that if you look at law from the social construction perspective, you will see immediately that law does a great deal of things. They go far beyond creating systems of rules. In fact, law is a multifunctional tool that does many things. We use law to do many things. And I’ll just give you an example that I’ve already mentioned. Law creates corporations. Law gives rise to the existence of entities that act in the world. So that's one example. Let me give you another example. If you look at law from the social construction perspective, it's a standard view among legal philosophers repeated by many, and all of them, as far as I can tell, that the function of law is to guide the conduct of the people. Now, this seems to make sense and it seems obviously true. But if you actually look at people and how they act in their daily lives, it becomes much more questionable. For example, we begin to ask what do people actually know about law? We have multiple studies in the United States and Europe which show that people are often wrong about law on many fundamental issues. They have beliefs about law, but the beliefs are actually not true. So, it turns out that when people take actions, they don't take actions based on the law, they take actions based on their assumptions about what law is. If that's the case, then laws not guiding their conduct. There's a relationship between law and social action, but the relationship is not one of guidance. Guidance is ex ante, that is they have to know the law and then have it a factor into their decisions. And studies show time and time again, that's not what people do. They think about the law but not based on consulting a lawyer or actually knowing what it is. It's based on their assumptions about law.

哈特说的这一切都是正确的，但是你们如果从社会建构的角度来看待法律，就会立刻发现法律是一个多功能的工具，可以做许多事情。我举一个之前提到过的例子，法律创造了公司，产生了在世界上行动的实体。另一个例子是，如果从社会建构主义的角度来看待法律，那个一个几乎所有法哲学家们不断重复的观点就是，法律的功能是指引人们的行为。这似乎很有道理，而且显然是正确的。但是，如果实际观察人们以及他们在日常生活中的行为，就会愈发发现这论断是可疑的。例如，我们会对人们实际上对法律有多少了解产生疑问。我在美国和欧洲进行了多项研究，这些研究表明，在许多基本问题上人们对法律的认识往往是错误的。他们对法律有某种信念，但是这种信念实际上并不正确。事实证明，人们不是根据法律而行动，而是根据他们所设想的法律而行动。如果是这样的话，法律并没有指引他们的行动。虽然法律与社会行动之间是有关系的，但这种关系并不是一种指引关系。指引应当是在行动之前存在的，也就是说，人们必须首先知道法律，而后将法律作为他们决策的一个因素。而许多研究一再表明，人们并非如此。即人们考虑法律，也不是基于咨询律师或实际了解法律，而是基于他们对法律的设想。

One more example and this is one something that I've written about more recently. And that is if you look at law from the social construction as a standpoint and you say that law is whatever people collectively recognize as law, then you are immediately led to the realization of legal pluralism. Legal pluralism is the idea that multiple forms of law exist within society. And legal philosophers have until now completely ignored this phenomenon until quite recently. Because they understood law from a top-down perspective as the creation of the state. And indeed, in all societies today law is the creation of the state. But that's not its only source. There are other forms of law that are not the creation of the state. And for example, across large parts of Africa, Customary Law is the primary mode of law. There are multiple studies of this that show in many societies, 80 or 90% of the people have property relations relying on Customary Law, which is not the same as State Law. When they have disputes, they go to customary tribunals, they don't go to State Law. Another example is many societies have forms of religious law. For example, many Islamic societies have Islamic law recognized by the people and it is separate from state law, but not just in Islamic societies, it also exists in Britain.

另一个例子我最近才刚刚写到。如果你们从社会建构的角度来看待法律，认为法律就是被人们共同承认为法律的东西，那么就会立刻被导向法律多元主义。法律多元主义认为，社会中存在多种形式的法律。而法哲学家们直到最近都完全忽视了这一现象，因为他们从自上而下的角度将法律理解为一种国家的创造物。的确，在当今所有社会中，法律都是国家的创造物，但国家并不是法律的唯一渊源，还有其他形式的、并非由国家创造的法律。例如，在非洲大部分地区，习惯法是主要的法律形式。许多对习惯法的研究表明，在许多社会中，80%或90%的人群的财产关系依赖于习惯法，而习惯法的内容和国家法不尽相同。当人们发生纠纷时，他们会诉诸于习惯法，而不是国家法。另一个例子是，许多社会都有某种形式的宗教法。例如，许多伊斯兰社会的伊斯兰法得到了人们的承认，它与国家法律是分离的。不仅在伊斯兰社会中，在英国同样也有宗教法。

So again, these are examples. What I’m trying to suggest you is that if you see laws as social construction, the way I’m describing at its very foundations, you begin looking at law in a different way, asking what do people understand? How does it work out? What are their actions? What do they actually know? I have spoken for a long time, so I’m going to wrap up just by summarizing a couple of key ideas and then I’m going to stop so that we can have time for a discussion.

所以对此可以举出很多例子。我想告诉你们的是，如果你们将法律视为一种社会建构，就像我在描述法律基础时所做的那样，你就会开始以不同的方式看待法律，去问人们理解什么？结果如何？他们的行动是什么？他们到底知道什么？我已经讲了挺长时间了，所以我打算总结几个核心观点，并就此结束，把时间留给讨论。

Two other things I want to emphasize about the pragmatic realistic view of law. And again, this comes directly out of pragmatism. The pragmatists believe that all social institutions are there for our purposes, for human purposes, that we should be able to evaluate and utilize them in ways that serve our needs. So, this is the instrumental view of all social institutions. Let me read a quote from Mead: “Now it is true that social arrangements, laws, institutions, are made for man, rather than that man is made for them; that they are means and agencies of human welfare and progress.”

This is a critical idea. They're saying we should look at all of our institutions and law as a significant one, as they are to serve our purposes as instruments for the human goals. Let me read Dewey because he repeated this again and again, quote: “law is through and through a social phenomenon, social in origin, in purpose or end and in application.” Another quote: “A given legal arrangement is what it does, and what it does lies in the field of modifying and/or maintaining human activities as going concerns.”

关于现实主义的法理论我想强调另外两点。同样，这一点直接来自于实用主义。实用主义者认为，所有的社会制度都是为了人类的目的而存在，人类应该能够评估它们，并以满足自身需要的方式利用它们，这就是对所有社会制度的工具性观点。让我来读一段来自米德的论述：“社会安排、法律和制度为人类而设，而非人类为它们而设，它们是实现人类福祉和进步的手段”。这是一个关键的思想。他的意思是我们应当把所有的制度和法律视为是重要的，因为它们是用于实现人类目的的工具。让我引述一段杜威的话，因为他反复强调了这一点。他写到：“法律完全是一种社会现象，在起源、目的或宗旨以及应用方面都具有社会性。另一句引述，“一种特定的法律安排就是它所做的，而它所做的就在于修正或维持人类活动的领域，这是法律持续的关切所在”。

Now, their view that law is instrumental came along with another view that is what they called experimental instrumentalism. I’ll just describe it. What it means is we gather empirical data. Let's say there's a social problem or economic problem that we want to address. We gather data, we figure out what's the best way to deal with it. We utilize law as an instrument to try to resolve it. And then, and this is the critical part, we look at the consequences--experimental instrumentalism. If it turns out that it didn't work, it didn't solve it, it made things worse. We then now have this information and engage in the next round. So, pragmatism was very oriented towards trying seeing the consequences, changing what you're doing, and continuously engaging in this way, utilizing law to solve our problems. So that is the instrumental view of law.

法律现实主义的工具主义法律观和另一种观点是相伴相生的，即所谓的实验工具主义。例如，如果有想要解决的社会问题或经济问题，就需要收集经验数据，找出最好的解决方法，并把法律作为工具去尝试解决它。接下来是关键的部分，我们去观察这样做的结果——实验工具主义。如果结果是它不起作用，没有解决问题甚至让事情变得更糟，我们就获得了这个信息，从而进行下一轮尝试。所以，实用主义非常重视尝试看到结果，修正人们正在做的事情，不断通过这种方式实践，并利用法律来解决所面临的问题。这就是工具主义的法律观。

The last thing I want to say is that the pragmatists also emphasize the importance of ideals like liberty, rule of law, whatever ideals we have. These ideals, the pragmatists argued are important ways in which society continues to make progress. We espouse ideals, we question whether those ideals are being served. We then change programs in a way that allows those ideals or society to progress towards achieving those ideals. So, pragmatism viewed all social institutions, and law of course, as an instrument for the social good and they also emphasize the great importance that ideals have in leading the progress of society and law as well.

最后，实用主义者也强调自由、法治等理想的重要性。 实用主义者认为，这些观念是社会不断进步的重要途径。我们支持这些理想，并去问它们是否得到了实现。接着，我们改变计划，以使使社会朝着实现这些观念的方向发展。因此，实用主义将所有的社会制度和法律视为实现社会福利的工具，同时他们还强调观念在引领社会和法律进步方面的重要性。

与谈人

季卫东

上海交通大学中国法与社会研究院院长、教授

Professor Brian Tamanaha aims to set forth the third approach for jurisprudence besides natural law theory and positivist analytical jurisprudence, that is, to study and understand law in the context of history and society, and to construct a general legal theory. This effort is very meaningful and deserves high praise. Professor Tamanaha asserts that legal theory should be based on experience, pay attention to context and recognize the multi-level and diverse composition of the legal order. These ideas largely belong to the category of sociology of law, or can be classified as social theory of law. The Chinese academic circle of sociology of law certainly welcomes and supports this standpoint. In addition, I myself also study law from the perspective of complex system and have deep sympathy with the theoretical approach to analyze the characteristics of Chinese law. As for professor Tamanaha’s research and related discussions, I would like to express some comments and ask three questions.

布莱恩·塔玛纳哈教授志在为法理学指出自然法理论与实证主义分析法学之外的第三条道路，即在历史和社会的背景下考察法律、理解法律，建构一种具有普遍意义的法学理论。这种努力是非常有意义的，值得高度赞扬。塔玛纳哈教授的主张立足于经验、重视语境、承认法律秩序的多层多样构成，在相当程度上属于法社会学的范畴，或者说可以归类于法的社会理论。中国法社会学界当然欢迎并支持上述立场。另外，我自己也对从复杂系统的角度考察法律、特别是分析中国法律特色的理论进路抱有深切的同情。以下就塔玛纳哈教授的研究内容和相关论述发表一些感想并提出三个问题。

First question:

In your speeches and representative works, you defined your theory as a kind of legal realism, highlighting the characteristics which in knowledge pedigree is close to Eugen Erlich's sociology of law theory. In fact, the ideological source of early American legal realism is Erich's concept of "living law". The pioneers of early American legal realism--Oliver Holmes, Jerome Frank, and Carl Llewellyn tend to focus more on adjudication. Because they overlooked the difference between daily behavior and basic structure, they failed to extend their critique of the objectivity of adjudication and of the authenticity of institutions to the critique of the society. However, the various updated versions proposed by the successors of legal realist showed a more colorful spectrum. You believe that your legal realism transcends its early version because it does not merely concentrate on adjudication but takes more comprehensive and complex legal phenomena into account. In view of this claim, it is of course necessary and possible for us to compare your theory with the later variants of legal realism, so as to deeply understand the essence of your theory.

So far, the development of legal realism has gone through four waves, which can be divided into six types, namely, exposing judicial subjectivity, empirical research on law and society, law and economics, critical legal studies, law and cognitive science, as well as law and political economics. How should we view the above-mentioned knowledge genealogy and how to position your realist theory of law in such a picture? This is the first question I want to ask here.

第一个问题： 塔玛纳哈教授在演讲以及代表性论著中把自己的学说明确界定为一种法律现实主义，凸显了在知识谱系上更接近欧根•埃利希法社会学的特征。实际上，美国早期现实主义法学的思想渊源正是埃里希的“活法”概念。虽然美国早期现实主义法学的开创者和旗手奥利弗•霍姆斯、杰罗姆•弗兰克以及卡尔•卢埃林的确倾向于司法本位，并且因为忽视了日常行为与基本结构之间的区别，所以无法把对审判客观性以及制度真实性的批判延伸到社会批判的层面。但是，现实主义法学的继承者们提出的各种进化版本却展示了更加丰富多彩的光谱。当塔玛纳哈认为自己的法律现实主义超越了司法本位的局限性、把更广泛、更复杂的法律现象纳入视野之时，我们当然有必要、也有可能与现实主义法学后来的变种进行比较分析，从而深入领会其理论的精髓。

迄今为止现实主义法学的发展经历了四次浪潮，可以分为六种类型，即揭露司法主观性、法与社会的经验科学研究、法律经济学、批判法学、法与认知科学、法与政治经济学。应该怎样看待上述知识谱系、如何在这样的图景中定位塔玛纳哈的现实主义法律理论，这是我想在这里提出的第一个问题。

Second question：

I note that you lay more emphasis on history and custom, that is "historicism" and "naturalism" rather than science and behavior. You pay special attention to the diversity of legal orders, and is particularly sensitive to the overall context. Therefore, we think that the basis of your realist theory of law lies in groups and the social relations between them. Your theory tries to incorporate the complexity and integrity of society into a general theoretical explanation of state legal system. From social and historical perspectives, how to explain changes of social institutions is of key significance for a general theory. You advocated pragmatism in your speech and opposed the universal, necessary, and absolute truth. And you once examined four kinds of reform of legal order, but did not specifically analyze the driving force and mechanism to promote the change.

With regard to the driving forces of social change, there are currently two basic theoretical models in the sociology of law. One emphasizes conflicts, disputes and struggles, referred to as “the conflict model”. The other emphasizes agreement, consensus, and cooperation, referred to as “the consensus model”. The positions of Oliver Holmes, one of the originators of American legal positivism, Roberto Unger, the representative of the third wave of legal realism, and K.S. Laman, the promoter of the fourth wave of new legal realism, are all inclined to the conflict model. Your realist theory of law emphasizes the diverse compositions of the legal order, so cannot avoid the question of how to deal with their relationship. Which model do you prefer? The conflict or consensus model?

In addition, from your discussion of the three levels of social recognition of law, and your position of historicism and holism mentioned in today's speech, it seems that you prefer the consensus model and just seek opportunities for improvement in openness and contingency. Does my understanding fit your opinion? This is the second question I want to ask.

第二个问题：因为塔玛纳哈教授更强调的不是科学和行为，而是历史和惯习，或者说“历史主义”和“自然主义”，并且特别注重法律秩序的多样性，对整体的语境也特别敏感，所以我们认为这种类型法律现实主义的基础在于群体以及群体之间的社会关系，试图把社会的复杂性和整体性嵌入关于国家法律体系的一般性理论阐释之中。从社会和历史的角度来看，对于一个整体性理论而言，如何说明社会体制的变化具有关键意义。塔玛纳哈教授在演讲中提倡实用主义，反对普遍的、必然的、绝对的真理观，并且曾经考察过法律秩序的四种变革，但是，却没有具体分析推动变革的动力和具体机制。

在涉及社会变迁驱动力量方面，迄今为止法社会学存在两个基本的理论模型。一个强调矛盾、纠纷以及斗争，简称斗争模型。另一个强调合意、共识以及合作，简称共识模型。美国法律实证主义的鼻祖奥利弗•霍姆斯以及第三波法律现实主义的代表罗伯特•昂格尔和第四波新法律现实主义推手K.S.拉曼的立场都比较倾向于斗争模型。塔玛纳哈教授的现实主义法律理论强调法律秩序的多元构成，这就无法回避如何处理多元之间关系的任务。在这里，塔玛纳哈教授究竟倾向于斗争模式还是共识模式？另外，从塔玛纳哈教授关于社会对法律认可的三个层次（对产权和婚姻的习惯法认可、对法律人士的常规认可、法律人士对法律规则和行为的认可）的论述来看，从今天演讲中提到的历史主义和整体主义立场来看，似乎带有较强的共识指向，只是试图在开放性和偶然性中寻求改良的机会，这样的理解是否符合作者的本意？这是我想提出的第二个问题。

Third question:

No matter we emphasize conflict or consensus, if legal theory focuses on social relations and understands law as a social construction formed through interactions, it will inevitably reveal the underlying logic of social relations, especially the power hidden behind. The so-called power refers to the coercive force mutually exercised by members within a certain community. Of course, in the context of social relations, this power is relative and variable.

The essence of legal realism is to understand social relations as a systematic and structured mechanism of power operation and understand law as the basic condition and framework of power operation. It then tries to deconstruct the assumptions of law’s naturalness, objectivity, impartiality and spontaneity to reveal such fact. In this sense, legal realism has a strong critical rationality. In other words, legal realism is characterized of anti-naturalism, anti-market fundamentalism, and anti-spontaneous order. It tries to restrict the arbitrary exercise of power and reconstruct unreasonable social relations by reconstruct legal system.

If the critique object of early legal realism is the fetishism of institution, then that of new legal realism is the fetishism of structure. The social relationship is the essence of the structure, so the new legal realism focuses on the existence of the relationship between the subject and the structure, and tries to reconstruct this relationship according to certain evaluation standards. In your speech, you acknowledged that pragmatists, while recognizing the importance of power, did not discuss power intensively. So, how do you understand power and social relations? This is the third question I want to ask.

第三个问题：

无论强调斗争还是强调共识，如果法学理论着眼于社会关系，把法律理解为通过互动形成的社会建构，那就必然会揭示社会关系的底层逻辑，特别是潜伏其中的权力。所谓权力，就是一定共同体内部各种成员之间相互行使的强制力。当然，在社会关系的背景下，这种权力都是相对的、可变的。法律现实主义的本质，归根结底就是把社会关系理解为一种权力运作系统化、结构化的机制，并把法律理解为这种权力运作的基本条件和框架，进而试图剥去自然性、客观性、公正性、自生性的假设来揭示这个现实的真相。在这个意义上，法律现实主义具有较强的批判理性。换句话说，法律现实主义具有反自然主义、反市场原教旨主义、反自生秩序的社会理论的特征，试图通过法律制度的重构来制约权力的恣意行使，对不合理的社会关系进行重构。如果说早期法律现实主义的批判对象是制度拜物教，那么新型法律现实主义的批判对象就是结构拜物教。社会关系正是结构的本质，所以新型法律现实主义聚焦于主体与结构之间关系的存在方式，并试图按照一定的评价标准重组这种关系。塔玛纳哈教授在演讲中承认实用主义者尽管认识到权力的重要性，但却没有广泛讨论权力问题。那么，塔玛纳哈教授究竟是如何把握权力、如何理解社会关系的？这是我想提出的第三个问题。

主讲人

布莱恩·塔玛纳哈

美国圣路易斯华盛顿大学教授

First, I want to say thank you for those comments and questions. Really, very brilliant comments. I cannot answer fully in this context. So, I just want to say a few words about each question that you raised.

我首先想对这些评论和问题表示感谢，这的确是非常出色的评论。在此，我没法完整地回答这些问题，所以我打算对你提的每个问题做简要回答。

First of all, about the relationship with legal realism. As you said, I think quite correctly, the realists were primarily focused on adjudication. The set of ideas that they drew from were much broader and they were influenced themselves by historical jurisprudence by Eugen Ehrlich, as you mentioned, by von Jhering. So, they were influenced by the same schools of thought that I was talking about. But the way legal realism developed it came down to judicial decision making. One of the things I'm trying to do is recover that broader vision.

首先，关于我的理论和法律现实主义的关系。正如您所正确地指出的，我认为法律现实主义者主要关注的是司法裁判。但是他们所汲取的观念则更加广泛，如你所提到的，他们受到历史法学派的影响，受到埃里希和耶林的影响。因此，他们受到了我谈到的同一思想流派的影响。但是法律现实主义发展这一流派的方式，最终主要涉及的却是司法裁判。我试图做的其中一件事，就是去恢复这种更加宽广的视野。

So, I don't talk a lot in this book about judicial decision making. That's a particular common law obsession. And it's an obsession that Americans have or American jurist have. But I think to understand law and society, you have to have a much broader perspective. As you pointed out, we have modern schools of jurisprudence like law and economics, critical legal studies, law and cognition. My view of those schools is that they fit within the broad umbrella of the approach that I'm trying to describe.

因此，我在这本书中并没有就司法裁判着墨很多。司法裁判只是普通法特别着迷的东西，只是美国人或者说美国法律人着迷的东西。但是我认为，要理解法律和社会，你就必须拥有一个宽广得多的视角。正如你所指出的，有许多现代的法理学学派，如法经济学、批判法学以及法与认知科学。我认为，这些流派都可以归入我所试图描述的宽泛的理论进路整体之中。

As you said, right at the outset, I've distinguished and this is in the book between three branches of jurisprudence. One is analytical jurisprudence, that is legal positivism. The second is natural law theory, and the third is social legal theory. So, the social legal theory which takes this naturalistic understanding, views laws as social construction and is heavily empirically oriented. That's the methodological component. It’s focused on empiricism. That is a good way of understanding what law and economics does. “Law and economics” also has a normative orientation. It says Law is efficient and it should be. So, there's a normative component. that is its own unique contribution. Law and cognitive science. These are all versions of this branch that I'm talking about.

正如您开头所讲的，我在本书中区分了法理学的三条分支。其一是分析法学，即法律实证主义，其二是自然法理论，其三是法律的社会理论。因此，采取这种自然主义理解的法律的社会理论将法律视为一种社会建构，并且在很大程度上以经验为导向。这是它的方法论部分，它注重经验主义。这是一种理解法经济学的很好的方式。法经济学还有一种规范性的取向，它认为法律是有效率的而且应当如此。所以，在法经济学中还有规范性的部分，这是它独特的贡献。还有法与认知科学，这些都是我所谈论的理论分支的不同版本。

Critical legal studies is a little bit different because they were making descriptive claims, but they also had a political agenda. And the approach that I'm describing is amenable to their political agenda. But it's not necessarily something that adopts it. As you correctly point out, Roberto Unger was an important influence in developing those ideas, I just wanted to add that he was my thesis adviser, so I know his work very well.  Indeed, I was influenced a great deal by the ideas that he was espousing. So, you ask how my approach fits in with this. And I think the best way to think about it is what you began with talking about--these three branches of jurisprudence. And I would say that these modern schools fall within the general parameters of this social historical approach that I'm trying to develop.

批判法学研究则有点不同，因为它们不仅提出了描述性的主张，而且还有政治议程。我所描述的理论进路也遵从了它们的政治议程，但是却不是必须要采取这种政治议程。正如您正确地指出的，在我发展这些观念的过程中，罗伯特·昂格尔发挥了很大的影响，我想补充的一点事，他还是我的学位论文导师，所以我非常了解他的作品。我确实在很大程度上受到他所支持的观念的影响。你问到，我的理论进路是如何与法律现实主义相契合的。我认为，思考这一问题最好的方式就是您一开始谈到的，即法理学的三条分支。并且我会说，这些现代学派都属于一般性的社会-历史研究进路的范围，这一进路正是我所试图发展的。

The second question you asked and this is a very complex question. We would have to sit and discuss this for many hours. But I’ll say about it because I think you raise again important points. So, your question is what gives rise to legal change and you offered two possibilities conflict and consensus. And you ask me which of these two I adopt. I make a point in the book and I actually had it in this talk. But I left it out because I cut out really about 15 pages from the talk. It’s a big part of what I'm trying to do. It’s saying that these are not mutually exclusive approaches or influences, that society consists of and human behavior consists of conflict and consensus. And so, both of those have to be taken into consideration for me. It's not either-or thing. I think that's part of the problem that we have people who are conflict theorists and people who are consensus theorists and coming at it from their own perspective and my view is actually both are fundamentally important perspectives and both have to be included. Now in addition to those, if the question is what these change that I'm going to give a little bit more of specific, I think conflict is really important. By the way, I mentioned by Jhering, his idea, his famous book calledis about conflict. It's about groups and individuals fighting out through law and over law to achieve their objectives.

您问的第二个问题是一个非常复杂的问题。我们不得不坐下来讨论好几个小时。但是我还是想讨论这个问题，因为我认为您再次提出一个重要的观点。您的问题是什么引起了法律的发展，您提出了两种可能性——冲突与共识，并且问在二者中我认同哪一个。我在书中提出了一个观点，在讲稿也的确讨论了这个问题。但是我在此并没有提及，因为我从讲稿中删去了大概 15 页的内容。这是我尝试做的事情中一个很大的部分。我认为冲突和共识并不是相互排斥的方式或影响，社会和人类行为是由冲突和共识共同构成的。因此对我来说，它们二者都必须考虑，而不是非此即彼的。我认为问题部分在于，我们既有冲突论者也有共识论者，而他们分别从各自的视角出发来看待这个问题。但我认为，二者都是基础而重要的视角，都应当被考虑。此外，如果问题是这些变化的原因中，我想要更具体地讨论哪一个，我认为冲突确实很重要。顺便说一下，我提到了耶林，他的称为《为权利而斗争》著名作品就是关于冲突的。它是关于团体和个人通过乃至超越法律，为实现他们的目标而斗争的。

But in addition to conflict and consensus, I want to say that law changes and society changes because I'm always talking about law and society. I can't pull them apart, right? I think they change for many reasons. I'll just give you one reason, one enormous impotence impetus for changes--technological development. It means that technology changes society. Technology, I mean, we talking on zoom is a good example of technology, but everything. So, when technology changes, society changes, and society changes, law changes with it because all of these changes create new problems, create new opportunities, all of which are dealt with in legal terms or many of which are dealt with in legal terms.

但是除了冲突和共识以外，我想说法律的变迁和社会的变迁，因为我们总是讨论法律和社会。我们无法把它们分离开来，对吗？我认为它们的变迁还有其他许多原因。我这里只讨论其中一个原因，一个引起变迁的巨大而重要的推动力，即技术发展。这意味着技术改变社会。关于我所谓的技术，我们在zoom平台上讨论就是技术的一个很好的例子，但几乎所有事情都是技术。因此，当技术变迁时，社会也会变迁，法律也随之变迁，因为所有这些变迁都会产生新的问题、创造新的机会，所有这些或者至少是其中的许多，都要通过法律的方式来解决。

So, I want to say technological development is a really critical part of legal change, but I also think there are others. Culture changes over time, ideas evolve, societies change, and the way societies change is through interaction with other societies. We're not self-contained societies. In that sense, we all are interacting with one another. Again, tonight’s conversation is a perfect example. So, I'm hearing from Chinese scholars and I'm giving my view to Chinese scholars so I listen, we interact, I change my ideas and then this filter into law. So cultural changes, interaction with other societies, technological changes, conflict, consensus. So, I'm going to say through everything in there and it's all involved in legal change. I mean no answer. I'm suggesting that change is multicausal and it's everything the totality of these interactions.

所以，我想说技术发展的确是法律变迁的一个重要的部分。但是我认为还有其他的要素。文化随时间而改变、观念更迭、社会变迁，并且社会是通过与其他社会的互动而变迁的。我们不是生活在自给自足的社会中。在此意义上，我们所有人都与其他人进行着互动。今晚的交谈就是一个绝佳的例子。我从中国学者处听取意见，并且也将自己的观点分享给中国学者。因此我会倾听，我们会互动，我会改变我的想法，并且这会渗透到法律之中。所以我想说，文化变迁、与其他社会的互动、技术变迁、矛盾、共识，所有都与法律的变迁相关。我的意思是，我并没有答案。我认为导致法律变迁的因素是多样的，包括所有事物以及它们之间的互动。

Your last question power. I’ll show you my talk. I literally had a section called power, but I left it out and you were correct to ask me about it.  So, I guess this is what I want to say about it. I think in relation to law, in particular, power is fundamental because I view legal systems as coercive apparatuses of power. Now they do good things, but they also do things that we would be critical of. The good things will just say I gave examples. Law helps coordinate behavior, constitutes corporations, facilitates economic transactions. Those are all good things. But law also enforces hierarchy. It enforces social hierarchies, it enforces economic hierarchies, it enforces the power of the government. Law has lots of other things it does in relation to power and sources of power. And this is the part where I left out where I had a discussion in the U.S. People in the U.S. think that now with our Free market system, we don't have laws enforcing hierarchy, but in fact law does enforce hierarchy in our society today.

你的最后一个问题有关权力。我可以给你看我的讲稿，里面确实有一个部分题为权力，但是我没有提到它，而你问我这个问题是对的。我认为，尤其在和法律的关系上，权力是基础性的，因为我把法律系统视为一种强制性权力的装置。尽管它会做好的事情，但是它也会做那些我们会批判的事。关于刚才提到的好的事情，例如法律可以帮助人们协调行为、建立公司、便利经济交易等等。这些都是好的事情。但是法律也会执行等级制度。它会执行社会等级、经济等级和政府权力。所以法律会做许多和权力以及权力渊源有关的事情。这是我在美国的讨论中删去的一部分。美国人认为，凭借我们的自由市场体系，我们没有执行等级制度的法律，但事实上今天法律确实在我们的社会中执行着等级制度。

The old forms of law, law enforcement of power and hierarchy was about slavery, for example, or class systems within society. If you look at Hammurabi’s Code, low class people had different punishment than upper class people. This was just written into Hammurabi’s Code. In Roman law, the male citizen was the most powerful and everyone else was subject to the authority of the male in the household, the wife, the children and the slave. These relations were power relations and they were enforced by law. What I wanted to say about modern American society is we also have law enforcing power relations and hierarchy. But now it operates through a different source of power and the specific source of power is the ownership of property. So, the power relations of employers versus employees are precisely that employers have the ability to offer terms to employees where you can take it or leave it, not like fair bargaining. We see lots of examples of this. Now their labor unions and so forth. So that's the law trying to rectify the imbalance, trying to get involved. So, law is working on both sides of this, its enforcing power, but law also can be utilized as a way of restraining power or restricting power. So, the relationship between law and power is fundamental and I'm going to add that it runs through everything, but I was not able to discuss that in my talk.