本文關(guān)鍵詞： 格拉克曼 法律人類學(xué) 法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)　出處：《民族研究》2017年01期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：20世紀(jì)上半葉,法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)的本體論問(wèn)題曾引發(fā)人類學(xué)界、法學(xué)界諸多學(xué)者的持續(xù)討論。英國(guó)人類學(xué)家格拉克曼以社會(huì)人類學(xué)視角對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的有關(guān)法律概念確定性的追求進(jìn)行批判,創(chuàng)造性地提出了"模糊論"解釋范式;以巴羅策部落社會(huì)為考察對(duì)象,借由一種"身份-頭銜"的實(shí)踐性分析進(jìn)路,證實(shí)了部落社會(huì)法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)是真實(shí)存在的;與博安南就如何翻譯部落社會(huì)法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)展開(kāi)爭(zhēng)論,論證了部落社會(huì)法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)具有可翻譯性。格拉克曼的探究,意在揭示部落社會(huì)的法律文明與現(xiàn)代工業(yè)社會(huì)的法律文明之間不存在本質(zhì)差異,為法律人類學(xué)知識(shí)傳統(tǒng)的建構(gòu)作出了重要貢獻(xiàn)。
[Abstract]:In 20th century, the ontology of legal concepts and terms triggered the anthropology. The British anthropologist Graceman criticizes the traditional pursuit of certainty of legal concepts from the perspective of social anthropology and creatively puts forward the "fuzzy theory" explanation paradigm. Taking Baroze Tribal Society as the object of investigation, by means of a practical analysis of "identity-title", it is proved that the legal concepts and terms of tribal society are real. This paper argues with Beaan on how to translate the legal concepts and terms of tribal society, and demonstrates that the concepts and terms of tribal society law are translatable. It is intended to reveal that there is no essential difference between the legal civilization of tribal society and the legal civilization of modern industrial society, which has made an important contribution to the construction of the intellectual tradition of legal anthropology.
【作者單位】： 湖北民族學(xué)院法學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：D90-052
【正文快照】： 20世紀(jì)上半葉,法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ)(1)的本體論問(wèn)題曾引發(fā)人類學(xué)界、法學(xué)界諸多學(xué)者的持續(xù)討論。這些討論涉及的主題較廣、內(nèi)容較多,(2)其中,受到人類學(xué)界與法學(xué)界共同關(guān)注且爭(zhēng)論較為激烈的論題集中體現(xiàn)在如下方面:西方現(xiàn)代意義上的法律概念與術(shù)語(yǔ),如法律、物權(quán)、所有權(quán)、合同等,其，

本文編號(hào)：1476864