本文为专辑1/4【157-160期预告】古典社会学家+施米特的当代重读

Croce, Mariano, and Andrea Salvatore. 2017. ‘Normality as Social Semantics. Schmitt, Bourdieu and the Politics of the Normal’. European Journal of Social Theory 20 (2):275–91.

社会学不都是研究“常态”吗？那么，施米特的“例外”思想怎么可能社会学化的理解？但是社会学，不也研究研究 主权、国家、政治、决策吗？

如果一旦决断了，那么社会、结构、文化、脉络还有吗？没有的话，还社会学吗？

如果一旦例外了，还有规范、制度、常态、集体吗？没有的话，社会学就玩不转了。

但是意大利学者Mariano Croce却想从social order的角度来切入施米特（Schmitt），重新理解他的理论。

施米特真的只谈决断吗？只谈例外吗？

施米特有没有改变过？转向过？反思过？

Croce and Salvatore认为施米特经历了从decisionism到institutionalist decisionism的转变，从exceptional thinking到concrete-order thinking的转变。

一旦看出这个转变，那么施米特不就变成了具有两极张力、富有弹性的社会学理论了吗？比如冲突/和谐，规范/自主，常态/反常……

看看他怎么说的吧。

1. 1920s年的决断论

Croce认为，施米特在1920s确实主要是思考他的决断论。

那么老生常谈的话：

Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception

也就说：主权者被认为是具有通过决断来产生foundatonal act，以创造social order。

显然，在这里，社会学意义上的常态、规范，都是人造的结果，是决断后果。这是很反—社会学的，因为相当于“有人”不没在pre-political的脉络下。这时候的法律秩序也只是对那个决断的执行罢了。

normality is not conceived as a preexisting state of affairs, a sort of pre-political, neutral condition on which the sovereign can rely when she makes her decision. It is an objective to be achieved. While unearthing the crucial role of normality within the political discourse, Schmitt unveils its nonnatural, artificial character ... a legal order as a series of timely decisions made and implemented by the sovereign. 

确实，社会学地讲，这样很难理解，所以Croce才说，学界会有这样的批评a metaphysical act devoid of any social relevance, an occasional and free-floating intervention that is ultimately unable to grasp social reality and thus to lay the foundations for a stable and enduring form of life. 

——这也是他会再发展为制度主义倾向的原因

This is why in the early 1930s he develops a new jurisprudential approach, consisting of a particular form of legal institutionalism. 

2. 1930s年的“具体秩序”思维（concrete-order thinking）

这主要是在On the Three Types of Juristic Thought, Constitutional Theory开始了。

施米特为重新回应决断论，更强调了the political salience of normality。也就是说，政治稳定性不再只是依赖“敌我划分”，而是靠规范生活和政治社群来理解。

Political stability no longer hinges on the polemological nature of a socially rootless friend-enemy contraposition, but is now grounded on an inherent content, a normal situation consisting of a generally uncontested set of behaviours, practices, and forms of interaction that characterize the everyday routine of a political community.

作者称之为“制度主义的决断论”Schmitt’s ‘institutionalist decisionism’ (see Croce and Salvatore, 2013: 46–61) 

2.1重新诠释“决断”

——不再只是靠例外情境，而是在既有基础上的选择过程

Accordingly, the ultimate decision is no longer conceived as a remedial intervention linked to the unpredictability of exceptional circumstances, but as a selection process that has to take into account a pre-existing social state of affairs.

2.2 重新诠释“政治”（与“社会”）

基础：政治作为建构的单一而社会作为事实上的多元，二者间有辩证。

This is evidence that at the heart of Schmitt’s institutional theory lies a dialectical relationship between social pluralism and political monism, where social pluralism is a fact while political monism is a construction.

2.3 增加“制度”的分类

——后设制度与内在的制度

Based on this, the integration of society relies on two levels, meta-institutional and intra-institutional.

后设制度是选择一个overarching制度，内在的制度是在单一制度是确实role-cognition间衔接。

2.4 “问题系”的转化

——制度、政治权威与日常生活间的关系

Institutions are in some way the intermediate bodies between the political authority and everyday life.

2.5 现实的路径

——普遍条款=法律规则的应用+情境条件下的语义=选择+保护

The set of general clauses (Generalklausen) that ensure the connection between the social and the legal orders. 

A general clause is a term or a concept that is key to the application of a legal rule but remains essentially undetermined, since it refers to standards of judgement that are semantically dependent on contextual conditions (examples are notions such as ‘good faith’, ‘common decency’, or ‘proportionate response’). 

施米特指出，法律规则上说：the ‘good head of family’, the ‘brave soldier’, the ‘duty-conscious bureaucrat’ 。这些作为“普遍条款”的内容，既是法律规则的应用，但是也在具体情境下的语义诠释，所以会在日常生活中被重新决定。为此，法律应该选择这些普遍条款的意义，并加以保护。

3. 总结

3.1施米特总结是：迈向“具体实在的秩序”

In our view, this is what Schmitt has in mind when he advances the notion of ‘concrete order’: an integrated web of different institutions that interact with each other and share a common, ultimate aim within the borders of a cohesive ethical substance. Normality and decision complement each other.

3.2 施米特最后的政治社会学图景：可诠释的语义力量—具边界的团体形成

The main virtue of Schmitt’s and Bourdieu’s theories is that they pinpoint the basic connection between such a crucial semantic power and the formation of groups within the social world. 

Schmitt, who was always concerned with the sovereign’s ability to name the enemy and, by doing so, to create the group of friends, progressively realized that the construction of a polemical target as such is not a steady basis for the establishment of a stable community. Political power, in his institutional view, should be concerned with the selection of a limited set of institutions and the preservation of their inner standards and models.

附：

This novel approach to the relationship between legal regulation and social life is announced in the Preface to the new edition (1934) of Political Theology (see Schmitt, 2005: 2–3). On Schmitt’s institutional turn, see Lindahl (2015); Loughlin (2014); and Maus (1998). 

附：Mariano Croce，一位来自意大利的（政治/法）哲学学者，写了专著Self-Sufficiency of Law. A Critical-institutional Theory of Social Order, Dordrecht: Springer, 2012

但是，在哪些社会学期刊上发过哪些文章？

2015. The habitus and the critique of the present. A Wittgensteinian reading of Bourdieu’s social theory”, Sociological Theory 

2015.“Homonormative Dynamics and the Subversion of Culture”, European Journal of Social Theory

(Sociological理论大缸第157期)

链接：德国社会学

第75期 德国社会学理论课程怎么教？2418份syllabus中的大家与热题

第67期 【德国社会学】“历史风范”是怎么衰落的？内斗、纳粹/流亡与美帝