What constitutes Sully's contribution? --After reading The Rule of Law and Its Indigenous Resources (trans)

Long ago, many people recommended this book, finally at the end of the period to read. I saw the review of the book elsewhere and felt it was not bad, so I brought it to ------- This is a book written by a jurist who once spent seven years studying in the United States, but anyone in any discipline can read it and perhaps benefit from it quite a bit. Not because he has ambitions to be an enlightened man, but simply because he has always cared y about the land he loves. He "has a strong sense of social and national responsibility" and is a "very responsible member of the Chinese ****anization party" and hopes that the Chinese nation will prosper and be strong." (The Order of Reading, by Su Li, Shandong Education Publishing House, Preface, page 3) In the face of an era when conceptual jurisprudence and political philosophy dominated the study of jurisprudence - when most legal experts still indulge in talking about, or agreeing with, "the law and the market economy" - "the market economy is the economy of law", In the face of the era of conceptual jurisprudence and political philosophy that dominated the study of jurisprudence - when most legal experts were still intoxicated by talking about or agreeing with "law and market economy", "market economy is the economy of the rule of law", and "modernization of the rule of law" in the 1990's - he, as a young scholar, did not think much of these buzzwords.　　　He was not cynical, nor did he attack the unsatisfactory aspects of that era, on the contrary, he emphasized that scholars have to "understand China", to find the rationality of real life; he was not trying to be new, trying to seize the academic territory, enclosing the land as a prison. On the contrary, he seeks to incorporate "popular" things into the field of theoretical analysis. He seems to have deviated from the norm by researching such stories - issues that some people at the time considered to have no research value at all: the story of a rural woman named Qiu Ju, who went to "seek justice" for her husband's injuries caused by a kick from the village headman, and the story of a party secretary ("shankang") who punished an unfaithful man for his misbehavior in a remote mountain village. A woman named Qiu Ju "asks for justice" for her husband's kicking by the village chief, and a remote mountain village party secretary ("Shankang") punishes unfilial villagers. There is no high-flown vocabulary, no metaphysical elements in this book, and no trace of any attempt to point out how this "backward" civilization can be modernized.　　　When some friends kindly criticized Su Li for not being "specialized enough" and suggested that he should systematically write books and make speeches, he still did not change his face and defended himself by saying, "In modern times, it is no longer possible to rationally find a solid academic foundation, and academics may just go to study and answer one specific question, because there is nothing to put all over the world, and there is nothing to put all over the world. question, because there is no universal truth that is universally applicable." (The Order of Reading, by Su Li, Shandong Education Press, Preface 2.) In this way, he persevered through a wave of skepticism. He constantly reminded himself that "paying attention to reality, reflecting on oneself, and reading carefully roughly constitute what I think a jurist 'should be'."　　　His concerns have become broader and more varied. He focuses on farmers avoiding the law and choosing to settle disputes privately, the Supreme Court's approval of the crime of raping young girls, and the issues in Mao's On the Ten Relationships. Even he has something to say about Diana's death. These issues are all very diverse and far removed from the themes of "power", "duty" and "justice" in the philosophy of law.　　　Time is the best test of all.　　　His essays have become a primer. It is not an exaggeration to say that if anyone wants to study the rule of law in Chinese society today, he or she will not be able to get around the threshold of Su Li's book, The Rule of Law and Its Indigenous Resources. This is Su Li's first book - strictly speaking, it is only a collection of essays.　　　His preface, "What is your contribution", is both a question to Chinese academia as a whole, or mainly to the legal profession, and a reflection and a stimulus to himself. Perhaps he wanted to give an account to those well-intentioned critics, to show his awareness of the problem and his concern for China's problems. By "contribution" here, he means the indigenous knowledge production of Chinese academics, not the adoption of foreign stuff to diagnose China. He said, "Therefore, theoretically speaking, it is entirely possible for scholars of our generation to make our own contribution based on our experience. ...... This contribution is not to provide footnotes to the theories and models provided by mainly Western scholars, to enrich or supplement their theoretical frameworks, but a real and genuine contribution. theoretical framework, but rather a truly irreplaceable contribution." (Preface, p. 3) Immediately afterward, he further explains "indigenous resources". "In this sense, our historical traditions, our many peoples (including ourselves), and our times of change have given us a scholarly 'mine' of great possibilities. Therefore, paying attention to real life and giving full play to our comparative advantages is the sure way for Chinese scholars to potentially make unique academic and theoretical contributions." In particular, he points out that how we scholars should treat history is not to be judgmental or to praise or criticize as an 'other', but rather, "real contributions can only arise from a genuine and sincere care and trust in China's past and reality." This is where Suli stands.　　　Su Li advocates an empirical, interpretive approach to the sociology of law, and this is evident in every word. For example, in the preface, he says, "The first thing is to study the reality of China. For the study of jurisprudence, he also advocates "cross-disciplinary" research, which is not only reflected in his book reviews. For example, in the article "what is jurisprudence", he appreciated Posner's "analysis of legal economics" and advocated the study of jurisprudence from the perspective of various disciplines; in the chapter "standardization of jurisprudence", he advocated the study of jurisprudence from the perspective of various disciplines; in the chapter "standardization of jurisprudence", he advocated the study of Chinese reality first and foremost. In the chapter of "the standardization of legal research", his criticism of "towards the age of rights" is a kind of emphasis on the sociology of law and correction of the method, emphasizing the evidence and examples.　　　He made no secret of the fact that he was a pragmatist and an admirer of American-style jurisprudence. He hosted the translation of almost all of Posner's articles, and his immersion in legal and economic analysis and postmodern jurisprudence is well known; he also introduced the development of American jurisprudence, and after reading Posner's Problems of Jurisprudence, he wrote an article on "What is Jurisprudence", which is an extensive introduction to the American jurisprudence, and he also happily He also listed the significance of this for Chinese jurisprudence. In the study of Chinese problems, he put these theories into the best possible use. For example, in the article "Legal Avoidance and Legal Pluralism", he analyzed the reasons for Chinese farmers to avoid the law from an economic point of view; and in "Post-modern Thought and Chinese Jurisprudence and Legal System", he analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of post-modern jurisprudence for the study of Chinese jurisprudence and legal system. In "Postmodern Thought and Chinese Law and Legal System", he analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of postmodern jurisprudence for the study of Chinese law and the process of legal system.　　　In the 1990s, all these views were but the beginning of the trend. At a time when "jurisprudence is childish" still pervaded the world of jurisprudence, it was rare to be able to and to dare to put forward so many fundamental reflections on the study of jurisprudence. In my opinion, this may be a turning point for Chinese jurisprudence.　　　As far as my reading experience is concerned, the research styles of Su Li, Huang Zongzhi and Ji Weidong have their own distinctive characteristics. Su Li likes to dissect the sparrow, Huang Zongzhi emphasizes intellectual archaeology and fieldwork, and Ji Weidong can combine theoretical argumentation with social investigation.　　　Coincidentally, Ji Weidong, Huang Zongzhi and Su Li also have very different views on the relationship between Chinese jurisprudence and postmodernism. In Law and Society for the Twenty-First Century, Ji Weidong argues that the introduction of postmodern thought is detrimental to the development of Chinese jurisprudence and the legal system, on the grounds that it destroys more than it builds, and that China has not yet completed its modernization. According to Su Li's analysis, Ji's argument presupposes two premises: first, the theory of unilinear social evolution, in which society necessarily passes from modernity to postmodernity; and second, the close connection between the study of jurisprudence and the construction of the legal system. Suli denies these two premise presuppositions. Although Suli also feels that he is not a postmodernist, he feels that postmodern thought is still of some benefit to the construction of jurisprudence. Postmodernism is a reflection on and critique of modernity, which is conducive to the construction of modernity; and even if it has a "destructive" effect, it is only at the level of research. In the Chinese context, research does not necessarily have a direct impact on the system. Huang Zongzhi, on the other hand, holds a different view from both of the above. According to Huang, the "modernity" of Chinese law does not lie in how it is defined theoretically, but in practice.... "Modernity exists in the process of legal practice, not in its nature. All three perspectives, though very different, are concerned with China's problems. These are meaningful. After all, scholarship is a matter of contention.　　　However, in spite of Su Li's great efforts to excavate local resources, his examination work is still somewhat flawed. It is questionable to portray a nation's legal culture solely on the basis of two movies, Qiu Ju's Lawsuit and The Tragedy of Mr. Shan Kong, and the corresponding lawsuits. This is similar to how domestic critics criticize Zhang Yimou's films, which tend to show the ugly side of the Chinese people to foreigners. Although Mr. Su Li does not go so far as to show the ugliness of the Chinese nation, his analysis of China's legal culture based on these two films alone inevitably falls into the realm of generalization. No Field