Question

急求~~请翻译成中文

Law is not the only form that our political life takes. The rule of law is just one way of perceiving the meaning of political events. To see the events as an instance of law’s rule is to suppress alternative perceptions of the same evet. Those alternatives do not disappear. Rather, we respond to and consrtut multiple dimensions of meaning within our common political life. This competition among political perceptions will not appear unless we focus attentiao on that which law places outside of itself. We only suppress that which we have already perceived. Recognition, Suppression, and co-optation are all at issue in the relationships among symbolic forms. Plotting the relationship among these strstegies of law is the task of an architectural study. Instead of attempting to measure legal meanings against an independent or objective truth, we need to measure legal meanings against alternative forms of organizing and understanding political experience. These alternatives are no more true than law’s world: each is an historically contingent product of the imagination.
This contest among forms of political perception is carried out in the political rhetoric of the community, as well as in the imagination of each citizen. In part, the contest is a matter of normative devaluation of competing understanding. For example, law’s rule is always paired with a negative alternative. We describe the rule of law by saying“it is not the rule of men.” Alternatives to law are thereby dismissed as an illegitimate—and dangerously tyrannical—rule of men. If this is the only alternative seen, then outside of law’s rule, there can be nothing of any political value at all. The lagal imagination leaves a place for just one extraordinary situation outside of law’s revolution. Revolution, however, is always a possibility projected into the distant past or distant future.
The rule of law versus the rule of men is not the delimitation of two distinct places or times. Rather, the contrast is ifself constitutive of meanings within a lagal culture. Law is not the rule of men. The contrast is first of all a means of legitimating law by excluding alternative forms of politics from making any positive appearance. But the same contrast migrates from the justification of law’s rule to arguments over the content of law. The contrast works within doctrinal lagal argument as a means of attacking the opposing side in a lagal dispute. Alternative positions are not merely disagreements within the overall practice of law’s rule. Quickly the rhetoric escalates to accusations that those with whom one disagrees would lead the state into an illegitimate rule of men. Judge are constantly accusing each other of failing to apply the law and instead imposing their own rule—the rule of men—on the polity. This fracture between the

Answer 1

法律不是唯一的形式，我们的政治生活需要。法治是一个感知方式的意义的政治事件。看到这些事件的一个实例法的规则是压制替代的看法相同evet 。这些替代品不消失。相反，我们应对和consrtut多个层面的意义在我们共同的政治生活。这之间的竞争的政治观念将不会出现，除非我们对这一重点attentiao法律以外的地方，这本身。我们只抑制那些我们已经认识。识别，压制，以及拉拢收买，都是在问题之间的关系，象征性的形式。策划之间的关系，这些strstegies法律的任务是一个建筑的研究。而不是试图衡量法律含义对一个独立的或客观真理，我们需要衡量法律含义对其他形式的组织和理解的政治经验。这些替代品，没有比法律更真实的世界：每个是一个历史的产物特遣队的想象力。
本次比赛中形式的政治观念是在该国的政治话语的社会，以及在每一个公民的想象力。部分竞赛是一个规范性的货币贬值竞争理解。例如，法律的规则永远是搭配负面替代。我们描述了法治说“这不是法治的男人。 ”替代法，从而被视为非法的和危险的专制，法治的男子。如果这是唯一的选择阅读，然后以外的法律规则，就没有任何政治价值了。叶片的lagal想象力的地方只有一个特殊情况的法律以外的革命。革命，然而，始终是一种可能性预计到遥远的过去或遥远的未来。
法治与法治的男子并非是两个不同的划分地方或次。相反，对比ifself构的含义内lagal文化。法律不是法治的男子。对比首先是一种手段，合法化的法律，将其排除其他形式的政治作出任何积极的外观。但是，同样的反差迁移的理由从法律的规则，争论的内容法。对比工程理论lagal参数作为一种手段，攻击对方的lagal争议。其他立场不只是分歧的总体做法，法律的规则。快速升级的言论的指控，这些与其中一人不同意将导致该国成为一个非法的统治男子。法官不断互相指责对方没有适用法律，而是强加自己的规则规则的男女的政体。这间骨折