Remarks on Andreas Abegg's paper 'From the Social Contract to a Social Contract Law

• Author: Maurizio Borghi
• Pages: 31-31

ANCILLAIURIS(anci.ch)2008:31–Comment 31

Abegg’spaperaddressesonphenomenathatweare

barelyabletomeasure,andwithrespecttowhichitwould

beanexaggerationtotrytohaveanallembracingunder

standing.Thus,thisisjustapreliminary,andnotadefini

tivestatement.

Ishallgostraighttowhat,inmyview,seemstobethe

heartofthematter.

Thefactthatabig,tacitsocialcontract(Rousseau)crum

blesintoamultitudeoftinyexplicitcontracts,whichgovern

aloadofsocialduties,relationshipsandbehaviours,isa

strikingandenigmaticphenomenon.AsimilarZer

gliederung[dissection]undoubtedlyoccursinmanyother

areasoftheLaw,producingtheoveralleffectofa“lawsat

uratedsociety.”However,themostrelevantfeatureinthis

processisnottheastonishingshiftfromonelegalparadigm

toanother,butthe–mostlyunnoticed–emergenceofthe

traitoffunctionality.Thetwoinstancesareproperlytermed

functionalequivalent:socialcontractontheonehand,and

multiplecontractsbetween“politics”and“society”onthe

other.Butwhatisthefunctionaccordingtowhichtheequiv

alencebetweenthetwofiguresiseventuallymeasured?The

pointisthatthischaracteroffunctionalitydoesnotobeyto

aneutral,exogenousunitofmeasurementaccordingto

whichalldifferentlegalsystemscanbecompared.Instead,

functionalityistheleadingtraitofthesole“multiplecon

tract”system,andthusofthemushroomingofcontractual

figuresandformsofsociopoliticalcontractsthatareanaly

sedinpartIIIofthepaper.Therefore,itisonlyinthelight

ofsuchoutcomesthatthetraditionalsocialcontract

appearstobeafunctionalequivalent.Yet,socialcontract

andcases(Fallkonstellationen)ofcontractsareperseincom

mensurableinstances.

Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthetraitoffunction

alityisnotalreadypresent(thoughinaconcealedway)

withinthetheoryofthesocialcontract.Toacertainextent,

thefactofassertingthattheessentialformofhuman

Miteinandersein[togetherness]isacontractimplicitlymeans

toconsiderhumanbeings,notashavinganendinthem

selves(Kant),butasbeingfunctionaltooneanother.Asa

matteroffact,theLatinlanguagetermssocietasmeansonly

aspecificformofbeingtogether,namely,thatofbeing

togetherinfunctionofacommonpurposeorend(irrespective

ofwhethertheendisinitselfworthyorvicious:e.g.societas

regni,societassceleris,etc.).Still,the“society”envisagedin

thetheoriesofsocialcontractexploredinpartIIofthe

paperisnotyetaninstancewhichonlypurposeisthatof

functioning.Onthecontrary,theabovementionedcases

(Fallkonstellationen)takeplaceinasocietywhichonlyfunc

tionis,precisely,theperpetuationofitsfunctioning.Toput

itinaformula:functioningforfunctioning’ssake.

Thisphenomenonisnotonlychallenging,butstrictly

speakingvertiginous.Iamnotentirelypersuadedthatthe

perspectiveofthesocialcontractlaw(Gesellschafts

vertragsrecht),whichismentionedattheendofthepaper,

hastheslightestchanceofdealingwithit.ButhereIam

onlymakingatentative,nondefinitiveclaim.Ontheother

hand,inmyopinion,thepapershedslightonanAbgrund

[abyss]forwhichno“theory”iscurrentlyabletounravel.

Moreover,itdoessoinaworthwhileway,thatis,byinsist

ingonaspecificperspective(namely,thatoftherulesgov

erningtherelationshipbetweenthestateandthecitizens),

withouttakingthecommonshortcutofmakinguseof

philosophicaltheorieshastilyadaptedtothecontext.

RemarksonAndreasAbeggspaper“FromtheSocialContracttoaSocialContractLaw”

MaurizioBorghi