humanism inherent to modern natural law’s universalism, insofar as it is realized in the institutional architecture of a legal liberal ‘State’, in which the public administrative apparatus controlled a dissociated mass of private individuals, destined to interact, through contract relations and for economic interests, in a radically depoliticized ‘civil society’. With a social realm thus conceived, there could be no proper social science: only those ‘statistics’ dominating the field of postwar social sciences which Arendt rightly criticized for being a mere extension of political economy’s key concepts (Wagner 2001). In order to open their distinctive field of experience, early sociologists had to be enough connected to the tradition of ancient political philosophy to use its principles in order to question the axioms of modern political science, as a preliminary step towards the search of the conceptual means enabling them to found an irreducible form of knowledge, based on a vision of ‘society’ entirely different from the hegemonic liberal conception. The inherited political concept – koinonia politiké, societas civilis – was thus elevated to the status of a universal scientific category disclosing that ‘ontologically autonomous realm’ to which Chernilo himself refers in his discussion of Arendt’s political philosophy. This new ‘(political) society’ therefore appeared as the original place where human beings, belonging to a plurality of cooperating and antagonistic groups, realize their distinctive humanity as long as social relations give a definite form to an otherwise abstract individual, deprived as such of any effective human capacity (Karsenti 2013). Taking the social world as a precondition for the very humanity of human beings implied then questioning the fundamental creed of modern individualism. For, the supposed natural independence of human beings, announced in modern constitutions, appeared to run against the manifest dependence of real social beings, as observed in established practices and institutions throughout history and even in modernity, despite the transformative rhetorical emphases placed by liberal ideology on freedom and responsibility. From the perspective of classical sociology, the problem has been then to know how to rebuild the modern project of autonomy from the ground of a more original and encompassing social world that seemed at first to jeopardize its very possibility. Taking distance from the letter of the constitutional text enabled early sociologists to bring to light the social reality concealed behind natural law, while disclosing through different epistemological strategies the historical dynamics likely to explain the emergence of an unprecedented ideal, waiting to be fully understood and realized (Callegaro 2015). It is a pity then that Chernilo, after having demonstrated, in his previous works, how classical sociologists as Durkheim turned concrete society into the starting point, not of a self-enclosed nationalism but of an open cosmopolitanism (Chernilo 2010), has finally renounced to develop further the political philosophy already contained in his 114 F. CALLEGARO

中文翻译：

---

从哲学社会学到社会学哲学：对丹尼尔·切尔尼洛追求普遍人文主义的挑战

在法律自由主义“国家”的制度架构中实现的前提下，现代自然法普遍主义固有的人道主义，在这种形式中，公共行政机构通过合同关系和经济利益控制着一群相互独立的私人个体，从根本上去政治化的“公民社会”。在这样一个社会领域的构想下，就不可能有适当的社会科学：只有那些在战后社会科学领域占主导地位的“统计”才被阿伦特正确地批评为仅仅是政治经济学关键概念的延伸（Wagner 2001）。为了开放自己独特的经验领域，早期的社会学家必须与古代政治哲学的传统有足够的联系，才能运用其原理来质疑现代政治科学的公理，作为探索概念性手段的第一步，使他们能够基于完全不同于霸权自由主义概念的“社会”愿景，找到一种不可还原的知识形式。因此，继承的政治概念–科尼尼亚政治家–市民社会–被提升为一种普遍的科学范畴，从而揭示了切尔尼洛本人在他对阿伦特的政治哲学的论述中所指的“本体自治领域”。因此，这个新的“（政治）社会”似乎是原始的地方，人类是多个合作和敌对群体的成员，只要社会关系给予了一个确定的形式给原本抽象的，被剥夺了这种地位的个人，就实现了其独特的人性的有效人员能力（Karsenti 2013）。将社会世界作为人类人性的前提，这意味着对现代个人主义的基本信条提出质疑。因为，在现代宪法中宣布的所谓的人类自然独立性似乎与现实社会存在的明显依赖性背道而驰，正如在整个历史乃至现代中的既定实践和制度中所观察到的那样，尽管自由主义意识形态赋予了变革性的修辞重点。关于自由和责任。从古典社会学的角度来看，问题是要知道如何从一个更加原始和包容的社会世界的基础上重建现代自治项目，而这个社会世界乍看似乎会危害其可能性。与宪法文本的字母相距遥远，使早期的社会学家能够揭示隐藏在自然法背后的社会现实，同时通过不同的认识论策略揭示历史动态，这可能解释了空前理想的出现，等待人们充分理解和实现。 （Callegaro 2015）。可惜的是，切尔尼洛在先前的作品中证明了像涂尔干这样的古典社会学家是如何将具体社会变成起点的，而不是一个封闭的民族主义，而是一个开放的世界主义的起点（Chernilo 2010），终于放弃了。进一步发展他的114 F. CALLEGARO中已经包含的政治哲学 在通过不同的认识论策略揭示历史动态的过程中，有可能解释了前所未有的理想的出现，等待人们对其充分理解和认识（Callegaro，2015）。可惜的是，切尔尼洛在先前的作品中证明了像涂尔干这样的古典社会学家是如何将具体社会变成起点的，而不是一个封闭的民族主义，而是一个开放的世界主义的起点（Chernilo 2010），终于放弃了。进一步发展他的114 F. CALLEGARO中已经包含的政治哲学 在通过不同的认识论策略揭示历史动态的过程中，有可能解释了前所未有的理想的出现，等待人们对其充分理解和认识（Callegaro，2015）。可惜的是，切尔尼洛在先前的作品中证明了像涂尔干这样的古典社会学家是如何将具体社会变成起点的，而不是一个封闭的民族主义，而是一个开放的世界主义的起点（Chernilo 2010），终于放弃了。进一步发展他的114 F. CALLEGARO中已经包含的政治哲学