反身愛情的限制，或永生政治的挑戰

The Limits of Reflexive Love, Or A Zoepolitical Challenge

本文旨在證成當代社會學家雖然採取了個體行動翻轉社會結構的觀點，發現日常生活對於功能系統的抵抗，但是他們更深陷在人類行動至上的現代性偏好中。文中指出，自1980年代以降有個後帕森思（Talcott Parsons）的思想病徵顯現在親密關係的社會學研究中，使得行動社會學和愛情社會學之間存在理論和經驗相互印證的共謀關係。具體地說，我們首先說明第二現代性論者如何想像反思愛情的溝通行動，其次解釋魯曼（Niklas Luhmann）為何重認反身愛情的溝通媒介，其三返回帕森思反省某種愛情的宗教秩序。文末還將解析由語言、身體和激情的綜合理性聚集而成的社會自我觀念，進而揭開生活政治、生物政治和永生政治施加在反身愛情上的三重限制。 This essay argues that although contemporary sociologists adopt the perspective of individual action to subvert social structure, meanwhile discovering the resistance of daily life to functional systems, they lapse deeper into the modernist preference for the supremacy of human action. It indicates a post-Parsonian symptom emerged from the sociological researches of intimacy since the 1980s, inasmuch as the theoretical sociology of action and the empirical sociology of love have verified each other in a collusive manner. Firstly, we elaborate on the ways in which champions of the second modernity imagine reflexive love as a communicative action. Secondly, we explicate the reasons why Niklas Luhmann recognizes reflexive love as a communication medium. Thirdly, we go back to Talcott Parsons for reflecting upon a certain religious order of love. Finally, we analyze the notion of the social self assembled by the synthetic rationality of language, the body and passion with an aim to disclose the threefold limits of reflexive love imposed by life politics, biopolitics and zoepolitics.

This essay argues that although contemporary sociologists adopt the perspective of individual action to subvert social structure, meanwhile discovering the resistance of daily life to functional systems, they lapse deeper into the modernist preference for the supremacy of human action. It indicates a post-Parsonian symptom emerged from the sociological researches of intimacy since the 1980s, inasmuch as the theoretical sociology of action and the empirical sociology of love have verified each other in a collusive manner. Firstly, we elaborate on the ways in which champions of the second modernity imagine reflexive love as a communicative action. Secondly, we explicate the reasons why Niklas Luhmann recognizes reflexive love as a communication medium. Thirdly, we go back to Talcott Parsons for reflecting upon a certain religious order of love. Finally, we analyze the notion of the social self assembled by the synthetic rationality of language, the body and passion with an aim to disclose the threefold limits of reflexive love imposed by life politics, biopolitics and zoepolitics.