Postanalityczna teoria wykładni prawa wobec rywalizacji demokracji agonistycznej z autorytaryzmem
Postanalytic Theory of Legal Interpretation in the Face of the Rivalry between Agonistic Democracy and Authoritarianism

Summary/Abstract: The research problem undertaken in the article is the profound crisis of foundationalist theories of legal interpretation, triggered by the poststructuralist turn in the humanities. This turn radically undermined the traditional ideals of objectivity, neutrality, and predictability in law by rejecting the concept of meaning as an entity existing independently of the act of interpretation. Consequently, this led to the loss of epistemological justification for classical methods of interpretation and called into question the very legitimacy of judicial decisions, which, in this new light, appear not as atechnical discovery of truth, but as an act of power. The main hypothesis of the article is the claim that aconstructive response to this crisis can be apost-analytical, agonistic theory of interpretation that redefines the goals and tasks of jurisprudence in the era “after the end of foundations.” To verify this thesis, the method of theoretical analysis was used, drawing from post-analytic philosophy, including hermeneutic universalism, and from Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic theory of the political. The first part of the article presents the sources and nature of the crisis, showing how poststructuralism exposes the inevitable political character of interpretative processes. The most important findings of the article, presented in the subsequent sections, primarily include the proposal of anew theoretical model. The second part of the text characterises the four key functions of the new agonistic postanalytical theory of legal interpretation: mapping interpretative conflicts to reveal the underlying disputes over values and interests; articulating the ethical-political stakes of the dispute by asking “Who gains and who loses from agiven interpretation?”; promoting mutual recognition between adversaries to transform destructive antagonism into productive rivalry; and critiquing the institutional and discursive conditions of the debate that favour some voices at the expense of others. The third and fourth parts of the article expand on these findings, showing the model’s consequences: the redefinition of the theorist’s role as an “engaged cartographer of the battlefield of meaning,” who recognises that their analyses are not neutral, and basing the legitimacy of law not in the illusion of objectivity, but in the transparency of the agonistic dispute itself. As demonstrated in the fourth and final part, akey finding is the diagnosis of the limits of agonism when confronted with the threats posed by authoritarianism, which rejects the democratic framework of the dispute. In such conditions, the role of the judge-interpreter must be redefined— they adopt the figure of the katechon , aforce restraining the disintegration of the legal order. This requires them to adopt a“post-analytic ethics of restraint” and to apply judicial minimalism to protect the legal arena from destruction. The conclusions from the analysis indicate that the evolution towards the political is not the end of the theory of interpretation, but the beginning of its more self-aware and responsible form, which recognises conflict as the essence of life in apluralistic society. The proposed model of agonistic theory constitutes acoherent response to the post- foundationalist crisis, and its supplementation with the ethics of restraint for the judge-katechon becomes crucial for protecting the democratic framework of dispute in times of emerging authoritarianism.

• Details
• Contents