Personal groups and categories between construction and deconstruction

法律不能表达每个人的所有独特性和不同方面。相反，它必须依赖于绝对类型。同样，法律在某些情况下可以利用实际因素，但在一定程度上形成了真正的法律范畴。类型学使国家行动的合理化和可预见性成为可能，但将个人归因于形成群体的各自方面(集体主义)。这就是为什么这与社会上普遍认为人是独一无二的个人人格形成对比。由于这个原因，对类别的分配尤其面临着越来越大的压力，要求为这种情况提供一些理由，从解构的努力一直到这一点。这特别涉及性别/性别类别，首先是因为有机会在二元系统(变性人/变性人)内进行选择和转换，但也越来越多地通过要求在该系统之外对自己的性别进行自决(第三、第四性别)，直到彻底解构这一类别(后性别)。但在反歧视和庇护法领域也是如此，这些法律以反种族主义的方式使用种族、族裔群体、血统或国籍等类别，并保护个人免受集体主义的负面影响，类别越来越多地被指责为本质主义和表演性。在公共辩论和学术分析中，焦点正越来越多地转向歧视和不平等等热门领域--例如，在微侵犯、安全空间和触发警告等准则下。与此同时，随着生物学和医学的进步，类别被赋予了新的含义--例如，基因组的解码为刑事起诉开辟了新的可能性。研究项目的目的是分析群体和类别在创造和维持法律的客观性、可预测性和可靠性方面的相关性，并询问可能的替代办法。在这里，建设和解构方面起着决定性的作用。首先，要探讨群体和范畴定义的社会学基础，并分析它们在多大程度上只是构造性的。然后，将从合法性的角度审查和分析就集团和类别提出的保留意见。在此基础上，对性别、族裔群体、种族和民族的个别类别进行分析，考虑到选择、转换和自决的因素越来越多，这些类别是否仍构成真正意义上的类别。最后，研究项目是探索所谓的后范畴思维，并询问在群体和类别中以及与群体和类别一起思考有哪些替代方案，以及这是否保证了国家行动的客观性、可靠性和可预见性。

Law cannot express all the uniqueness and diverse aspects of each and every individual. Rather, it must rely on categorical types. By the same token, law can in some cases make use of actual factors, while in part it forms genuine legal categories. Typologies make possible rationalisation and foreseeability of state action, but reduce individuals to the respective aspect that forms the group (groupism). That is why this contrasts with the prevailing view in society of persons as unique individual personalities. Assignments to categories are for this reason inter alia increasingly under pressure to offer some justification for such, with this ranging all the way to efforts at deconstruction. This relates in particular to the category of sex/gender, first of all by virtue of opportunities to choose and switch within the binary system (transsexuality/transgender), but also increasingly through demands for self-determination regarding one's own gender outside this system (third, fourth gender) all the way to complete deconstruction of the category (post-gender). But also in the area of anti-discrimination and asylum law as well, which use categories such as race, ethnic group, origin or nationality in an anti-racist manner and to protect individuals against negative effects from groupism, categories are increasingly being accused of essentialism and performativity. Focus is increasingly moving towards the topical fields of discrimination and inequality in the public debate and in scholarly analysis – for instance under the rubrics of micro aggressions, safe spaces and trigger warnings. At the same time, categories are taking on new meaning by virtue of progress in biology and medicine – for instance with decoding of the genome opening up new possibilities for criminal prosecution. The aim of the research project is to analyse the relevance of groups and categories in the creation and maintenance of objectivity, predictability and reliability of law and to enquire as to possible alternatives. Here aspects of construction and deconstruction play a decisive role. First of all, the sociological foundations of the definitions of group and category are to be explored and it is to be analysed to what extent these are mere constructions. Then reservations raised regarding groups and categories are to be examined and analysed in terms of their legitimacy. Based on these foundations, the individual categories of gender, ethnic group, race and nation are then to be analysed in terms of whether in view of increasing elements of selection, switching and self-determination these still constitute categories in the true meaning of the word. Finally, the research project is to explore so-called post-categorical thinking and enquire about what alternatives there are to thinking in and with groups and categories and whether this guarantees objectivity, reliability and foreseeability of state action.