本文以德國公法學者史坦恩（Lorenz von Stein, 1815-1890）的社會理論為基礎，論述社會有機體的結構與變動，並且進一步分析社會理論如何構成國家理論的歷史規律，同時呈現歷史原點上的社會國。史坦恩的思想淵源，除了德國唯心論的傳統外，還深受法國實證主義、社會主義所影響，這兩者共同構成他的社會國哲學。他的社會理論與國家理論主要呈現在 1850 年出版的《 1789 年以來法國社會運動史》三冊， 1852 年與 1856 年出版的《國家學體系》兩冊，以及 1868 年之後陸續出版的行政理論十冊。 本文分析史坦恩如何基於社會理論，建構社會國理論，尤其在社會變動過程中，國家與社會呈現何種互動關係，又如何主導著個人的自由與不自由。這樣的論述風格迴異於法律概念的演繹與解釋，但卻直指概念法學論述上所欠缺的著力點，呈現社會國理論的內涵與實質。本文希望釐清的是，在社會高度自主與變動的前提下，國家如果要與社會進行對話與互動，是否應該擺脫中立性，進而具備高度的自主性？如果國家欠缺自主性，會不會在社會自主的前提下，使得「國家主權」的概念消散成「社會主權」？而「社會主權」代表的是強者獲益或者全民獲益？史坦恩基於國家社會二元論所發展出的國家自主性，落實在社會政策的制訂與執行，不僅不同於國家僅居於輔助性原則（Subsidiaritätsprinzip）的資源分配模式，也不同於民主理念下，福利國家提供津貼的資源分配模式（Subventionsprinzip）。此外，史坦恩賦予「自主的」國家持續且積極改變社會結構的歷史任務，然而在這過程中，他又如何處理個人自由與國家至上之間的對立，以兼顧個人自由與整體進步；再者，他的社會國又如何能夠結合行政國與財政國的理念，並且成為民主制度的價值與目的。藉著這個歷史過程，或許有助於我們省思國家與社會的關係，重新定義國家的目的與價值。 史坦恩的理論是否仍然具有時代意義？這是任何古典理論都必須面對的問題。在君王制已經退出歷史舞台的今日，現代民主國家如何安排公共利益的機制，政府與議會體制是否能夠恰如其分的扮演「社會改革君王」的功能？史坦恩的社會理論如何與當代社會正義理論，互相對話，這些都是值得持續探索的問題。

Based on the social theory proposed by Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890), a German scholar of the public law, this paper first states the construction and movement of the social organism, further analyzes how the social theory constructs the historical rules of the state theory, and meanwhile presents the origin of the social state. Apart from the tradition of the German idealism, Stein’s thought was deeply influenced by the French positivism and socialism, both of which comprised his philosophy of the social state. His social and political (state) theories were mainly presented in the following books: The History of the Social Movement in France, 1789-1850, published in 1850, System of the State Science I, II, published in 1852 and 1856, and The Administrational Theory published from 1868. This paper analyzes how Stein based his social state theory on the social theory. Particularly, in the process of the social movement, Stein interpreted how the interrelationship between the state and the society dominated the individual independence and dependence. Different from the deduction and explanation of the law concept, his statement directly pointed out the weakness of the conceptual jurisprudence, showing the innovation and substance of the social state theory. In this paper, it is hoped to clarify that on the premise of the highly social autonomy and movement, if the state and the society could converse and interact with each other, should the state get rid of the neutralism and have its highly autonomy? If the state lacked the autonomy, would the society autonomy disperse the sovereignty into the social sovereignty? And did the social sovereignty represent the benefit for the dominators or the public? According to the dualism of the state and society, Stein suggested that the state autonomy should put into practice while the social policy is constituted and executed, which is differentiated from the distributive mode of resource under not only the principle of state subsidiary but also the subsidy offered from a democratic welfare state. Furthermore, Stein endowed an organic state with a historical task that lastingly and actively altered the social structure. Nevertheless, he, on the one hand, coped with the opposition between the individual independence and the supremacy of state; on the other hand, the process was expected to look after both individual independence as well as the total progress. Moreover, he integrated the idea of the administrational state and that of the financial state into his social state theory, which becomes the value and purpose embedded in democracy. Does Stein’s theory have contemporary meaning? This is a question that any classic theory has to face. Today, as the monarchy has been withdrawn, how does the democratic sate set up its public interest? Do the government and the parliament act as the monarchy of social reform appropriately? How does Stein’s social theory converse with the current social justice theory? These questions are worth further exploring.