【作者】 赵超；

【导师】 赵万里；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 社会学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 迄今围绕知识社会学开展的研究主要集中于两个层面：一是对知识社会学学科的理解和诠释,二是对知识社会学具体议题的讨论。对于前一个层面来说,既有的研究成果更多地停留在对涉及知识社会学问题的各种学说和理论进行梳理的自发阶段,这种看待知识社会学的方式较少具备一种方法论的自觉意识。基于这一点,本研究试图以社会学的视角切入对知识社会学自身的分析。本研究的理论框架来自知识社会学和科学社会学中“学科研究”的相关理论。在对默顿、克兰、库恩、布迪厄、惠特利以及德兰迪等学者的学科研究工作进行梳理和批判的基础上,本文提出：学科可以被理解为一种“逻辑—社会整合体”——一方面,作为一种专门性的知识形式,学科能够以异于常识的特殊的认知方式和知识累积方式实现自身的演进,这种自主性地位是由社会赋予的,社会与学科知识之间是一种支配—被支配关系：而学科为了维持其合法性地位,需按照特定的社会期望展开其认知活动。另一方面,学科知识之所以能够获得社会的承认,其合法性源于：它能够按照一种不同于日常知识生成原则的“逻辑性”原则,来为整个社会提供某种客观知识或真理；这又决定了学科知识受到社会支配的方式是间接的和隐蔽的。本文认为,“作为逻辑性的社会性”或“作为合理性的合法性”构成了学科知识的内生性原则。在这一原则的支配下,认知的合理性程度以及学科知识同社会的一致性状况决定了特定学科的演进轨迹。基于上述理解,本文对作为一门特殊学科的知识社会学进行了诠释。作为一门学科,知识社会学满足学科社会学的一般性分析框架；同时,知识社会学又是一门特殊的学科,这种特殊性源于它研究对象的特殊上——知识社会学的研究对象包含了它自身,这使得该学科不仅包含一般性的知识成果,并且成为具有“反身性”特点的知识形式：从理论层面上,知识社会学不仅包含一般性的知识—社会理论,还包括了这样一种理论对自身适用性程度的考察——这种考察见诸社会学知识论等领域。而在经验研究层面上,知识社会学不仅囊括了各种以日常知识和文化为研究对象的研究,还涉及反思社会学等领域的工作。由于涉及众多维度,使知识社会学各维度间的整合问题成为衡量知识社会学学科知识合理性的重要指标。本文将知识社会学学科知识体系的整合状态称为“范式”,并从知识社会学的已有研究中,概括出知识社会学历史上出现过的两大范式：社会实在论范式和社会建构论范式。其中,社会实在论范式在社会观方面秉持实在论立场,认为社会是一种客观现实；在知识与社会关系上持有二元论观点,认为知识与社会属于两种不同性质的范畴；在社会学知识论中预设了一种符合论真理观；认为包括社会学在内的科学知识独立于社会范畴,不受社会因素的影响；同时,认为知识社会学是一门独立于社会现实的、高度自主的学科。而社会建构论范式在社会观方面秉持建构论观点,认为社会是个体主观意义的外化；在知识与社会的关系上持有一元论观点,认为二者都反映了意义的不同层面；在社会学知识论方面预设的是建构论的真理观,认为科学(以及社会学)知识是通过特定思维框架来实现对认知对象的把握；知识社会学应当无差别地审视科学与非科学知识,前者的真理性建立在某种理性共识的基础上；同时,认为知识社会学本身同整个社会文化环境之间具有双向建构的关系,其自主性是相对的。从历史上看,知识社会学经历了从社会实在论范式到社会建构论范式的转换。这种转换的动因是知识社会学在社会实在论范式下不能很好地贯彻反身性的分析原则。而知识社会学中范式转换的实质,是学科知识各维度之间由不一致向一致的演进。总之,知识社会学所具有的这样一种特殊的学科合理性模式,使该学科在认知层面上以理论整合与范式转换作为理解其发展演进模式的核心线索。而在形态方面,知识社会学在其发展过程中,隐传统成为其思想理论的重要组成部分,并且呈现出显传统和隐传统并存、相互交织的状态；同时,知识社会学并非独立于社会,而是同整个社会文化情境呈现出一种双向建构的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Heretofore the studies of the sociology of knowledge (SK) could be classified into two parts:the reviews of the SK, and the studies of the concrete issues in the SK. Now the existing studies of the first part are various kinds of pectinations of the SK theories, these pectinations lack methodological awareness. Based on this, this thesis will take SK itself as "study object" and give it sociological analysis. The framework of this study originates from the pertinent theories of "specialty study" in the SK and the sociology of science. By summarizing and criticizing the specialty theories of Merton, Klein, Kuhn, Bourdieu, Whitley and Delanty, the point is raised that a specialty could be understood as a "logical-social cohesion". On the one hand, as a special way of knowing, scientific specialties evolve and accumulate in a way that different from the common-sense knowledge does. The particularity and autonomy of the scientific specialties are granted by the society. It is the social need for exact knowledge that determines that scientific specialties could gain their legitimacy and develop in their own way. In other words, the society dominates the specialty knowledge, and the specialty should carry out its cognitive process in accordance with the established social expectation to maintain its legitimacy. On the other hand, the legitimacy that scientific specialty knowledge can acquire social acknowledgment lies in that scientific specialties act on logical principles, which distinct from the generating principle of common-sense knowledge. It determines that the society dominates the scientific specialty knowledge in an indirect or hidden way. This dissertation holds that the endogenous principle of scientific specialty knowledge could be described as "logical as social" or "legitimacy as rationality". The given specialty evolves in the direction determined by the rationality of the cognition and consistency between the specialties and society.Based on the understandings above, this dissertation sees the SK as a unique specialty. As a specialty, the SK fits the general analytic framework of specialty study. As a special specialty, the SK’s uniqueness comes from the special object it has to face. As the SK itself is also one kind of knowledge, the study of the SK has to contain itself, means that if any interpretation of the SK wants to make sense, it has to be suitable to explain the SK knowledge, too. Thus the SK specialty has the reflexive character. Therefore, in the theoretical level, SK contains not only the theory of society-knowledge relationship, but also the investigation of the applicability of the theory to SK itself, which could be found in the sphere of sociological methodology. In the empirical level, the SK encapsulates not only the study of common-sense knowledge and culture, but also science and sociology itself. These multiple dimensions of the SK call for the integration of this specialty, which could be seen as a critical criterion of measuring whether the SK theory is reasonable or not.This thesis sees the integrated state of the knowledge system of the SK as a "paradigm", and summarizes two typical paradigms in the history of the SK:the paradigm of the social realism and the paradigm of the social constructivism. The social realism sees the society as an objective reality. It holds the dualistic perspective on the knowledge-society relationship, sees the society and knowledge as two distinct categories, and presupposes a reflective mode of interpretation. It also believes that scientific knowledge, including sociology, acts independently from the society, be immune to the social influence, and SK itself is also an autonomic specialty and is independent from society. On the contrary, the social constructivism sees the society as the externalization of individual’s subjective meanings. Society and knowledge are two sides of a coin, they have unitary relationship. It holds that scientific knowledge (including sociology) could not be immune to the sociological examination, because all kinds of knowledge are constructive, and SK should treat science and non-science impartially. The truth of the scientific knowledge could be found in the rational consensus of the society. It is also believed that SK itself is in a co-constructive relation with the whole social and cultural contexts, and as a specialty, SK’s autonomy is limited.Historically, the SK has undergone a paradigm shift from the social realism to the social constructivism. The momentum for this shift lies in the fact that the paradigm of the social realism could not solve the problem of reflexivity perfectly. The essence of the paradigm shift in the SK is that the inconsistency of the different dimensions of the SK seeks into consistency. To summarize, as a special specialty, the SK owns a specific rationality mode. In the cognitive level, the SK takes the theoretical integration and the paradigm shift as the core clue to understand and interpret its knowledge evolvement. In terms of morphology, the SK sees the latent tradition as the key component of the specialty, which co-exists and intertwines with the manifest tradition. At the same time, the SK specialty is not simply independent from the society, but is in a two-way constructive relationship with the entire social and cultural context.更多还原