【作者】 刘翠霞；

【导师】 林聚任；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 在社会学方法论的争论中,实证与理解、个体与整体、结构与行动、宏观与微观等二元框架经常被视为主要的分析范畴,与之相应,社会学的基本问题也常被归结为个人与社会的关系。但从学科性质定位及其方法论基础来看,科学(性)与社会(性)的关系也是社会学中不容忽视的基本问题之一,其在具体研究过程中则主要表现为客观再现与社会建构旨趣的两难选择。二十世纪末爆发的科学大战在一定意义上可以说就是以科学与社会学为学科依托的两大知识阵营之间,关于科学(性)与社会(性)关系的论战。大战双方围绕“科学知识究竟是自然实在的客观再现还是社会建构的产物”展开了激烈的争论,科学大战因此在方法论上体现为“表征与建构之争”。而结合社会学学科发展历程把脉科学大战的原因,科学表征与社会建构这对二元范畴便为理解社会研究方法论洞开了一方新的运思空间。社会学诞生之初,出于学科建制化与合法化的需要,将科学表征作为研究的核心旨趣,强调要像自然科学那样研究社会,科学化因此成为学科的最大诉求和目标。这是因为,自近代科学诞生以来,伴随着科学乌托邦愿景的一再实现,科学成为知识的尺度,而其背后的方法论支撑——客观真实准确地再现实在——亦即表征便成为研究的美德。以实在论、“自然”主义和数学化为核心特征的表征取向日益扩展,推动了科学主义思潮的兴起,研究领域的学科化与科学化进程也因此紧密交织在了一起。以“学科皇后”自居的社会学为了确立自身在知识王国的地位,面向客观实在的社会,强调把社会事实当作物来研究,主张尽可能用数学语言书写社会之书,由此实现了与方法论的科学表征旨向的完美契合与对接,也为其学科化铺平了道路。但随着科学敌托邦魇景的显现,表征观念中隐涵的地方性、实用性、社会性因素日益释放。由于对实在的过度依赖、对精确性的过分追求以及在各种政治伦理情感面前的“不作为”,表征取向因此面临“实在何以存在、真理的历史与境性、数学化的贫困、价值无涉的风险”等诸多难题的困扰。以科学表征为主要研究旨趣的社会学因而也遭遇了想象力日益枯竭和科学化理想沦落的危机,一味地追求客观真实准确地再现社会实在,无视学科诞生之初的社会关怀与救赎使命,丧失了本应有的批判气质与解放气度,陷入研究的真实性、客观性与准确性困境之中。二十世纪七十年代,科学知识社会学(简称SSK,通常也称之为科学的社会建构论或曰社会建构论)在与知识社会学和科学社会学研究传统的继承式决裂的基础上,将知识社会学的原理推进到科学知识生产领域,提出科学知识是社会建构的产物,在学术界引起强烈的轰动,也由此推动了建构主义思潮的兴起。在这一思潮的影响下,研究不再是一种“客观发现”的过程,而是一种“制造知识”的过程,不是“准确呈现”外部世界的过程,而是一种“社会建构”某种事实的过程。建构而非表征、社会性而非科学性在研究中受到前所未有的重视。而社会性其实是社会学与生俱来的独特分析视角,它不再把社会事实当作物来研究,而是坚持把物当作社会事实来研究,强调以社会建构的眼光审视现实,揭示现象背后的社会性动因。社会学的发展谱系中有着丰厚的建构主义思想,无论是强调“社会被建构而成”的解释性社会建构论,如韦伯的理解社会学、齐美尔的形式社会学、米德的符号互动论、舒茨的现象学社会学、加芬克尔的常人方法论等,还是强调“被社会建构而成”的客观性社会建构论,如孔德的社会实证论、涂尔干的社会团结理论、马克思的社会实践论、帕森斯的结构功能主义、科塞的社会冲突论等,都不同程度地强调了人类生活的社会建构性。在此意义上,社会学本身即是一门强调社会因素的建构性作用的学科。这种学科自身内蕴的“社会建构”倾向对“科学表征”形成了巨大的冲击,通过用社会生成论替代社会实在论、用社会化方法替换物化研究方法、用话语书写取代数学表征,社会学在一定程度上摆脱了科学表征的危机,实现了某种完美的自我救渡。随着科学的社会建构论的影响的扩展,以社会学作为知识泉源的社会建构迅速发展成一种几近影响到所有学科固有研究范式的方法论,从而使得研究世界中出现了方法论的“社会建构”转向。因为它在预设前提上具有鲜明的社会批判性,强调建构客体的生成论、建构法则的“社会”主义以及建构载体的话语化倾向,重视对知识及现实进行深入的权力、利益、话语分析,认为一切知识及现实都是社会建构的产物,社会的幽灵无处不在,因此方法论的社会建构转向也可以说是一种“社会学转向”。但科学的社会建构论由于一味关注不确定性与复杂的偶然性,解构并摧毁了对客观性的承诺,遭到越来越多的学者的质疑,开始呈现出疲软的态势。很多科学哲学家抨击了SSK观点的自负,认为它将科学的社会性推到了决定性的地位,忽略了自然因素及确定性在科学知识生产中的作用。在SSK内部,皮克林、拉图尔、伍尔伽、林奇等人则将研究视角从作为知识的科学转向作为实践的科学,指出把“社会性”理论化为核心的组织和解释概念是不恰当的,从而导致了后SSK的兴起。随着科学的社会建构论的式微,社会建构取向的研究也面临着越来越多的批评,它否认存在客观性与确定性的东西,强调社会建构的决定性力量,带有强烈的相对主义倾向,无法解释自身的社会建构性这一反身性难题,从而落入自我驳斥的深渊,日益陷入方法论的恐惧之中。社会建构论在认识论和方法论上的相对主义取向直接导致了本体论的社会实在论,使其不断释放出自身当中致力于颠覆自身、毁灭自身的那些要素。对社会因素的过度依赖与对实在的“过度作为”,使它将整个人类世界看作是一个巨大的“名利场”、“政治角斗场”,这使其丧失了对自然实在的某种敬畏之心,忽略了适度妥当的确定性与稳定性对人类生存生活的必要性,可能将人类置于某种无法安身立命的境地。应该说,科学表征与社会建构作为研究的两种不同取向,在社会学发展过程中都起到了重要的作用。但两者也都不同程度地削弱了研究效力的可持续发挥。前者强调客观准确地再现社会事实,发现社会秩序结构和规律,放弃了社会学题中应有的“社会性”之义,而纠结于何以价值无涉的问题；后者强调现实的社会建构性,发掘现象背后的社会幽灵,抛却了研究中的理性与确定性根基,而困守于相对主义的牢笼里。这种方法论取向的二元对立的背后反映的乃是社会学的科学性与社会性诉求的两难抉择,而好的研究既应当是科学的,也应当是社会的,既应当是表征的,也应当是建构的。科学表征与社会建构其实是辩证地存在于研究过程之中的,以“构现二象性”的形态共生共融于研究场域的观照之下,从而使得研究每每呈现出双重性的取向。表征与建构的二象性意味着研究并非是运行于科学性与社会性两条独立并列的轨道上,而是合流于一条知识生产的航道线之中。二象性对二元论的取代,使研究跳出了科学性的机械旁观与社会性的循环自反的困境,将两者混融于研究大同之中,展示了“真实的研究”场景具有的无限的可能。而当代理论的实践转向则为理解研究世界中表征与建构的关联作用机制,提供了最佳的方法论场地与凭据。无论是后SSK的实践建构论还是实践社会学的洞识,都让我们意识到研究本身是一种知识生产的实践活动,其具有深刻彻底的实践本性。而研究过程遵循“问题化-科学化-社会化-客观化”的实践路径实现着知识的阶跃增长,其中问题化与社会化其实是“表征的建构化”过程或曰“(科学)知识的社会学化”的过程,是一种“增殖的实践”,而科学化与客观化的过程其实是“建构的表征化”过程或曰“社会性知识的科学化”的过程,是一种“纯化的实践”。它们将表征与建构有机地整合到了一起,使表征与建构脱离了各自的束缚、实现了动态的“转译”,并在实践的冲撞中有效运转起来,展示出知识生产的实践逻辑,超越了两种方法论取向长期以来的无休止的对抗。总之,知识生产正是在科学表征与社会建构的逻辑交替循环递进过程中获得了进步和发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the discussions about sociological methodology, there are many analytical categories such as positivist or interpretive approaches, individual or whole perspectives, macro-or micro-views, and the primacy of structure or action, which are known as dualistic frameworks. Accordingly, the major theme can be usually attributed to the interplay between individual and society in the discipline of sociology. However, the interaction between science (or the scientific) and society (or the social) functions effectively as one key issue in the development of sociology, especially as far as the disciplinary nature and methodological basis are concerned. Generally, it reveals the hard choice between two opposite orientations, representing objectively or constructing socially in the process of social research.Depending on different disciplinary backgrounds, the Science Wars might be portrayed as simply as battles happened between science and sociology which focus on the autonomy and the social nature of science. Scientists insist that scientific knowledge represent objective reality, and sociologists emphasize that scientific knowledge be a social construct. Therefore, scientific representation and social construction can be taken as a dual framework to understand sociological methodology.The origin of sociology was influenced by natural science. It regarded scientific representation as the core target of research in order to gain academic legitimacy, which had been eager to import the methods of natural science to the study of the social world. As science became the scale of knowledge and representation became the virtue of research, sociology advocated that the book of society should be written in mathematics and social facts should be taken as things. Only if these claims were fulfilled could the disciplinary justification be ensured.And yet, as a result of excessive pursuit of accuracy and certainty, the orientation of scientific representation was increasingly exposed to many difficulties. It could not explain the existence of ultimate reality convincingly and the contextual variables of truth. Sociology oriented towards scientific representation thus fell into crisis. Its imagination seemed to have dried up and its scientific hope had been destructed, and it was besieged by scientific failures. Disregarding of the social mission and the humanistic concern, sociology lost its critical thinking and the emancipatory potential, which made it fall into the crisis of authenticity, objectivity and precision.In the1970s, sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), which is also called social constructionism, inherited the ideas that all human knowledge except scientific knowledge were causally determined by various social factors from sociology of knowledge and sociology of science. But SSK applied the principles of sociology of knowledge to the field of scientific knowledge, and claimed that scientific knowledge was the product of social construction. This view triggered a quiet stir in academic circle and resulted in the rise of constructivist trends of thought. Social construction began to be valued high in methodological approaches.Social construction has been inherent in sociology and it is a unique perspective of sociology. It takes things as social facts and tries to see through the social causes of phenomenon. There are rich constructivist resources in the theoretical genealogy of sociology. The discovery of social construction made sociology out of crisis and realized self-salvation, which replaced social realism with social creationism, reification with socialization, mathematical representation with discursive expression. The achievement of autonomy of sociology made it to some extent counter the evil of scientific dystopia successfully.With the spread of social constructionism of science, social construction had become one influential orientation of methodology in the world of research such as sociology, politics, psychology, archaeology, and history. It possessed ethos of social criticism, preferred interests and power analysis, and considered that the social ghost was ubiquitous. In this way, the turn of social construction might be called the sociological turn in methodology.But it is keenly known that an increasing number of scholars begin to doubt the rationality of social constructionism and fight against its radicalness and extremity. Many philosophers of science criticize that social constructionism ignores the importance of reality and certainty in the production of scientific knowledge. In the SSK, some prestigious scholars, who transformed their insights from science as knowledge to science as practice, were called as post-SSK.With the decline of social constructionism, the methodological orientation of social construction has entered into dramatic predicaments. It denies natural objectivity and emphasizes social determinism, which makes it difficult to explain itself as a social construct. It neglects the necessity of certainty and stability in human life. The relativist epistemology leads it to plunge deeply into the chasm of self-refutation and methodological horror.As two different kinds of orientations, scientific representation and social construction once both played important roles in the development of sociology, but each of them also hindered the progress of social research. In fact, a good research should be not only scientific but also social, and its aims should include representation and construction. Therefore, they coexist in one field of research in the manner of ’representation-construction duality’. From dualism to duality, research activities approximately overcome the methodological difficulties from scientific representation or social construction.The practice turn in contemporary theory offers some beneficial inspirations to understand the correlation mechanism between scientific representation and social construction in research. The insights from the practical sociology and the practical constructionism of post-SSK make people realize that research activities can be one productive practice about knowledge. Following the route from problematization to scientificalization, to socialization and to objectivization, the practice pushes the development of knowledge forward.The process of problematization and socialization can be viewed as proliferative practice which focuses on the constructionization of representation, and the process of scientificalization and objectivization can be viewed as purificatory practice which concentrates on the representationization of construction. Beyond the methodological dualism, the production of knowledge works well in dynamic alternative recycling process of scientific representation and social construction.更多还原