【作者】 袁曦临；

【导师】 叶继元；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 图书馆学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 中国人文社会科学的建立与发展,是与清末民初的社会变革及知识转型分不开的。本着“中学为体、西学为用”和“学为政本”的理念,晚清及民国学人借助于现代大学制度的确立、现代文献分类法的编制,对中国传统知识系统按照西方学科分类体系进行了重组。在现代西方强势的政治经济实力的冲击之下,辅之以弱势文化的自我心理认同,晚清以来的知识分子不可能以批判的眼光去审视、移植现代西方的人文社会科学知识体系,更不可能以理性的态度、按照严格的程序和步骤去检验引进的西方知识体系。1949年后人文社会科学的发展基本照搬苏联模式,对西方人文社会科学采取否定的态度,这使得20世纪60年代以后,中国人文社会科学的发展不仅脱离了西方人文社会科学的学科谱系,也与中国传统文化的承袭割断了联系；1978年后人文社会科学虽得以重建,但相对于西方人文社会科学,不仅依然缺乏必要的历史积淀与文化土壤,而且人文社会科学的学科分类体系也陷入长期的模糊不清。学科体系是一种知识制度,是一种对知识加以分类的“学科分类制度”。近年来,在我国人文社会科学领域学科建设实践中的许多问题,如学科专业目录修订调整、学科基金资助、重点学科点设置、学科发展不平衡、学术评价问题,以及人文社会科学研究成果缺乏国际影响等等,追根溯源均可归于人文社会科学的学科分类体系问题。目前中国社会正处于新的历史转型期,亟需建立能够反映中国国情和历史深度,指导中国现实发展,并具有世界学术视野的人文社会科学的理论思维与独立研究。因此,重构当代中国人文社会科学学科体系,使中国的人文社会科学研究真正本土化,用自己的理论来解决自己的问题,正日益成为学术界研究和关注的焦点。而要促进人文社会科学研究的繁荣发展,人文社会科学学科体系的重构无疑是出发点和先决条件。本文采用语境分析方法对中国人文社会科学学科体系的建立、变迁和未来发展进行了剖析,从“民国学制改革”和“近代文献分类法演化”2个途径对近代中国传统学术谱系的演变过程进行了阐述,并试图厘清“人文学科”、“社会科学”以及“哲学社会科学”这3个概念在近现代中国的语境中是如何产生以及被混淆的；在此基础上,通过比较研究,分析了国内现行人文社会科学学科分类体系存在的主要问题,对比国外主要的学科分类体系的设置情况,提出重构当代人文社会科学学科体系的出发点应由政府、政治导向转变为以学科、知识为导向,同时建立起开放的、多元化的学科准入模式,重建中国古典学术体系。本文所提出的人文社会科学学科分类体系包括社会科学、人文学科和应用性软科学这三大领域,并设计通过“通识”和“桥梁”教育把上述三大学科领域,在学科交叉或跨学科层面重新聚合起来,使之既保持与国外主流学科体系如CIP、ISCED、JACS基本一致,又兼顾到与台湾的学科分类体系以及文献分类法的衔接,以期体现人文社会科学整体化、多元化发展的趋势。而后,从微观的角度,选择图书馆学、情报学这一具有学科交叉性质的具体学科进行个案研究,以期将宏观与微观结合起来。本文的研究路径可以概括为：(1)在西方语境中去理解西方人文社会科学的概念及话语体系。(2)在中国语境中对西方学术体系进行剖析和反思,而后提出中国的人文社会科学学科分类问题；(3)通过国内外人文社会科学的比较研究和案例研究,形成能够解决中国问题,同时与西方学术对应交流的人文社会科学学科体系框架。相比于20世纪初的激烈的学术转型,一个多世纪之后的今天虽已不再有救亡图存的危险,但寻求发展和创新的紧迫感,以及世界的多元变化较之20世纪初更为剧烈。在新的环境下,对历史的梳理正是反思的前提,也是理论得以重新建构的先决条件。目前在人文社会科学领域,对于各个具体学科的研究已经比较丰富,对于学科体系整体性的陈述却比较欠缺,而整体性陈述恰恰是认识人文社会科学学科历史和现实的框架性工具。本文的创新之处体现在2个方面：首先,本文提出了人文学科、社会科学、应用性软科学三分法,而后通过“通识”和“桥梁”教育,在交叉学科或跨学科层面聚合的当代中国人文社会科学学科体系通用框架。在理论层面,为厘清人文学科、社会科学的知识谱系,洞悉其构成,明晰学科之间的内在关联,把握其研究范围,并预测学科发展提供了进一步研究的理论框架；在实践层面上,可以引领和指导国内的人文社会科学的学科建设、学科管理、学术评价和文献分类,乃至学术出版和学术知识的传播,具有现实参考价值。其次,从“学术史”的角度,深入探究了人文社会科学学科分类与近代中国学术转型的关系及其内在理路；在研究方法上,摒弃了将学术史与社会史割裂开来的作法,而将人文社会科学学科体系问题同经济、政治、社会背景相关联,从而能更清楚的认识学术发展的脉络,获得更为全面和宏观的把握。更多还原

【Abstract】 The establishment of Humanities and Social Sciences and their development in modern China were inseparable from the transformation of the society and the temporal knowledge system during late Qing Dynesty and early Ming Guo period. Guided by the philosophy that "keep the Chinese culture as mainstream, using Western science as means of changing the world" and "knowledge is the basis of the politics", the late Qing and the Ming Guo Republican scholars, with the help of modern university system and the classification method of modern literature, recombined the Chinese traditional knowledge systems according to the Western classification system. Under the impact of the dominant political and economic power of modern Western world and the low self-esteem rooted in the Qing Dynasty, late Qing intellectuals could not examine or adopt the modern Western knowledge systems of humanities and social sciences with a critical point of view, let alone to evaluate the already introduced Western knowledge systems in a rational, strict and scientific manner.After 1949, the proposal of basic human and social sciences was initiated mimicking the Soviet way, which adopted a completely negative attitude towards Western Humanity and social science. This attitude makes the year after 1960s witnessed not only the aberration of the development of Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences from the Western system but also the departure of it from the traditional Chinese value and culture. Humanities and Social Sciences since 1978, although rebuilt, still lacks the necessary Chinese historical and cultural background, and the Humanities and Social Sciences discipline classification system is also chaotic comparing with the Western Social Science.Discipline is a historical concept, it is a standardized form of knowledge generated in a certain historical period. A subject system is a system that classifies knowledge. In recent years, within the realm of Chinese humanities and social sciences, exists a lot of problems related to the construction of subjects. These problems include the subject catalog revision errors, subject adjustment defects, improper academic fund support, unjustified key subject point settings, disproportionate subject development, defective academic assessment, as well as the lack of international recognition of the subject achievement, etc. All of the above mentioned problems are caused by the architecture of the discipline system in the field of Humanities and Social sciences.Chinese society is currently experiencing drastic changes. The state need urgently that the Humanities and Social Science researchers independently set up theories and systems that are equal to the structure of Western knowledge systems, reflect the historical accumulation of Chinese culture and guide China’s current development. Therefore, the re-structuring of the contemporary system of Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences, making this part of science be maintained and developed by our own and solving Chinese problems with our own theories, is increasingly becoming the focus of academic attention. And to promote prosperity and development of Humanities and Social Sciences, we need first to establish a discipline system of Humanities and Social Sciences.In analyzing the establishment, change and the future development of Chinese humanities and social sciences, we take different period into account. We describe the Chinese traditional academic system in two ways:"The Reform of the Education System during Republic" and "The Evolution of Modern Literature Classification", and tried to explain the generation of concepts as "Humanities", "Social Science" and "Philosophy and Social Sciences" in the context of modern China and how they were confused.On this basis, we will analyze the problems existed in the current classification system of Humanities and Social Sciences, and use comparative research methods to re-consider the current classification system in Humanities and Social Sciences in China, and then propose a logical and practical Humanities and Social Sciences classification system framework that compatible with the international standard.Then, from a microscopic point of view, choose a subject example which has a cross-disciplinary nature of Library and Information Science for detailed analysis to combine the macro with micro. Make a comparative analysis of subject system architecture and curriculum set through LIS (Library and Information Science) in China and abroad. Propose a domestic Library and Information System discipline that set "knowledge" as the logical starting point, trying to reflect the trends of subject integration by the "merge of Library and Information Science, and archival research".Through research, we come to realize the concepts and categories of all disciplines are all produced in a particular social context, not without any restrictions and constraints. There’s no general humanities and social sciences that could be independent of time. As the American sociologist, historian, economist and political scientists Immanuel Wallerstein said, "Every frame of the concept is a political choice", the study is also an effort made before the need of the contemporary Chinese society to solve the problems emerged in real life and the development in social sciences.The logic of this study can be summarized as:(1) Trying to understand the concept of Western Humanities and Social Sciences and the organizational system in Western language environment. (2) In the Chinese language environment, to analyze the Western academic system and then propose the problems in Chinese classification of the Humanities and Social Sciences issues; (3) Compare the domestic and international Humanity and Social Sciences research works and case examples, construct a systemic framework that could solve China’s problems while integrate with the West Humanities and Social Science discipline system framework.Compared with the condition in the early 20th century, there’s no longer any danger of national existence today. However, the changes in the world are more intense than in the early 20th century. The sense of urgency to seek development and innovation, drives academic changes that could be as drastic as before. In the new environment, the prerequisite of re-evaluation and re-construction of theory is to arrange the logic of history. Major problems could only be solved by reorganizing the academic history.The innovation of this article is mainly indicated on two aspects as follows:One, this paper raised a classification framework of Humanities and Social Sciences that consistent with traditional Chinese academic tradition and compatible with the international standards, and thus to lead and guide the domestic construction of the Humanities and Social Sciences, subject management, academic publishing, academic evaluation and literature classification.And two, is the context analysis method used. I analyzed the introduction and evolution of Western Humanities and Social Sciences system in China by the clues of the evolution of modern literature classification and university education systems. I focused on exploring and correlating the development of humanities and social sciences categorization with the transformation of modern Chinese academic trends, making it possible to obtain more comprehensive understanding. At present, the discussion about the Humanities, Social Science research and discipline system is basically generated from the perspectives of various specific subjects, or just confined to areas of historical research, which could be exemplified by the research of Min Guo classification of thinking and taxonomy. However, what we do is to put matters on the economic, political, social and cultural background in order to understand more clearly the development of Humanities and Social Sciences and the internal logic.The research of Humanities and Social Sciences discipline classification system structure is a relatively large and broad. Restricted by my limited subject areas and academic capacity, I could not make further in-depth analysis in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences architecture, and could only propose a framework of discipline system, leaving topics awaiting further investigations.更多还原