为什么社会学本土化要“窄化”?——对周晓虹教授的几点回应

Why“Narrowing”the Indigenization of Sociology: A Response to Professor Zhou Xiaohong

社会学本土化的"窄化"并不是社会学心理学化。依照西方社会学的划分,"关系"研究或许处于微观研究层面,但在中国社会学的研究框架下,它们既是微观研究,也是宏观研究。本文认为,所谓社会学本土化需要"窄化",是期待能把本土化的成就限定在"学理性"的范围内,而不是对这一门学科的引进过程,包括各种学术活动、专业规模及服务于社会等进行叙述。社会学即使不本土化也可以在其研究和实践中做很多事情,但不能据此就把本土化的含义加以扩大,而只能限定于知识贡献。虽然社会学在中国有了长足的发展,但从现有的学术积累上看,"关系"研究更加凸显了中国社会的基本特征,而且以国际社会科学的研究、引用和评价来看,中国社会学的亮点也更多地聚焦在"关系"方面。当然,社会学本土化的内容不限于此,任何学理性的探讨都值得尝试和鼓励。

The“narrowing”of sociological indigenization does not mean a turn to psychological approach in sociology.According to the classification of Western sociology,the study of guanxi is perhaps a microscopic research,but within the framework of Chinese sociology,it traverses the micro-and macro-levels.This paper argues that so-called sociological indigenization needs to be“narrowed”,with the expectation that the achievements of indigenization can be judged by scholarship rather than by how the discipline has been introduced,what academic activities have been held,how large the disciplinary scale is,what contributions can be made to society,etc..Sociology can do a lot by way of research and practice even if it is non-indigenous.The meaning of indigenization is only limited to knowledge contribution.Although sociology has made considerable progress in China,the study of guanxi,owing to the insight it offers to the basic feature of Chinese society,still commands most of the spotlight and accounts for the major part of quotations and evaluations in the international community of social sciences.Needless to say,indigenization of sociology can have a broader scope,and any academic discussion is worth trying.