当代中国社会学语境中对“范式”的三种理解——兼谈方法论的对话为何难有效果

当代中国社会学家围绕一些方法论议题展开了激烈的探讨与争论,然而这些对话往往难有效果,参与者各执一词,谁都不会被对方说服。本文试图以“范式”概念为例剖析这一现象。“范式”是对社会科学领域影响最为深远的科学哲学概念之一,当代中国社会学家对它的理解和运用表现为强调“整合”、强调“规范”和强调“演进”的三种范式观,它们分别代表了三种不同的知识关怀,也体现了社会学家对当前中国社会学发展阶段的三种不同认识。这种情况表明:虽然方法论常被视为经验研究的元理论,但在真正的学术实践中,方法论被社会学家当成了推进自身行动的话语资源。在方法论的讨论中,社会学家较少地就概念的历史、逻辑、应用性展开辨析,而是常常借用概念的常识意象来捍卫自己本来的立场,这是方法论对话难以取得共识的根本原因。

Some methodological issues have sparked intense discus⁃sions and debates among contemporary Chinese sociologists,but these dialogues often reach a deadlock,with each side holding on to their own views and not being convinced by the others.This article tries to analyze this phenomenon by using the concept of“paradigm”as an example.“Paradigm”is one of the most influential concepts of scientific philoso⁃phy in the social sciences.There are three different understandings and applications of paradigm among contemporary Chinese sociologists,which are reflected in three paradigm perspectives that stress“integra⁃tion”“normativity”and“evolution”,respectively.They represent three different concerns of knowledge,and also imply the sociologists’three different perceptions of the current development stage of Chinese sociol⁃ogy.This situation suggests that although methodology is often seen as the meta-theory of empirical research,in the actual academic practice,methodology is employed by sociologists as a discursive resource to pro⁃mote their own agendas.In the methodological discussion,sociologists seldom examine the history,logic and applicability of the concepts,but rather use the common sense impressions of the concepts to justify their original positions,which is the fundamental reason why the methodologi⁃cal dialogue is hard to achieve consensus.