文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：本土化何以可能——社会科学中反思普遍主义的主要视角

英文题名：How the Indigenization is Possible——Major Perspectives of Reflections on Universalism in Social Sciences

作者：李宗克[1];曹锦清[2]

机构：[1]上海社会科学院社会学研究所,上海200020;[2]华东理工大学社会与公共管理学院,上海200237

年份：2013

卷号：45

期号：9

起止页码：5

中文期刊名：学术月刊

外文期刊名：Academic Monthly

收录：人大复印报刊资料;CSTPCD;;国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库;北大核心:【北大核心2011】；社科基金资助期刊;CSSCI:【CSSCI2012_2013】；

语种：中文

中文关键词：社会科学;本土化;知识论

外文关键词：social sciences,indigenization,epistemology

摘要：在中国乃至全球社会科学史上,本土化都是一个不断引起讨论的议题。虽然各种本土化论述意见杂陈,难以统一,但是不少观点都在不同程度上体现着社会科学中各种反思普遍主义的知识论立场。这些反思普遍主义的知识论立场在社会科学史上通常被称为历史主义。社会科学中的历史主义思想发轫于19世纪的德国,而在当代知识论和知识社会学中则有多条演进路径,可以从多个角度进行把握。这些不同的角度大致可以概括为四种类型,分别为诠释学、实践论、权力论和复杂性视角。这些知识论视角都牵涉到了社会科学研究中不同于自然科学的某些独特要素,如意义、价值、权力和系统的开放性等,在更强的意义上对普遍主义科学观构成了挑战和批判。从不同视角反思社会科学中的普遍主义科学观,为社会科学本土化论述提供了重要的思想启示,也有助于揭示错综复杂的本土化论述背后深层的理论逻辑,从而为社会科学本土化论提供了有力的知识论基础。
The indigenization of social sciences is an important topic, which is raised frequently in Chinese and global academic history. There are different opinions around this topic, but many of them are based on reflections on the universalism in social sciences. In the history of social sciences, all these relativistic opinions about scientific knowledge are usually called historicism. The historicism has an German origin, and have evolved in different branches, which can be summarized from the following four epistemological perspectives： hermeneutic perspective, practical perspective, powers perspective and complexity perspective. Most of the opinions from these four perspectives emphasize the differences between social sciences and natural sciences, for example the meaning, value, power and the openness of social system. They all criticized the universalism in social sciences, and can be taken as the epistemological foundation of indigenization of social sciences.