摘要
针对中国社会学的本土化这一较具争议性的话题进行了探讨,试图回到吴文藻与费孝通两位跨代社会学大师那里,重新审视他们对于社会学本土化的观点。通过梳理发现,两人既有关联性也有实质上的区别:吴文藻在社会学本土化问题上所持的是以"行动"为取向的社区研究,费孝通则一直践行着吴文藻所提倡的社区研究;而与吴文藻研究所不同的是,费孝通认为社区研究也可以有历史维度,特别是在其晚年的学术反思中愈加突出历史维度在社会学研究中的重要性。两人虽在社会学本土化取向上存在着间距,但对当代中国社会学建设均有积极的倡导意义,即中国社会学在坚持一贯的"行动"取向之外,"历史"维度取向的社会学研究将丰富和确证中国社会学的"自性"。
The localization of Chinese sociology has always been a more controversial topic. So this articleattempts to recall two great sociologists, Wu Wenzao and Fei Xiaotong, to reexamine their opinions aboutthe localization of sociology. By sorting out the two sociologists opinions, we found they have not onlyassociations, but also a real difference between them： Wu holds ＂ action＂ as his orientation in thecommunity study of the localization of sociology; but Fei, although he has been practicing the communityresearch which Wu advocats, he thinks the community research can also have the historical dimension.Especially in his later academic reflection years, he more and more highlights the importance of historicaldimensions in the sociological study. Therefore the meaning of distance between two sociologists in thesociology localization orientation is that, besides Chinese sociology insists on ＂ action＂ orientation, the＂ history＂ dimension orientation of sociological study will enrich and corroborate the ＂ self＂ of Chinesesociology.
出处
《北京工业大学学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
2018年第1期21-28,共8页
Journal of Beijing University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition)
基金
重庆市高等教育教学改革研究项目资助(162012)
关键词
吴文藻
费孝通
中国社会学
本土化
社区研究
行动取向
历史维度
Wu Wenzao
Fei Xiaotong
Chinese sociology
localization
community study
actionorientation
historical dimension
