[Note: This article is a paper submitted to the 2016 Taiwan Sociology Annual Conference and the 2017 First Sociology Graduate Forum. I’m not ready to submit my article for a long time, just make it public]
The push is divided into three times
The first time is an introduction to Ye Qizheng’s theory
“Four ounces of weight” and “Iron sharpens iron”: the sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (1)
The second time is an introduction Lv Bingqiang’s theory
“Four ounces of heavy lifting” and “iron sharpens iron”: sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (2)
This/third time is the dialogue between the two
“ Four ounces of heavy lifting ” and “ Iron sharpens iron ": The sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang
1. Introduction
2. Historical-cultural background discussion in Ye Qizheng's theory, philosophical anthropology, ontology , epistemology , methodology
3. Lu Bingqiang's theory Basic ontology, ontology, realism and hermeneutics
4. Comparison of similarities and differences and complement each other
How to compare the theories of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang?
Judging from recent research, Ye Qizheng's theory has received certain comparative observations. For example, Wang Zhihong (2015) discussed the local sociological theories of Ye Qizheng, Xie Guoxiong and Lin Wenyuan according to "Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory" (Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory) frameworks to classify and compare. Sun Yufan (2013) also tried to compare and combine Ye Qizheng's sociology of cultivation with Fei Xiaotong 's differential order pattern theory according to Zhang Zai's Qi theory philosophy to develop an integrated Qi theory sociology. However, these comparisons presuppose at least two levels of discussion: first, Ye Qizheng's theory is at the same level as other theories. Second, it also presupposes a pre-existing and comprehensive comparative standard system, or a post-integration system of convergence. Such hierarchical processing can easily make comparison become a "tool", while inspection standards or meta-supposition integration become the "purpose" [Footnote 1].
In comparison, Lu Bingqiang’s theory has also been used to compare with Zhao Dingxin’s theoretical assumptions about social science (compared to natural science). (Liu Zhongwei, 2016) Judging from the application of comparison, it is not to develop another theoretical level besides comparison, and its method is worth learning from - that is to say, comparison itself is the purpose of comparison.
Indeed, such a single-level parallel conversational comparison method (such as Liu and Emirbayer, 2016; Wang, 2016) makes it easier for both parties to be inspired and improved. As Ye Qizheng said, "they can complement each other and refer to each other." ,...we grind each other out.” (Doxa, 2008)
On the basis of the semantic system combing of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical texts, the following will put the two semantic systems together and compare the same or similar ones. Theoretical levels and research themes are compared, and five comparison points are proposed, that is, mutually beneficial interfaces
. The first comparison point is the localization stance.
Looking back at the two theories mentioned above, the most direct comparison is that Lu Bingqiang’s theory does not directly involve local historical and cultural resources, especially it does not propose local concepts such as self-cultivation like Ye Qizheng did.
Indeed, Ye Qizheng presupposed the plurality of "models" under the historical and cultural background of "we-(post)modernity", and positioned localization as a way to overturn the mainstream models of Western sociological theory in order to reverse and develop Indigenous Sociology on the Border.
As early as the early 1980s, Ye Qizheng (1991b: 178-179; 2005: 48) proposed the two concepts of "the vital control of culture" [footnote 2] and "the diffusion of cultural advantages" [footnote 3] , to explain that in the world system pattern that has been formed in the process of modernization, a "core-periphery" dominant relationship has been formed between the East and the West, so that the mainstream or dominant model in the Western academic world has a vital and controlling role in the East. The same unifying effect also arises (e.g. empiricist epistemology).
However, although Ye Qizheng (2009: 181-183) acknowledges the common scene of this unequal "global modernization", he also believes that there are "opportunities" that have been "missed but never mentioned" - localization, which is It is to develop such opportunities and create such gaps, and to contribute "alternative" reflections to the "big question" of "where should the development of human civilization as a whole go?"
Therefore, the plurality of paradigms is a plurality with internal divisions of "mainstream and blank space", a plurality with "vital control-opportunities", and a cross-cultural or cross-regional "control-turn" relationship. . Ye Qizheng stood on the latter side of the classification, or the "weak" side, in the hope of rebuilding the entire paradigm structure.
![I have not prepared to submit the article for a long time, so I will publish it directly] The push is divided into three times. The first is to introduce Ye Qizheng's theory of](https://cdn-dd.lujuba.top/img/loading.gif)
Figure 11: The relationship between sociology and the times in Ye Qizheng’s sociology
Returning to the above theoretical discussion with such a localization proposition, Ye Qizheng’s so-called “return” is based on the philosophical anthropology of the mainstream model of Western sociology. Reflect and criticize, and find "allies" (such as Nietzsche) in the "blank" field, so as to establish a set of physical and mental states that are not only suitable for border society, but also "we-(post)modernity" in a "four-two-two" way. ” Helpful “models” (such as cultivation, solitude).
Let’s put it the other way around: Is Ye Qizheng’s local sociology the “Eastern ally” of the “blank-space Western sociology”? After all, if Westerners read and use Ye Qizheng's works, wouldn't they also be able to develop the marginalized Western sociological theories by drawing on Eastern resources, thereby changing the plural pattern of the entire sociological paradigm? [Footnote 4] Once
accepts such a proposition, it means that it not only has the contemporary nature of "we-(post)modernity" across the East and the West, but also has the theoretical possibility of "we-theory" - which is consistent with Lu Bingqiang's theoretical society The academic concept resonated.
Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228; 2009b: 259) is based on "we-theory" rather than "we-the times" and denies the plurality of models: he believes that Kuhnian models can only compete for jobs and the winner takes all. Collecting all sociological theories that can accept data verification and using them as cases is called "theoretical sociology" [Footnote 5]. A one-size-fits-all approach like
is obviously a hard-line style of "iron sharpens iron". There is no distinction between the East and the West, the mainstream and the border, and there is no room for discussion: once there are counterexamples that cannot be included (whether from the East or the West) , theoretical sociology will be "laid off" from its paradigmatic position.
For this reason, Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical system does not delimit itself with “historical-cultural background discussion”. Also, because of its scientific orientation, it does not require philosophical anthropological concepts or social theories that cannot be tested by data. It is necessary to treat all sociological theories "equally" and take it as its own responsibility to incorporate them, to achieve the same relationship as theoretical physics to experimental physics.
Although this seems to be alienated from local sociology, if we take (1) local theory to be able to fit the local physical and mental state; (2) to have turning significance for "our era", then Lu Bingqiang's theory Sociology is equally qualified for this role. After all, in the absence of counter-example challenges from the academic community, as long as the sociological theory being incorporated meets the above-mentioned localization requirements, this attribute will naturally become part of theoretical sociology.
Therefore, either directly or indirectly, both theories can accept "we-era" and "we-theory" as the common basis. The subtle differences in the localization stance of Ye Qizheng's and Lu Bingqiang's theories are respectively : (1) The priority of choosing “our-era” as the basis for argumentation is different from “we-theory”; (2) Direct analysis and response to “our-era” and indirect analysis and response; (3) Model The plurality of "core-periphery" and the singularity of "inclusion-all-counterexample laid-off"; (4) the difference between reflection on social theory in non-data testing fields such as philosophical anthropology and not including social theory in the inclusion content , see the figure below for details.
Figure 12: The localization stances of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are connected.
The second point of comparison is extended from the first point of comparison: Although Lu Bingqiang’s sociology is a “theoretical science”, can it be compared with Ye Qizheng’s “not tested by data”? "Discussion", that is, from the perspective of philosophical anthropology-style social theory, in contrast to Lu Bingqiang-style sociology?
After all, compared with the ontology, epistemology and methodology discussions that have been accepted by the social science community, Ye Qizheng’s contribution is to add the social theoretical discussion of philosophical anthropology as a presupposition. Therefore, what can be asked and compared is: Is there any philosophical anthropological presupposition in Lu Bingqiang's sociology? If there is or is approximately there, what are the presuppositions? What are the similarities and differences with the "super-overcoming people" in Ye Qizheng's sociology? Lu Bingqiang (2007: 310-311) commented on Ye Qizheng's book "In and Out of the "Structure-Action" Dilemma", which gives clues:
Regarding the dilemma of being unable to rationally place the opposition of action and structure in the same theory,... How does Ye Qizheng himself deal with the same problem? He advocated "developing the world view of 'human' editorially from the perspective of nothingness, emptiness and emptiness. What is immediately obvious should be that 'human' and 'society'... are not necessarily as essential as the relationship between 'human' and 'society' as many Western social theorists believe." They are tense and destined to be in opposition to each other. Rather, their relationship can become a situation of... rubbing or rubbing against each other... It is this kind of "cultivation" that people can achieve. 'The autonomy of disappeared. This "borrowing the east wind" is of course as light as "four ounces moving a thousand catties". The problem is: for actors with insufficient training, the old perspective will still return, and the opposition between action and structure will not disappear. After all, there are only a very small number of people who can become Buddhas and immortals. There is no distinction between east and west. Sociology has always been a theory about mortals.
If philosophical anthropology is about "the basic concepts and connotations of how people construct images of 'society' and 'people' themselves" (Ye Qizheng, 2013a: 27), then Lu Bingqiang's excerpts, interpretations and criticisms at least say that The "image of man" in his eyes.
However, the "ordinary people" he mentioned are different from the "ordinary routine" mentioned by Ye Qizheng. "Mortal people" is a complete set, including two subsets: those with sufficient cultivation and those with "insufficient cultivation", or two subsets, the "very few" who have become Buddhas and immortals, and the majority who have not become Buddhas and immortals. The dividing line is Ye Qizheng's "new" Perspective" and the "old perspective" criticized by Ye Qizheng, which takes structure as cause and action as effect. In other words, as Lu Bingqiang (2007: 36-37) said, it is divided into "reflexive - mundane":
We declare straightforwardly: actors live in a very unique time structure, and this time structure only has The two tenses, namely introspection ("a little introspection") and haunxun ("very hazy"), are two tenses that constantly alternate, forming a continuous time sequence, that is... introspection - hazy - Introspection -..., we might as well call it the "Garfinkel time series" [Footnote 6]. Actors in two tenses such as
echo the distinction between Schutz and Husserl . We can find "social images": Schutzian actors are "unconscious" and are "taken for granted". for grant) is the world or "life world" guaranteed by "We Trust", and the Husserlian actor is "introspective", questioning the "taken for granted", and thus entering into the "I" "I think" world or "Descartesian world". (Lu Bingqiang, 2009c: 12)
Returning to Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical level, in the former case, there is no conflict between the actor and the mutual objectivity that he faces as a knowledge inventory. The actor follows the request. Surre-Bourdieu talks about reference positions on the Internet as his own situational definition, and this definition is brought into his interpretation process when actors interact and face otherness.Different from this, during "introspection", actors will challenge the knowledge inventory with "rationality and creativity", thereby adjusting the network position between the original reference positions, and even using themselves as the "incarnation" of the overall network. (Sun Yufan, 2016)
Therefore, these two types of people are more in line with the image of "average people-superior people" supported by "ordinary routines-extraordinary exceptions" used by Ye Qizheng, although in the "historical-cultural background" structure It is difficult to compare, but in terms of the "principle of relationship between people and society", there are many similarities: as people with insufficient cultivation, ignorant people are similar to average people. They also face the constraints of objectivity, making it impossible to pursue The freedom of will is drawn by the resources and rules structured by society, and has to rely on the existing knowledge inventory to continue its own time state. Introspective people are not insufficiently cultivated people, and are similar to super-excellent people, which means breaking the original existing conditions, constantly transcending and striving to overcome them. In other words, they also voluntarily fall on the edge of the knowledge inventory and remain "independent of it". "Lonely attitude.
However, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 211) further drew on Emmanuel Levinas’s point of view: “Each actor is an enigma (enigma) for other actors in the same interaction.” This actually returns to the minimum requirements for human images and is also the most stringent restriction for researchers.
In this way, there are three types of human images in Lu Bingqiang's eyes: "Mortal" as a whole or "Mr. I-am-enigma" (Mr. I-am-enigma), including and only including two subsets - "Mr. Cogito" ” (Mr. I-think) and “Mr. We-trust” (Mr. We-trust). (Lu Bingqiang, 2009a: 211) Ye Qizheng’s contrasting Chinese and Western images of human beings also have a universal meta-reliance, see the figure below for details.
Figure 13: The connection between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s philosophical anthropological images of people
The third point is ontological comparison and mutual benefit: both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang drew a line with social ontology and returned to the past. An ontology in which actors are the content, but the former is mainly based on process-based discussion, while the latter is mainly based on event-based discussion, but such a "process-entity" distinction is also complementary to each other. potential.
In social ontology, it is difficult to prioritize individual status. As Sewell (2005:330) points out, the common sense understanding of “society” is a “building-block model”, of which actors are components—“building blocks.” Although he criticizes this view, his alternative ontological project is still sociocentric, arguing that individuals who are "autonomous and given" are only "their changing participants in social processes." Products”. (Sewell, 2005:330)
Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang both hold different views. Ye Qizheng's ontology does not first put "society" or the entire "building block model" into it, but only regards it as the consequences of the process of generation. However, although this ontology uses "conception" to demarcate the process, "void" limits the setting of relevant matters. Therefore, what is clear is "how to conceive", and "who conceives" is not clear. The answers to questions such as "who is pregnant" are not as clear as the "real" ontology that Ye Qizheng opposed. It is even difficult to say clearly whether the "building blocks" will be used after the "building block model" is revoked. Still in ontology.
also comes from the reflection on social ontology. Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228)’s approach is carried out by comparing phenomenology and sociology, believing that the ontological focus of the two disciplines runs through a three-point spectrum: actors and their situations, actors in interaction, and otherness.
Although the ontological focus of sociology is the phenomenological "incorporeal other" or "otherness", such as "building block models" such as institutions and structures, the development of this matter in phenomenology is indeed lackluster.To this end, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 198-229) took the advantage of phenomenology to enter the path of sociology. Starting from the end of "actors and their situations", he constructed a basic ontology of "action = present moment = body". , and an ontology of subjectivity and agency expanded in Augustinian time.
However, in order to deduce realism and hermeneutics from ontology, Lu Bingqiang designed derivative "realizations" for human abilities, such as objectivity and otherness. However, what is the process of "derivation", what is the "construction process" from "building blocks" to other "building blocks", and even what is the "construction process" of "building block models", are not as specified as the Augustinian subjectivity.
However, since both of them are in the "same trench" because of their opposition to social ontology, can Lu Bingqiang's ontology learn from Ye Qizheng's ontology to supplement the processual discussion? Although the meaning and origin of the words that Lu Bingqiang did not "derive" are not indicated, we can try to understand them linguistically.
The term "derivation" in linguistics refers to "any series of changes in a form or structure that are effected by a successful process." Modification. For example, cellsists are derived from cello". (Matthews, 2000: 93)
There are two points worth learning from this definition: (1) The derived matter is "form or structure". (2) The derived process is "successive processes" or "sequences". In contrast, from the perspective of subjectivity [Footnote 7], it can be regarded as the "form or structure" of Augustinian time, and its "successive processes" or "sequences" can be regarded as "presentification" (presentification) from subjectivity. ) to derive Weberian or Giddensian diachrony respectively, that is, two courses of action. Based on this, it is further derived into Weberian or Giddensian synchronicity, that is, social territory and symbolic universe.
Looking at it on the other hand, can Ye Qizheng's ontology describe the ontological entity of "empty" like Lu Bingqiang did? Can.
According to the relationship between philosophical anthropology and sociological ontology conceived by Ye Qizheng, matters in philosophical anthropology can provide presuppositions for matters in ontology, and the latter can be derived from the former. Based on this, referring to Lu Bingqiang’s discussion of events, Ye Qizheng’s “cultivation” in philosophical anthropology will lead to ontological “generalized agency” or “subjective agency?” [Footnote 8]. The first question
addresses is, if the void is "originally nothing", can it "have" "dust"?
As mentioned above, cultivation is both a visible practice and an invisible realm of life, and the structure under the horizon of cultivation is both a condition and a trajectory. If we regard structure as language [Footnote 9], then the so-called "void" can be regarded as the "blank part" that is "unspeakable" under the condition of language. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 371-372) Therefore, "void" is just the place beyond its power when "conditions" want to be overstepped and used as "basis". It is this void that cannot be reached by remote control that can create "alternative" possibilities compared to structures, become the internal cause and basis for actors, and give birth to a new social world.
It can be said that the reason why the realm of life is invisible is because "there is" a void that is beyond the reach of language, and the reason why practice is visible is because through the void, new possibilities of language are born. Structure as a condition is the reality before the void, and structure as a trajectory is the embodiment of the reality of the void.
For this reason, the ontology of the void is not incapable of accommodating things, but only needs to be able to accommodate "new possibilities" and "invisible" things that transcend "conditions". This kind of thing can be understood from Ye Qizheng’s philosophical anthropology. Ye Qizheng (2004: 299, 301, 381; 2015) pointed out that human beings, as "subjects of existence", are "action bodies of subject initiative", and the cultivation of cultivation or the ability to cultivate is an empirical demonstration of subject initiative. Cheng is “a deep-seated disposition that exhibits initiative,...a potential state that is sufficient to generate kinetic energy” [Footnote 10].
If you want to try to use the concept of subject initiative as an ontological matter, then while understanding it through Dao cultivation, you can also make another twist: Ye Qizheng believes that the concept closest to his in Western sociological theoretical discussion is Yuna. Hans Joas' theory of action.
The reason why Yonas’s theory attracts Ye Qizheng is that it uses the concept of “creativity to demonstrate the subjective initiative of people as actors” (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 211). However, the reason why Ye Qizheng feels that it is still insufficient is that it supports The two concepts of creativity lack other concepts to match them - the concept of corporeality that enables actors to have a holistic awareness of their own actions, and the concept of "mind" that lacks matching; The concept of sociality of externally constrained “over-structured” worries lacks the matching concept of self-control or internal basis. (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 212)
In this case, according to Ye Qizheng’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Yunus’ action theory, the formula “subject initiative = creativity” needs to be further developed:
Figure 14: Ye Qizheng’s sociology and The relationship between Jonas' theory of action
From this inference, if the subject's initiative is to be regarded as an ontological matter, its referent can be regarded as the "action" of "creativity". From the perspective of Weber's action typology, Ye Qizheng's conception is a special ontology of action types. (Weber, 2010: 114) Action itself has "body" and "soul", and its situation is "social" and "lonely", just like the relationship between "action" and "habit" in the traditional definition of action. . (Weber, 2010: 114) Further transformed into Ye Qizheng’s statement, the combination of soul and loneliness is the cultivation at the level of life realm, and the combination of physicality and sociality is the cultivation at the practical level. These two types of cultivation derive and justify the subject's initiative. The updated formula is as follows:
Figure 15: Expansion of the relationship between Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Yunus’ action theory
This formula, viewed from the bottom up, is Ye Qizheng’s presupposition from philosophical anthropology to ontology to answer the subject’s initiative. Looking from the top down, it is the regression of ontology to philosophical anthropology.
Therefore, the newly explained ontology of Ye Qizheng, like Lu Bingqiang’s basic ontology and ontology, both accept the concepts of action and flesh (bodily), but the difference is that Ye Qizheng chose self-cultivation as the subject’s initiative. To a specific ontological definition - creativity, Lu Bingqiang added the "present moment" and expanded the distinction between subjectivity and initiative, without specifically indicating such creativity.
However, in this way, the ontology of both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang has been supplemented: Ye Qizheng’s theory can draw on and supplement the subject-specific discussion, and Lu Bingqiang’s theory can absorb and explain its process-based discussion, see the figure below [Footnote 12].
Figure 16: The connection and mutual benefit between Ye Qizheng’s ontology and Lu Bingqiang’s ontology
The fourth point is to compare Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology, and Lu Bingqiang’s realism and hermeneutics: both are incompatible or opposed to logical positivism ( logical positivism) realism, and Ye Qizheng's epistemology and methodology contain the premises, guarantees, methods and matters of realism, and the causality of Stooges in Lu Bingqiang's hermeneutic theory can also provide a causal explanation for it .
As Yuan Juzheng (2014: 42) recalls, Taiwan introduced social science research from the United States in the 1950s, laying the foundation for what it is today. In that era, the logical positivism advocated by Yin Haiguang should be used as a model. When reviewing his academic career, Ye Qizheng (2013c: 53-54) also stated that he had doubts about logical positivism when he was studying in the Department of Philosophy at National Taiwan University, and that he only learned about "competing" theories such as hermeneutics and phenomenology when he studied in the United States. trend of thought. This learning process may have influenced him to take logical positivism as the mainstream model, think about epistemology and realism in reverse, and explore wisdom "beyond reason, logic, and science."(Ye Qizheng, 2013c: 52) Zeng Bowen's (2008) summary provides a further interpretation path for understanding the realism or epistemology of the sociological localization trend in which Ye Qizheng belongs:
In fact, the confrontation in the Taiwanese social science localization movement in the 1980s Looking back, the object of research is not so much "Western social science" as "naïve empirical research that emphasizes quantification and deframes phenomena through theoretical models" that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. The same dissatisfaction occurred on both sides of the Pacific. But on the other side is the rise of qualitative research, constructivism, deconstruction, postmodernity, and feminism. In Taiwan, it is attached to the broad division of “East and West” and is presented as “research localization”.
According to this interpretation, if the "East-West divide" is returned to the original internal confrontation of social sciences, it is the distinction between "naïve empirical research" and "qualitative research, constructivism" and other ideological trends. This is also consistent with Ye Qizheng's oral review "Logical positivism" has certain similarities with the "competition" of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Similarly, let’s go back to Ye Qizheng’s discussion on localization in the 1980s and 1990s. Compared with the "indigenous fit" proposed by Yang Guoshu, who participated in the localization movement of social sciences at the same time, Ye Qizheng (2006h: 58-60) also believes that its origin is still the "empirical empirical methodology" of the United States, and it is a firm belief that "'reality 'A true reflection of the original appearance of Ke Cun'.
It can be said that whether it is "empirical empirical methodology", "naïve empirical research" or "logical positivism", they are all "empiricism" under the sect of "anti-realism". This discipline asserts that "experience is a resource and subject matter of knowledge, and thus naturally competes with the concept of unobservable knowledge." (Chakravartty, 2015)
In other words, empiricism only recognizes the observable world and prioritizes the knowledge framework held by the researcher, ignoring the world that cannot be observed by its own observation tools, and does not recognize realism. "Metaphysical commitment" - the world of scientific research is a mind-independent reality. (Chakravartty, 2015) Applying such anti-realism to local research, it is no wonder that Ye Qizheng (2006i: 23) would criticize Taiwan’s scale research in the 1980s as “not necessarily consistent with their daily lives.” Consistency with experimental experience must lead to false overjudgments that are essentially forced.”
Along the direction of (1) the world being studied is independent of the researcher’s mind; (2) recognizing both observable and unobservable things at the same time, Lu Bingqiang’s theory based on the phenomenological background and Ye Qizheng once again “side by side” combat".
In addition to accommodating unobservable events such as action processes, Lu Bingqiang (2007: Chapter 2) did not adopt Bourdieu’s position in deriving the Saussure-Bourdieu theory of network and regarded it as a power The relationship network is closer to Saussure, and from the perspective of language, it is regarded as an autonomous meaning network. From the perspective of the process of empirical research, it is precisely because of this autonomy that it has become a mutual object matter that has been precipitated by history and used by the world, and is not controlled by the minds of individual people (including researchers) [Footnote 13].
So, as a camp against empiricism, and Ye Qizheng’s epistemological criticism is inseparable from realism, can his epistemology be transformed into a realist discussion? Can.
If epistemology is regarded as the task of understanding and studying reality, then the epistemology of metaphorical representation provides the presupposition, guarantee and method of realism: "Historical-cultural quality" is the presupposition of understanding reality ( presupposition). It is this premise that makes Ye Qizheng draw a clear line from logical empiricism that puts knowledge framework first, such as "removal of time and space". At the same time, this epistemology also makes it clear that understanding reality is not a strictly accurate correspondence, but a metaphor guaranteed by similarity and representation as a method.
Furthermore, if Ye Qizheng’s epistemology includes the presuppositions, guarantees and methods required to develop realism, then what kind of reality does he recognize? In other words, what is the whole with "historical-cultural quality"? What is to be metaphorized? What do you want to represent?
This can be explained from Ye Qizheng's understanding of metaphor and the use of methodology. Ye Qizheng's metaphor conforms to the definition of "metaphor" in a philosophy dictionary:
A superior metaphor... lies in the good use of the transformation of semantic meaning, so that people can fully develop the space for resemblance, feeling and understanding. (Ye Qizheng 2004: 39)
The best metaphors evoke a complex and effective inner response by showing the similarity between the literal meaning of a word and what it implies. (Bu Ning and Yu Jiyuan, 2001.) [Footnote 14] The so-called "semantic conversion" of
can be regarded as the conversion between "written meaning" and "implied things". The "space of likeness, feeling, and understanding" uses a sociological academic approach to show the extraordinary exceptions of the people being studied or actors in the process of solitary cultivation.
In order to further respond to the idea of similarities between research discourse and the stories of the people being researched, Ye Qizheng (2016) introduced the ideal type as an example of interpretive methodology, arguing that it can be achieved by "appropriating specific axial concepts (such as rationality) ), constantly refine it repeatedly, and constantly create (find) bifurcated circuits, enriching our perceptual understanding of specific social (historical) phenomena and the process of their continuous growth."
The "appropriation", "refining", "creation (searching)" and "enrichment" here refer to the continuous transformation back and forth, using the "imagination-feeling" method to understand the "opportunistic nature" carried out by the actors. "The state of creation" allows the researcher as a "storyteller" to "find order in chaos", turning "searching" into "creation", and constructing the relationship between the actor's "imagination-feeling" and the researcher's observation. Sufficient similarity to reveal the extraordinary exceptions of individual actors. (Ye Qizheng, 2016)
As a result, what Ye Qizheng sees as "a state of opportunity and destiny" has replaced the "society" with objective pre-existing significance in the mainstream tradition and has become what researchers and actors see. Similar objectivity or objectivity.
However, which concepts or discussions in Ye Qizheng’s sociology are similar to this new concept?
To put it simply, the so-called "nature of opportunity" can only be interpreted when it is implemented into individuality, and the "state of being formed by fate" echoes Ye Qizheng's conception of philosophical anthropology. After all, the interactive dual relationship between cultivation and structure is the condition for structure to act as an actor, and it is the "track" that is implemented based on the internal cause of the life realm. Therefore, the social reality in Ye Qizheng's eyes can also be seen as the trajectory of cultivation-based practice in transcendent philosophical anthropology.
’s further question is: If we deal with the “state of opportunity and destiny”, what is the difference between the “nature of opportunity” brought about by the invisible realm of life and the “state of opportunity” reflected in the visible trajectory? What about relationships? The urgency of this issue lies in: first, Ye Qizheng's realist approach to philosophical anthropology in terms of "a state of chance and destiny" will inevitably face the question of whether it can be transformed from a speculative social theory into a feasible one. Issues in sociological theory of data validation. Second, from the perspective of the application of conceptual methods, if we only observe the "state of being created by conditions" without examining the "nature of opportunity" behind it, we will not be able to reach agreement with the "perceptual understanding" mentioned by Ye Qizheng.
Ye Qizheng (2004: 186; 2016) did not fail to consider the internal tension of this kind of reality. His answer may be the intimacy and "empathetic way" of "open and expedient" meaning selection. But this is equivalent to only answering the "appropriateness of meaning" requirement of Weberian methodology, which corresponds to the "similarity" in epistemology.However, once the Weberian ideal type is adopted, how will "causal validity" be placed? According to Ye Qizheng (2016), such causal validity may be replaced by “causal bifurcation” [Footnote 15].
However, according to Ringer (2013: 86), Weberian causality is singular. Lu Bingqiang (2007: 225-240) is on the side of Ringer in his understanding and application of Weberian methodology. Therefore, clarifying the difference between forking and unity in causality is helpful to explain the "causal validity" in Ye Qizheng's eyes and its relationship with Lu Bingqiang's theory.
In Ringer's view, what Weber wanted to analyze was to use the method of causal abduction or causal inference to compare the actual results with other possibilities that did not occur, so as to prove that a single phenomenon "evolved into this rather than like this". That's the reason." (Linger, 2013:92) Weber said this:
If a certain historical element in the complex of historical conditions disappears or changes, it will cause... the course of historical events to change course. This judgment plays a role in determining the "history" of this element. "Importance" (is the key point) (quoted from Ringer, 2013: 90)
Weber's conception reflects the idea of hypothesis testing. A "process of events" is connected by an "effect A" that the researcher thinks is important, and a "cause A" that the researcher may think is the "effect A". Since "cause A" is undetermined, in order to determine its "historical importance", we can say that we make the assumption that this "cause A" disappears or changes from the "historical complex", and we get "cause B", and When "because of B" is no longer "because of A", the "process of historical events" may "change its course" and lead to "result B" instead of "result A".
For this purpose, there are two hypotheses: the alternative hypothesis is "Cause A-Effect A", and the null hypothesis is "Cause B-Effect B". If the null hypothesis holds, then the alternative hypothesis is not accepted and vice versa. Therefore, there is always a non-overlapping distance between the historical event programs formed by the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis.
What Ye Qizheng calls "causal bifurcation" when using the conceptual method, from the perspective of the actor, it is a process of continuous adaptation, but from the perspective of the researcher, it is a series of twists and turns in which either the alternative hypothesis is established or the null hypothesis is established. Process, that is, a series of "single causality" in different directions.
However, the tortuous process of the concept type is not just an objective route, but "a mental image shaped through experience." This means that if the "effect" is the "track of cultivation practice" that can be seen by researchers, then the "cause" to be inferred - "life realm cultivation" cannot be observed and can only be seen by the actor. To this end, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the visible and the invisible, what the researcher sees and what the actors see. Lu Bingqiang extended from Weberian methodology to the Stoic causality in hermeneutics - the cause is deep and can be used as a parameter, the effect is on the surface and can be used as variable data, and hypothesis testing can be done between parameters and variables - it is enough become a reference. Therefore, "sociologists as storytellers" (Ye Qizheng, 2016) can also have strict causality.
From this, once Ye Qizheng’s representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology are transformed from the realist position of “anti-empiricism”, it can achieve realist transformation and transform the cultivation and structural relationship in philosophical anthropology according to the Stooges. The causality of Karma can be explained, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 17: The realist transformation of Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology
The fifth comparison and mutual benefit is in the treatment of the "structure-action" dilemma: neither of them regards "artifact" as a structure On the basis of elements, they are all resolved from action to structure. However, due to their different definitions of actions and structures, they present different resolution characteristics.
According to Philip S. Gorski's point of view, both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang should be included in the scope of "interactionist ontology", which defines structure from the perspective of actors and interaction. (Gorski, 2016) Or, according to Swale’s criticism of Giddensian structures, the “structures” of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are only virtual rather than actual.(Sewell, 1992)
Indeed, even if Ye Qizheng understands the philosophical anthropological meaning of "value" and "need" from the modern/postmodern situation of production and consumption, because he is concerned with the issue of symbolic exchange, he only Turning to symbols rather than matter. Although Lu Bingqiang also uses the concepts of objectivity and mutual objectivity, he also does not include materials, resources and artificial objects.
Although as Gorsky said, such a stance will restrict the diversified understanding of social change, adding artificial objects to the structural definition of the two will bring about greater landscape adjustments, so it is not discussed in this article. Within the scope, no further details will be given.
Judging from the scope restricted by Gorsky and Sver, the two people still have different definitions of structure.
As mentioned above, Ye Qizheng's structure is the embodiment of the duality of the trajectory of implementation and the conditions of life realm, but he did not explain how the nature of the process from structure to conditions to trajectory changes, and at most it is only through the individual transformation to produce a transformation in the "nature of opportunity". However, the original "action" has changed significantly, allowing it to get out of the predicament: due to the addition of the "realm of life", it not only has the implementation of "observable behavioral performance", but also has the "various qualities of human beings" ”, changing the original single thing of “action” into a cultivation with internal duality, both visible and invisible. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 134) Obviously, if the structure is viewed as a discourse or language, it has no ability to control such invisible parts, and this is also the innovation of Ye Qizheng.
From this, according to the above-mentioned expression of "soul" as compared to "body" as the realm of life, the order of Ye Qizheng's way out of the predicament is "Discourse→Mind→Body→Discourse". This strategy also echoes Ye Qizheng’s (2006h: 71) theory of the “physical and mental state” on which the localization of sociology is based.
To put it simply, Ye Qizheng got out of the "structure-action" dilemma, but because he transformed his actions, he came out of the "action-structure" door, as shown in the picture below.
Figure 18: The "structure-action" dilemma of entry and exit in Ye Qizheng's sociology
How does Lu Bingqiang "enter and exit" this dilemma?
He took a seemingly more radical approach, so much so that he gave up even "structure as a condition". He did not need to turn the dilemma around to find a way out like Ye Qizheng did, but simply canceled the dilemma, leaving only "action-structure". "The front-to-back support relationship.
As mentioned above, Lu Bingqiang's concepts of "structure" and "action" can be divided into loose and tight concepts. In a broad sense, "structure" has completed two stages of transformation through the support of "action". Since the concept of action is fundamentally ontologically equated with the present moment and the physical body, it becomes ontologically two things: subjectivity and initiative, or broad-based agency (human ability). Therefore, it has no ontological meaning. Leave room for "structure".
According to the provisions and developments of the current moment, "action" supports the realist social territory, the symbolic universe as "objective reality within the subject's experience" (Lu Bingqiang, 2007: 404), and Saussure as mutual objectivity —Bourdieu talks about the Internet. At this level, the relationship between "action" and "structure" also evolves into a diachronic and synchronic relationship.
As for hermeneutics, "structure" further serves as the otherness compared to agency in the actor's deduction process. It obtains the linguistic value of situation definition from Saussure-Bourdieu's words on the Internet and repeats it in narrative or planning. Computation and optimization. However, the definition of situation used in hermeneutics is also inseparable from the mutual objectivity established in realism. Therefore, the two-stage transformation of "structure" itself is the former supporting the latter.
Only in this way can Lu Bingqiang say that in this plan, “the debate between ‘structure’ and ‘action’ is a wrong proposition.” (Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, et al., 2015: 134)
Figure 19: The “action-structure” support relationship of Lu Bingqiang’s sociology
5. Conclusion
This article combs and analyzes the semantic systems of Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology. , and by comparing the similarities and differences, as well as the parallels and mutual benefit between the two systems, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Ye Qizheng's sociology includes five levels: the historical-cultural background discussion of modernity and postmodernity, It opens the way to philosophical anthropology. The transcendental philosophical anthropology also presupposes the theory of void-born existence, representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology.
2. Lu Bingqiang’s sociology includes three levels: (Basic). ) Ontological "action = present moment = body" and broad-based agency, realism composed of action processes, social territories, symbolic universes, and Saussure-Bourdieu networks, as well as actors' narratives and planning The interpretation theory supported by parametric causality and Stoic causality
3. From the standpoint of localization, Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology differ in their understanding of the plural form and the singular form of paradigm. The two ends of "we-era" and "we-theory" can be combined and communicated through Lu Bingqiang's three-part "theoretical sociology-sociological theory-social theory"
4. Ye Qizheng's sociological reflection. The philosophical anthropological presupposition of Lu Bingqiang's sociology can be concluded as the latter's presupposition: "I am Mr. Mystery" is a universal proposition, and the distinction of this proposition is connected with Ye Qizheng's super overcoming of people
5. The processual discussion of Ye Qizheng's ontology of void gestation can benefit from the event-based discussion of Lu Bingqiang's ontology, supplementing its own "creative action-mind-body" event connotation on the subject's initiative, while Ye Qizheng's The processual discussion forces Lu Bingqiang's ontology to supplement the meaning of the "derivative" process.
6. They both hold an anti-empiricist realist stance, and can inspire and transform by looking at the clear realist level in Lu Bingqiang's theory. The realist transformation of epistemology and methodology in Ye Qizheng's sociology, and the causality of Stooges proposed by Lu Bingqiang, supplementary explanation of the causal relationship between Ye Qizheng's cultivation and structure.
7. The basis for the two to resolve the "structure-action" dilemma. However, in terms of the resolution strategy, Ye Qizheng entered from "structure-action" and then came out with "action-structure", while Lu Bingqiang directly canceled "structure-action". "The proposition of "dilemma or debate" directly constructs and analyzes the action layer support structure and the second-order transformation process of the structure in the direction of "action-structure".
References:
Buning, Yu Jiyuan. 2001. Western Philosophy in English and Chinese Dictionary[M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House.
Cai Bofang. 2014. Alternative Theoretical Research[G]//Fan Ganghua (ed.). Local Theories Re-identify: Sympathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Qunxue: 107-153.
Doxa. 2008. "Classics of Cross-Century Sociology Masters" Dialogue" (verbatim draft of the speech) [OL]. http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~95254005/20080417_word.doc, accessed on August 29, 2016.
[Note: This article is a paper submitted to the 2016 Taiwan Sociology Annual Conference and the 2017 First Sociology Graduate Forum. I’m not ready to submit my article for a long time, just make it public]
The push is divided into three times
The first time is an introduction to Ye Qizheng’s theory
“Four ounces of weight” and “Iron sharpens iron”: the sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (1)
The second time is an introduction Lv Bingqiang’s theory
“Four ounces of heavy lifting” and “iron sharpens iron”: sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (2)
This/third time is the dialogue between the two
“ Four ounces of heavy lifting ” and “ Iron sharpens iron ": The sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang
1. Introduction
2. Historical-cultural background discussion in Ye Qizheng's theory, philosophical anthropology, ontology , epistemology , methodology
3. Lu Bingqiang's theory Basic ontology, ontology, realism and hermeneutics
4. Comparison of similarities and differences and complement each other
How to compare the theories of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang?
Judging from recent research, Ye Qizheng's theory has received certain comparative observations. For example, Wang Zhihong (2015) discussed the local sociological theories of Ye Qizheng, Xie Guoxiong and Lin Wenyuan according to "Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory" (Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory) frameworks to classify and compare. Sun Yufan (2013) also tried to compare and combine Ye Qizheng's sociology of cultivation with Fei Xiaotong 's differential order pattern theory according to Zhang Zai's Qi theory philosophy to develop an integrated Qi theory sociology. However, these comparisons presuppose at least two levels of discussion: first, Ye Qizheng's theory is at the same level as other theories. Second, it also presupposes a pre-existing and comprehensive comparative standard system, or a post-integration system of convergence. Such hierarchical processing can easily make comparison become a "tool", while inspection standards or meta-supposition integration become the "purpose" [Footnote 1].
In comparison, Lu Bingqiang’s theory has also been used to compare with Zhao Dingxin’s theoretical assumptions about social science (compared to natural science). (Liu Zhongwei, 2016) Judging from the application of comparison, it is not to develop another theoretical level besides comparison, and its method is worth learning from - that is to say, comparison itself is the purpose of comparison.
Indeed, such a single-level parallel conversational comparison method (such as Liu and Emirbayer, 2016; Wang, 2016) makes it easier for both parties to be inspired and improved. As Ye Qizheng said, "they can complement each other and refer to each other." ,...we grind each other out.” (Doxa, 2008)
On the basis of the semantic system combing of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical texts, the following will put the two semantic systems together and compare the same or similar ones. Theoretical levels and research themes are compared, and five comparison points are proposed, that is, mutually beneficial interfaces
. The first comparison point is the localization stance.
Looking back at the two theories mentioned above, the most direct comparison is that Lu Bingqiang’s theory does not directly involve local historical and cultural resources, especially it does not propose local concepts such as self-cultivation like Ye Qizheng did.
Indeed, Ye Qizheng presupposed the plurality of "models" under the historical and cultural background of "we-(post)modernity", and positioned localization as a way to overturn the mainstream models of Western sociological theory in order to reverse and develop Indigenous Sociology on the Border.
As early as the early 1980s, Ye Qizheng (1991b: 178-179; 2005: 48) proposed the two concepts of "the vital control of culture" [footnote 2] and "the diffusion of cultural advantages" [footnote 3] , to explain that in the world system pattern that has been formed in the process of modernization, a "core-periphery" dominant relationship has been formed between the East and the West, so that the mainstream or dominant model in the Western academic world has a vital and controlling role in the East. The same unifying effect also arises (e.g. empiricist epistemology).
However, although Ye Qizheng (2009: 181-183) acknowledges the common scene of this unequal "global modernization", he also believes that there are "opportunities" that have been "missed but never mentioned" - localization, which is It is to develop such opportunities and create such gaps, and to contribute "alternative" reflections to the "big question" of "where should the development of human civilization as a whole go?"
Therefore, the plurality of paradigms is a plurality with internal divisions of "mainstream and blank space", a plurality with "vital control-opportunities", and a cross-cultural or cross-regional "control-turn" relationship. . Ye Qizheng stood on the latter side of the classification, or the "weak" side, in the hope of rebuilding the entire paradigm structure.
Figure 11: The relationship between sociology and the times in Ye Qizheng’s sociology
Returning to the above theoretical discussion with such a localization proposition, Ye Qizheng’s so-called “return” is based on the philosophical anthropology of the mainstream model of Western sociology. Reflect and criticize, and find "allies" (such as Nietzsche) in the "blank" field, so as to establish a set of physical and mental states that are not only suitable for border society, but also "we-(post)modernity" in a "four-two-two" way. ” Helpful “models” (such as cultivation, solitude).
Let’s put it the other way around: Is Ye Qizheng’s local sociology the “Eastern ally” of the “blank-space Western sociology”? After all, if Westerners read and use Ye Qizheng's works, wouldn't they also be able to develop the marginalized Western sociological theories by drawing on Eastern resources, thereby changing the plural pattern of the entire sociological paradigm? [Footnote 4] Once
accepts such a proposition, it means that it not only has the contemporary nature of "we-(post)modernity" across the East and the West, but also has the theoretical possibility of "we-theory" - which is consistent with Lu Bingqiang's theoretical society The academic concept resonated.
Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228; 2009b: 259) is based on "we-theory" rather than "we-the times" and denies the plurality of models: he believes that Kuhnian models can only compete for jobs and the winner takes all. Collecting all sociological theories that can accept data verification and using them as cases is called "theoretical sociology" [Footnote 5]. A one-size-fits-all approach like
is obviously a hard-line style of "iron sharpens iron". There is no distinction between the East and the West, the mainstream and the border, and there is no room for discussion: once there are counterexamples that cannot be included (whether from the East or the West) , theoretical sociology will be "laid off" from its paradigmatic position.
For this reason, Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical system does not delimit itself with “historical-cultural background discussion”. Also, because of its scientific orientation, it does not require philosophical anthropological concepts or social theories that cannot be tested by data. It is necessary to treat all sociological theories "equally" and take it as its own responsibility to incorporate them, to achieve the same relationship as theoretical physics to experimental physics.
Although this seems to be alienated from local sociology, if we take (1) local theory to be able to fit the local physical and mental state; (2) to have turning significance for "our era", then Lu Bingqiang's theory Sociology is equally qualified for this role. After all, in the absence of counter-example challenges from the academic community, as long as the sociological theory being incorporated meets the above-mentioned localization requirements, this attribute will naturally become part of theoretical sociology.
Therefore, either directly or indirectly, both theories can accept "we-era" and "we-theory" as the common basis. The subtle differences in the localization stance of Ye Qizheng's and Lu Bingqiang's theories are respectively : (1) The priority of choosing “our-era” as the basis for argumentation is different from “we-theory”; (2) Direct analysis and response to “our-era” and indirect analysis and response; (3) Model The plurality of "core-periphery" and the singularity of "inclusion-all-counterexample laid-off"; (4) the difference between reflection on social theory in non-data testing fields such as philosophical anthropology and not including social theory in the inclusion content , see the figure below for details.
Figure 12: The localization stances of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are connected.
The second point of comparison is extended from the first point of comparison: Although Lu Bingqiang’s sociology is a “theoretical science”, can it be compared with Ye Qizheng’s “not tested by data”? "Discussion", that is, from the perspective of philosophical anthropology-style social theory, in contrast to Lu Bingqiang-style sociology?
After all, compared with the ontology, epistemology and methodology discussions that have been accepted by the social science community, Ye Qizheng’s contribution is to add the social theoretical discussion of philosophical anthropology as a presupposition. Therefore, what can be asked and compared is: Is there any philosophical anthropological presupposition in Lu Bingqiang's sociology? If there is or is approximately there, what are the presuppositions? What are the similarities and differences with the "super-overcoming people" in Ye Qizheng's sociology? Lu Bingqiang (2007: 310-311) commented on Ye Qizheng's book "In and Out of the "Structure-Action" Dilemma", which gives clues:
Regarding the dilemma of being unable to rationally place the opposition of action and structure in the same theory,... How does Ye Qizheng himself deal with the same problem? He advocated "developing the world view of 'human' editorially from the perspective of nothingness, emptiness and emptiness. What is immediately obvious should be that 'human' and 'society'... are not necessarily as essential as the relationship between 'human' and 'society' as many Western social theorists believe." They are tense and destined to be in opposition to each other. Rather, their relationship can become a situation of... rubbing or rubbing against each other... It is this kind of "cultivation" that people can achieve. 'The autonomy of disappeared. This "borrowing the east wind" is of course as light as "four ounces moving a thousand catties". The problem is: for actors with insufficient training, the old perspective will still return, and the opposition between action and structure will not disappear. After all, there are only a very small number of people who can become Buddhas and immortals. There is no distinction between east and west. Sociology has always been a theory about mortals.
If philosophical anthropology is about "the basic concepts and connotations of how people construct images of 'society' and 'people' themselves" (Ye Qizheng, 2013a: 27), then Lu Bingqiang's excerpts, interpretations and criticisms at least say that The "image of man" in his eyes.
However, the "ordinary people" he mentioned are different from the "ordinary routine" mentioned by Ye Qizheng. "Mortal people" is a complete set, including two subsets: those with sufficient cultivation and those with "insufficient cultivation", or two subsets, the "very few" who have become Buddhas and immortals, and the majority who have not become Buddhas and immortals. The dividing line is Ye Qizheng's "new" Perspective" and the "old perspective" criticized by Ye Qizheng, which takes structure as cause and action as effect. In other words, as Lu Bingqiang (2007: 36-37) said, it is divided into "reflexive - mundane":
We declare straightforwardly: actors live in a very unique time structure, and this time structure only has The two tenses, namely introspection ("a little introspection") and haunxun ("very hazy"), are two tenses that constantly alternate, forming a continuous time sequence, that is... introspection - hazy - Introspection -..., we might as well call it the "Garfinkel time series" [Footnote 6]. Actors in two tenses such as
echo the distinction between Schutz and Husserl . We can find "social images": Schutzian actors are "unconscious" and are "taken for granted". for grant) is the world or "life world" guaranteed by "We Trust", and the Husserlian actor is "introspective", questioning the "taken for granted", and thus entering into the "I" "I think" world or "Descartesian world". (Lu Bingqiang, 2009c: 12)
Returning to Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical level, in the former case, there is no conflict between the actor and the mutual objectivity that he faces as a knowledge inventory. The actor follows the request. Surre-Bourdieu talks about reference positions on the Internet as his own situational definition, and this definition is brought into his interpretation process when actors interact and face otherness.Different from this, during "introspection", actors will challenge the knowledge inventory with "rationality and creativity", thereby adjusting the network position between the original reference positions, and even using themselves as the "incarnation" of the overall network. (Sun Yufan, 2016)
Therefore, these two types of people are more in line with the image of "average people-superior people" supported by "ordinary routines-extraordinary exceptions" used by Ye Qizheng, although in the "historical-cultural background" structure It is difficult to compare, but in terms of the "principle of relationship between people and society", there are many similarities: as people with insufficient cultivation, ignorant people are similar to average people. They also face the constraints of objectivity, making it impossible to pursue The freedom of will is drawn by the resources and rules structured by society, and has to rely on the existing knowledge inventory to continue its own time state. Introspective people are not insufficiently cultivated people, and are similar to super-excellent people, which means breaking the original existing conditions, constantly transcending and striving to overcome them. In other words, they also voluntarily fall on the edge of the knowledge inventory and remain "independent of it". "Lonely attitude.
However, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 211) further drew on Emmanuel Levinas’s point of view: “Each actor is an enigma (enigma) for other actors in the same interaction.” This actually returns to the minimum requirements for human images and is also the most stringent restriction for researchers.
In this way, there are three types of human images in Lu Bingqiang's eyes: "Mortal" as a whole or "Mr. I-am-enigma" (Mr. I-am-enigma), including and only including two subsets - "Mr. Cogito" ” (Mr. I-think) and “Mr. We-trust” (Mr. We-trust). (Lu Bingqiang, 2009a: 211) Ye Qizheng’s contrasting Chinese and Western images of human beings also have a universal meta-reliance, see the figure below for details.
Figure 13: The connection between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s philosophical anthropological images of people
The third point is ontological comparison and mutual benefit: both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang drew a line with social ontology and returned to the past. An ontology in which actors are the content, but the former is mainly based on process-based discussion, while the latter is mainly based on event-based discussion, but such a "process-entity" distinction is also complementary to each other. potential.
In social ontology, it is difficult to prioritize individual status. As Sewell (2005:330) points out, the common sense understanding of “society” is a “building-block model”, of which actors are components—“building blocks.” Although he criticizes this view, his alternative ontological project is still sociocentric, arguing that individuals who are "autonomous and given" are only "their changing participants in social processes." Products”. (Sewell, 2005:330)
Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang both hold different views. Ye Qizheng's ontology does not first put "society" or the entire "building block model" into it, but only regards it as the consequences of the process of generation. However, although this ontology uses "conception" to demarcate the process, "void" limits the setting of relevant matters. Therefore, what is clear is "how to conceive", and "who conceives" is not clear. The answers to questions such as "who is pregnant" are not as clear as the "real" ontology that Ye Qizheng opposed. It is even difficult to say clearly whether the "building blocks" will be used after the "building block model" is revoked. Still in ontology.
also comes from the reflection on social ontology. Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228)’s approach is carried out by comparing phenomenology and sociology, believing that the ontological focus of the two disciplines runs through a three-point spectrum: actors and their situations, actors in interaction, and otherness.
Although the ontological focus of sociology is the phenomenological "incorporeal other" or "otherness", such as "building block models" such as institutions and structures, the development of this matter in phenomenology is indeed lackluster.To this end, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 198-229) took the advantage of phenomenology to enter the path of sociology. Starting from the end of "actors and their situations", he constructed a basic ontology of "action = present moment = body". , and an ontology of subjectivity and agency expanded in Augustinian time.
However, in order to deduce realism and hermeneutics from ontology, Lu Bingqiang designed derivative "realizations" for human abilities, such as objectivity and otherness. However, what is the process of "derivation", what is the "construction process" from "building blocks" to other "building blocks", and even what is the "construction process" of "building block models", are not as specified as the Augustinian subjectivity.
However, since both of them are in the "same trench" because of their opposition to social ontology, can Lu Bingqiang's ontology learn from Ye Qizheng's ontology to supplement the processual discussion? Although the meaning and origin of the words that Lu Bingqiang did not "derive" are not indicated, we can try to understand them linguistically.
The term "derivation" in linguistics refers to "any series of changes in a form or structure that are effected by a successful process." Modification. For example, cellsists are derived from cello". (Matthews, 2000: 93)
There are two points worth learning from this definition: (1) The derived matter is "form or structure". (2) The derived process is "successive processes" or "sequences". In contrast, from the perspective of subjectivity [Footnote 7], it can be regarded as the "form or structure" of Augustinian time, and its "successive processes" or "sequences" can be regarded as "presentification" (presentification) from subjectivity. ) to derive Weberian or Giddensian diachrony respectively, that is, two courses of action. Based on this, it is further derived into Weberian or Giddensian synchronicity, that is, social territory and symbolic universe.
Looking at it on the other hand, can Ye Qizheng's ontology describe the ontological entity of "empty" like Lu Bingqiang did? Can.
According to the relationship between philosophical anthropology and sociological ontology conceived by Ye Qizheng, matters in philosophical anthropology can provide presuppositions for matters in ontology, and the latter can be derived from the former. Based on this, referring to Lu Bingqiang’s discussion of events, Ye Qizheng’s “cultivation” in philosophical anthropology will lead to ontological “generalized agency” or “subjective agency?” [Footnote 8]. The first question
addresses is, if the void is "originally nothing", can it "have" "dust"?
As mentioned above, cultivation is both a visible practice and an invisible realm of life, and the structure under the horizon of cultivation is both a condition and a trajectory. If we regard structure as language [Footnote 9], then the so-called "void" can be regarded as the "blank part" that is "unspeakable" under the condition of language. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 371-372) Therefore, "void" is just the place beyond its power when "conditions" want to be overstepped and used as "basis". It is this void that cannot be reached by remote control that can create "alternative" possibilities compared to structures, become the internal cause and basis for actors, and give birth to a new social world.
It can be said that the reason why the realm of life is invisible is because "there is" a void that is beyond the reach of language, and the reason why practice is visible is because through the void, new possibilities of language are born. Structure as a condition is the reality before the void, and structure as a trajectory is the embodiment of the reality of the void.
For this reason, the ontology of the void is not incapable of accommodating things, but only needs to be able to accommodate "new possibilities" and "invisible" things that transcend "conditions". This kind of thing can be understood from Ye Qizheng’s philosophical anthropology. Ye Qizheng (2004: 299, 301, 381; 2015) pointed out that human beings, as "subjects of existence", are "action bodies of subject initiative", and the cultivation of cultivation or the ability to cultivate is an empirical demonstration of subject initiative. Cheng is “a deep-seated disposition that exhibits initiative,...a potential state that is sufficient to generate kinetic energy” [Footnote 10].
If you want to try to use the concept of subject initiative as an ontological matter, then while understanding it through Dao cultivation, you can also make another twist: Ye Qizheng believes that the concept closest to his in Western sociological theoretical discussion is Yuna. Hans Joas' theory of action.
The reason why Yonas’s theory attracts Ye Qizheng is that it uses the concept of “creativity to demonstrate the subjective initiative of people as actors” (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 211). However, the reason why Ye Qizheng feels that it is still insufficient is that it supports The two concepts of creativity lack other concepts to match them - the concept of corporeality that enables actors to have a holistic awareness of their own actions, and the concept of "mind" that lacks matching; The concept of sociality of externally constrained “over-structured” worries lacks the matching concept of self-control or internal basis. (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 212)
In this case, according to Ye Qizheng’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Yunus’ action theory, the formula “subject initiative = creativity” needs to be further developed:
Figure 14: Ye Qizheng’s sociology and The relationship between Jonas' theory of action
From this inference, if the subject's initiative is to be regarded as an ontological matter, its referent can be regarded as the "action" of "creativity". From the perspective of Weber's action typology, Ye Qizheng's conception is a special ontology of action types. (Weber, 2010: 114) Action itself has "body" and "soul", and its situation is "social" and "lonely", just like the relationship between "action" and "habit" in the traditional definition of action. . (Weber, 2010: 114) Further transformed into Ye Qizheng’s statement, the combination of soul and loneliness is the cultivation at the level of life realm, and the combination of physicality and sociality is the cultivation at the practical level. These two types of cultivation derive and justify the subject's initiative. The updated formula is as follows:
Figure 15: Expansion of the relationship between Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Yunus’ action theory
This formula, viewed from the bottom up, is Ye Qizheng’s presupposition from philosophical anthropology to ontology to answer the subject’s initiative. Looking from the top down, it is the regression of ontology to philosophical anthropology.
Therefore, the newly explained ontology of Ye Qizheng, like Lu Bingqiang’s basic ontology and ontology, both accept the concepts of action and flesh (bodily), but the difference is that Ye Qizheng chose self-cultivation as the subject’s initiative. To a specific ontological definition - creativity, Lu Bingqiang added the "present moment" and expanded the distinction between subjectivity and initiative, without specifically indicating such creativity.
However, in this way, the ontology of both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang has been supplemented: Ye Qizheng’s theory can draw on and supplement the subject-specific discussion, and Lu Bingqiang’s theory can absorb and explain its process-based discussion, see the figure below [Footnote 12].
Figure 16: The connection and mutual benefit between Ye Qizheng’s ontology and Lu Bingqiang’s ontology
The fourth point is to compare Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology, and Lu Bingqiang’s realism and hermeneutics: both are incompatible or opposed to logical positivism ( logical positivism) realism, and Ye Qizheng's epistemology and methodology contain the premises, guarantees, methods and matters of realism, and the causality of Stooges in Lu Bingqiang's hermeneutic theory can also provide a causal explanation for it .
As Yuan Juzheng (2014: 42) recalls, Taiwan introduced social science research from the United States in the 1950s, laying the foundation for what it is today. In that era, the logical positivism advocated by Yin Haiguang should be used as a model. When reviewing his academic career, Ye Qizheng (2013c: 53-54) also stated that he had doubts about logical positivism when he was studying in the Department of Philosophy at National Taiwan University, and that he only learned about "competing" theories such as hermeneutics and phenomenology when he studied in the United States. trend of thought. This learning process may have influenced him to take logical positivism as the mainstream model, think about epistemology and realism in reverse, and explore wisdom "beyond reason, logic, and science."(Ye Qizheng, 2013c: 52) Zeng Bowen's (2008) summary provides a further interpretation path for understanding the realism or epistemology of the sociological localization trend in which Ye Qizheng belongs:
In fact, the confrontation in the Taiwanese social science localization movement in the 1980s Looking back, the object of research is not so much "Western social science" as "naïve empirical research that emphasizes quantification and deframes phenomena through theoretical models" that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. The same dissatisfaction occurred on both sides of the Pacific. But on the other side is the rise of qualitative research, constructivism, deconstruction, postmodernity, and feminism. In Taiwan, it is attached to the broad division of “East and West” and is presented as “research localization”.
According to this interpretation, if the "East-West divide" is returned to the original internal confrontation of social sciences, it is the distinction between "naïve empirical research" and "qualitative research, constructivism" and other ideological trends. This is also consistent with Ye Qizheng's oral review "Logical positivism" has certain similarities with the "competition" of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Similarly, let’s go back to Ye Qizheng’s discussion on localization in the 1980s and 1990s. Compared with the "indigenous fit" proposed by Yang Guoshu, who participated in the localization movement of social sciences at the same time, Ye Qizheng (2006h: 58-60) also believes that its origin is still the "empirical empirical methodology" of the United States, and it is a firm belief that "'reality 'A true reflection of the original appearance of Ke Cun'.
It can be said that whether it is "empirical empirical methodology", "naïve empirical research" or "logical positivism", they are all "empiricism" under the sect of "anti-realism". This discipline asserts that "experience is a resource and subject matter of knowledge, and thus naturally competes with the concept of unobservable knowledge." (Chakravartty, 2015)
In other words, empiricism only recognizes the observable world and prioritizes the knowledge framework held by the researcher, ignoring the world that cannot be observed by its own observation tools, and does not recognize realism. "Metaphysical commitment" - the world of scientific research is a mind-independent reality. (Chakravartty, 2015) Applying such anti-realism to local research, it is no wonder that Ye Qizheng (2006i: 23) would criticize Taiwan’s scale research in the 1980s as “not necessarily consistent with their daily lives.” Consistency with experimental experience must lead to false overjudgments that are essentially forced.”
Along the direction of (1) the world being studied is independent of the researcher’s mind; (2) recognizing both observable and unobservable things at the same time, Lu Bingqiang’s theory based on the phenomenological background and Ye Qizheng once again “side by side” combat".
In addition to accommodating unobservable events such as action processes, Lu Bingqiang (2007: Chapter 2) did not adopt Bourdieu’s position in deriving the Saussure-Bourdieu theory of network and regarded it as a power The relationship network is closer to Saussure, and from the perspective of language, it is regarded as an autonomous meaning network. From the perspective of the process of empirical research, it is precisely because of this autonomy that it has become a mutual object matter that has been precipitated by history and used by the world, and is not controlled by the minds of individual people (including researchers) [Footnote 13].
So, as a camp against empiricism, and Ye Qizheng’s epistemological criticism is inseparable from realism, can his epistemology be transformed into a realist discussion? Can.
If epistemology is regarded as the task of understanding and studying reality, then the epistemology of metaphorical representation provides the presupposition, guarantee and method of realism: "Historical-cultural quality" is the presupposition of understanding reality ( presupposition). It is this premise that makes Ye Qizheng draw a clear line from logical empiricism that puts knowledge framework first, such as "removal of time and space". At the same time, this epistemology also makes it clear that understanding reality is not a strictly accurate correspondence, but a metaphor guaranteed by similarity and representation as a method.
Furthermore, if Ye Qizheng’s epistemology includes the presuppositions, guarantees and methods required to develop realism, then what kind of reality does he recognize? In other words, what is the whole with "historical-cultural quality"? What is to be metaphorized? What do you want to represent?
This can be explained from Ye Qizheng's understanding of metaphor and the use of methodology. Ye Qizheng's metaphor conforms to the definition of "metaphor" in a philosophy dictionary:
A superior metaphor... lies in the good use of the transformation of semantic meaning, so that people can fully develop the space for resemblance, feeling and understanding. (Ye Qizheng 2004: 39)
The best metaphors evoke a complex and effective inner response by showing the similarity between the literal meaning of a word and what it implies. (Bu Ning and Yu Jiyuan, 2001.) [Footnote 14] The so-called "semantic conversion" of
can be regarded as the conversion between "written meaning" and "implied things". The "space of likeness, feeling, and understanding" uses a sociological academic approach to show the extraordinary exceptions of the people being studied or actors in the process of solitary cultivation.
In order to further respond to the idea of similarities between research discourse and the stories of the people being researched, Ye Qizheng (2016) introduced the ideal type as an example of interpretive methodology, arguing that it can be achieved by "appropriating specific axial concepts (such as rationality) ), constantly refine it repeatedly, and constantly create (find) bifurcated circuits, enriching our perceptual understanding of specific social (historical) phenomena and the process of their continuous growth."
The "appropriation", "refining", "creation (searching)" and "enrichment" here refer to the continuous transformation back and forth, using the "imagination-feeling" method to understand the "opportunistic nature" carried out by the actors. "The state of creation" allows the researcher as a "storyteller" to "find order in chaos", turning "searching" into "creation", and constructing the relationship between the actor's "imagination-feeling" and the researcher's observation. Sufficient similarity to reveal the extraordinary exceptions of individual actors. (Ye Qizheng, 2016)
As a result, what Ye Qizheng sees as "a state of opportunity and destiny" has replaced the "society" with objective pre-existing significance in the mainstream tradition and has become what researchers and actors see. Similar objectivity or objectivity.
However, which concepts or discussions in Ye Qizheng’s sociology are similar to this new concept?
To put it simply, the so-called "nature of opportunity" can only be interpreted when it is implemented into individuality, and the "state of being formed by fate" echoes Ye Qizheng's conception of philosophical anthropology. After all, the interactive dual relationship between cultivation and structure is the condition for structure to act as an actor, and it is the "track" that is implemented based on the internal cause of the life realm. Therefore, the social reality in Ye Qizheng's eyes can also be seen as the trajectory of cultivation-based practice in transcendent philosophical anthropology.
’s further question is: If we deal with the “state of opportunity and destiny”, what is the difference between the “nature of opportunity” brought about by the invisible realm of life and the “state of opportunity” reflected in the visible trajectory? What about relationships? The urgency of this issue lies in: first, Ye Qizheng's realist approach to philosophical anthropology in terms of "a state of chance and destiny" will inevitably face the question of whether it can be transformed from a speculative social theory into a feasible one. Issues in sociological theory of data validation. Second, from the perspective of the application of conceptual methods, if we only observe the "state of being created by conditions" without examining the "nature of opportunity" behind it, we will not be able to reach agreement with the "perceptual understanding" mentioned by Ye Qizheng.
Ye Qizheng (2004: 186; 2016) did not fail to consider the internal tension of this kind of reality. His answer may be the intimacy and "empathetic way" of "open and expedient" meaning selection. But this is equivalent to only answering the "appropriateness of meaning" requirement of Weberian methodology, which corresponds to the "similarity" in epistemology.However, once the Weberian ideal type is adopted, how will "causal validity" be placed? According to Ye Qizheng (2016), such causal validity may be replaced by “causal bifurcation” [Footnote 15].
However, according to Ringer (2013: 86), Weberian causality is singular. Lu Bingqiang (2007: 225-240) is on the side of Ringer in his understanding and application of Weberian methodology. Therefore, clarifying the difference between forking and unity in causality is helpful to explain the "causal validity" in Ye Qizheng's eyes and its relationship with Lu Bingqiang's theory.
In Ringer's view, what Weber wanted to analyze was to use the method of causal abduction or causal inference to compare the actual results with other possibilities that did not occur, so as to prove that a single phenomenon "evolved into this rather than like this". That's the reason." (Linger, 2013:92) Weber said this:
If a certain historical element in the complex of historical conditions disappears or changes, it will cause... the course of historical events to change course. This judgment plays a role in determining the "history" of this element. "Importance" (is the key point) (quoted from Ringer, 2013: 90)
Weber's conception reflects the idea of hypothesis testing. A "process of events" is connected by an "effect A" that the researcher thinks is important, and a "cause A" that the researcher may think is the "effect A". Since "cause A" is undetermined, in order to determine its "historical importance", we can say that we make the assumption that this "cause A" disappears or changes from the "historical complex", and we get "cause B", and When "because of B" is no longer "because of A", the "process of historical events" may "change its course" and lead to "result B" instead of "result A".
For this purpose, there are two hypotheses: the alternative hypothesis is "Cause A-Effect A", and the null hypothesis is "Cause B-Effect B". If the null hypothesis holds, then the alternative hypothesis is not accepted and vice versa. Therefore, there is always a non-overlapping distance between the historical event programs formed by the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis.
What Ye Qizheng calls "causal bifurcation" when using the conceptual method, from the perspective of the actor, it is a process of continuous adaptation, but from the perspective of the researcher, it is a series of twists and turns in which either the alternative hypothesis is established or the null hypothesis is established. Process, that is, a series of "single causality" in different directions.
However, the tortuous process of the concept type is not just an objective route, but "a mental image shaped through experience." This means that if the "effect" is the "track of cultivation practice" that can be seen by researchers, then the "cause" to be inferred - "life realm cultivation" cannot be observed and can only be seen by the actor. To this end, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the visible and the invisible, what the researcher sees and what the actors see. Lu Bingqiang extended from Weberian methodology to the Stoic causality in hermeneutics - the cause is deep and can be used as a parameter, the effect is on the surface and can be used as variable data, and hypothesis testing can be done between parameters and variables - it is enough become a reference. Therefore, "sociologists as storytellers" (Ye Qizheng, 2016) can also have strict causality.
From this, once Ye Qizheng’s representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology are transformed from the realist position of “anti-empiricism”, it can achieve realist transformation and transform the cultivation and structural relationship in philosophical anthropology according to the Stooges. The causality of Karma can be explained, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 17: The realist transformation of Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology
The fifth comparison and mutual benefit is in the treatment of the "structure-action" dilemma: neither of them regards "artifact" as a structure On the basis of elements, they are all resolved from action to structure. However, due to their different definitions of actions and structures, they present different resolution characteristics.
According to Philip S. Gorski's point of view, both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang should be included in the scope of "interactionist ontology", which defines structure from the perspective of actors and interaction. (Gorski, 2016) Or, according to Swale’s criticism of Giddensian structures, the “structures” of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are only virtual rather than actual.(Sewell, 1992)
Indeed, even if Ye Qizheng understands the philosophical anthropological meaning of "value" and "need" from the modern/postmodern situation of production and consumption, because he is concerned with the issue of symbolic exchange, he only Turning to symbols rather than matter. Although Lu Bingqiang also uses the concepts of objectivity and mutual objectivity, he also does not include materials, resources and artificial objects.
Although as Gorsky said, such a stance will restrict the diversified understanding of social change, adding artificial objects to the structural definition of the two will bring about greater landscape adjustments, so it is not discussed in this article. Within the scope, no further details will be given.
Judging from the scope restricted by Gorsky and Sver, the two people still have different definitions of structure.
As mentioned above, Ye Qizheng's structure is the embodiment of the duality of the trajectory of implementation and the conditions of life realm, but he did not explain how the nature of the process from structure to conditions to trajectory changes, and at most it is only through the individual transformation to produce a transformation in the "nature of opportunity". However, the original "action" has changed significantly, allowing it to get out of the predicament: due to the addition of the "realm of life", it not only has the implementation of "observable behavioral performance", but also has the "various qualities of human beings" ”, changing the original single thing of “action” into a cultivation with internal duality, both visible and invisible. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 134) Obviously, if the structure is viewed as a discourse or language, it has no ability to control such invisible parts, and this is also the innovation of Ye Qizheng.
From this, according to the above-mentioned expression of "soul" as compared to "body" as the realm of life, the order of Ye Qizheng's way out of the predicament is "Discourse→Mind→Body→Discourse". This strategy also echoes Ye Qizheng’s (2006h: 71) theory of the “physical and mental state” on which the localization of sociology is based.
To put it simply, Ye Qizheng got out of the "structure-action" dilemma, but because he transformed his actions, he came out of the "action-structure" door, as shown in the picture below.
Figure 18: The "structure-action" dilemma of entry and exit in Ye Qizheng's sociology
How does Lu Bingqiang "enter and exit" this dilemma?
He took a seemingly more radical approach, so much so that he gave up even "structure as a condition". He did not need to turn the dilemma around to find a way out like Ye Qizheng did, but simply canceled the dilemma, leaving only "action-structure". "The front-to-back support relationship.
As mentioned above, Lu Bingqiang's concepts of "structure" and "action" can be divided into loose and tight concepts. In a broad sense, "structure" has completed two stages of transformation through the support of "action". Since the concept of action is fundamentally ontologically equated with the present moment and the physical body, it becomes ontologically two things: subjectivity and initiative, or broad-based agency (human ability). Therefore, it has no ontological meaning. Leave room for "structure".
According to the provisions and developments of the current moment, "action" supports the realist social territory, the symbolic universe as "objective reality within the subject's experience" (Lu Bingqiang, 2007: 404), and Saussure as mutual objectivity —Bourdieu talks about the Internet. At this level, the relationship between "action" and "structure" also evolves into a diachronic and synchronic relationship.
As for hermeneutics, "structure" further serves as the otherness compared to agency in the actor's deduction process. It obtains the linguistic value of situation definition from Saussure-Bourdieu's words on the Internet and repeats it in narrative or planning. Computation and optimization. However, the definition of situation used in hermeneutics is also inseparable from the mutual objectivity established in realism. Therefore, the two-stage transformation of "structure" itself is the former supporting the latter.
Only in this way can Lu Bingqiang say that in this plan, “the debate between ‘structure’ and ‘action’ is a wrong proposition.” (Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, et al., 2015: 134)
Figure 19: The “action-structure” support relationship of Lu Bingqiang’s sociology
5. Conclusion
This article combs and analyzes the semantic systems of Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology. , and by comparing the similarities and differences, as well as the parallels and mutual benefit between the two systems, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Ye Qizheng's sociology includes five levels: the historical-cultural background discussion of modernity and postmodernity, It opens the way to philosophical anthropology. The transcendental philosophical anthropology also presupposes the theory of void-born existence, representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology.
2. Lu Bingqiang’s sociology includes three levels: (Basic). ) Ontological "action = present moment = body" and broad-based agency, realism composed of action processes, social territories, symbolic universes, and Saussure-Bourdieu networks, as well as actors' narratives and planning The interpretation theory supported by parametric causality and Stoic causality
3. From the standpoint of localization, Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology differ in their understanding of the plural form and the singular form of paradigm. The two ends of "we-era" and "we-theory" can be combined and communicated through Lu Bingqiang's three-part "theoretical sociology-sociological theory-social theory"
4. Ye Qizheng's sociological reflection. The philosophical anthropological presupposition of Lu Bingqiang's sociology can be concluded as the latter's presupposition: "I am Mr. Mystery" is a universal proposition, and the distinction of this proposition is connected with Ye Qizheng's super overcoming of people
5. The processual discussion of Ye Qizheng's ontology of void gestation can benefit from the event-based discussion of Lu Bingqiang's ontology, supplementing its own "creative action-mind-body" event connotation on the subject's initiative, while Ye Qizheng's The processual discussion forces Lu Bingqiang's ontology to supplement the meaning of the "derivative" process.
6. They both hold an anti-empiricist realist stance, and can inspire and transform by looking at the clear realist level in Lu Bingqiang's theory. The realist transformation of epistemology and methodology in Ye Qizheng's sociology, and the causality of Stooges proposed by Lu Bingqiang, supplementary explanation of the causal relationship between Ye Qizheng's cultivation and structure.
7. The basis for the two to resolve the "structure-action" dilemma. However, in terms of the resolution strategy, Ye Qizheng entered from "structure-action" and then came out with "action-structure", while Lu Bingqiang directly canceled "structure-action". "The proposition of "dilemma or debate" directly constructs and analyzes the action layer support structure and the second-order transformation process of the structure in the direction of "action-structure".
References:
Buning, Yu Jiyuan. 2001. Western Philosophy in English and Chinese Dictionary[M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House.
Cai Bofang. 2014. Alternative Theoretical Research[G]//Fan Ganghua (ed.). Local Theories Re-identify: Sympathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Qunxue: 107-153.
Doxa. 2008. "Classics of Cross-Century Sociology Masters" Dialogue" (verbatim draft of the speech) [OL]. http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~95254005/20080417_word.doc, accessed on August 29, 2016.
Fei Xiaotong. 1983. I see people seeing me [J]. Reading (3): 99–103.
Gao Guokui. 2014. Traveling through utopian illusions: from loneliness to the possibility of cultivating sociology [G]// Fan Ganghua Editor. Re-identification of Native Theory: Empathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Group Studies: 253–296.
Geertz. 2011. Pursuing Facts: Two Countries, Four Decades, and One Anthropologist[M] . Translated by Lin Jingwei. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Huang Xinyang. 2007. "Reading" in the world of "scholars" - Comment on "Gaze, Action and the Social World" [J]. Taiwan Sociology (14): 191–199.
Liu Zhongwei. 2016. Time, action and otherness—Another conception of the “dilemma of social sciences” [J]. Sociological Review (1): 56—69.
Luo Zhongfeng. 2014. Cultivation, Beyond Sociology: Exploring the Theoretical Landscape of Professor Ye Qizheng [G] // Edited by Fan Ganghua. Local Theory Re-identification: Sympathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Group Studies: 157-187.
Lu Bingqiang. 2007. Gaze, action and Social World [M]. Taipei: Wanderer Culture.
——. 2009a. Actors, Actors in Interaction, Otherness [G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, Our Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 198-229.
——. 2009b. Conclusion: The Prospects of Phenomenology in Sociology[G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, Our Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 252- 261.
——. 2009c. Cogito—We Trust[G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, We Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 252-261.
——. 2009d. The Course of Action [G]//by Lu Bingqiang. I think, our trust and the mystery of society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 63-82.
Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, Sun Yufan, Liu Yonghua. 2015. Sociology of Listening and Speaking Email Collection 2012–2013[ M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, Sun Yufan, Liu Zhongwei. Unpublished manuscript. Tao and Reason: Sociology Email Collection 2013–2014[H].
Ringer. 2013. Weberian Thoughts. Translated by Jian Huimei. New Taipei: Qunxue.
Max Weber. 1999. Basic Concepts of Sociology [G]. Translated by Lin Rongyuan//Max Weber. Collected Works of Weber. Compiled by Han Shuifa. Beijing: China Radio and Television Press: 107–166.
——. 2005. Basic Concepts of Sociology [M]. Translated by Gu Zhonghua. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press.
——. 2010. Economy and Society (Volume 1) [M]. Translated by Yan Kewen. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Matthews, P.H..2000. Oxford Linguistics Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Peter Hestrom. 2010. Analyzing Society: Principles of Analytical Sociology[M]. Translated by Chen Yunsong. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.
Sun Yufan. 2013. The journey of discovering the sociology of gasology [A]. Compilation of papers of the second social theory workshop [C]. Harbin: Harbin Engineering University, July 7–8.
——. 2016. The Mystery of the Monarch and Incarnation: Starting from Kong Feili’s Soul-Calling: China’s Great Sorcery Panic in 1768 [J]. Sociological Review (6): 76-93.
——. Unpublished manuscript. Time, Zhu Causality and Sociological Imagination: Discussing with Cheng Boqing[H].
Wu Hongchang. 2014. Sociologists come back to do theory: On the inspiration of Ye Qizheng’s sociology[G]//Fan Ganghua (ed.) Local theory is similar again: Ye Qizheng Ideological resonance and dialogue. New Taipei: Qunxue: 63–105.
Wang Zhihong. 2015. Cultivation, displacement and the big loop: three paths of local action theory [J]. Taiwan Journal of Sociology 56: 151-183.
Ye Qizheng . 1982. Discussing the direction and problems of "Sinicization" in sociological research from the existing characteristics of Chinese sociology [J]. Special issue of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. B Type 10: 115-152.
——. 1991a. Views and impacts on human nature and society from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment[G]//Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and Intellectuals. Taipei: University of Tokyo: 367–388.
——. 1991b. The Dilemma Facing Modern Chinese Culture[ G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and Intellectuals. Taipei: University of Tokyo: 175-198.
——. 1991c. Talking about the problems of modern people from a sociological perspective [G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and intellectuals. Taipei: Tokyo University: 389-426.
——. 1993. The “localization” of academic research localization. Native Psychology Research (1): 184–192.
——. 1994. Discourse on Social Sciences Fundamental issues of transplantation and localization [G]//edited by Du Zuyi. Compilation of papers from the Collaborative Research Program on the Transplantation and Application of Western Social Science Theories. Hong Kong: Social Sciences and Educational Theories Applied Research Program of the Chinese University of Hong Kong: 19–20.
——. 2004. The Dilemma of Entering and Exiting "Structure-Action" (Revised Second Edition). Taipei: Sanmin.
——. 2005. The Diffusion of Cultural Advantages and the Dual Relationship of "Center-Periphery" [G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Looking forward to the dawn: the friction between tradition and modernity. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House: 39-71
——. 2006a. Preface [G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 1– 4.
——. 2006b. Reflection on some presuppositions of sociology: the fundamental issue of localization [G]//Ye Qizheng. The localization construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 97–120.
— —. 2006c. Theoretical Implications of “Individualized” Society [G] // Written by Ye Qizheng. The Localization of Social Theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 209–243.
——. 2006d. On the Localization of Sociological Research Research directions and issues[G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 3-54.
——. 2006e. The historical destiny of the enlightenment humanistic spirit: from production to consumption[G ]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 247–272.
——. 2006f. The Tower of Babel of the Concepts of Mean Man and Discrete Man—Two Myths in Statistical Sociology Thinking A cornerstone[G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 121–171.
——. 2006g. Some myths in Western sociological theoretical thinking[G]//Ye Qizheng Written by Ye Qizheng. Social Theory The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press.
——. 2006i. The rubbing game of globalization and localization [G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 75 –94.
——. 2008. Toward a Sociology of Cultivation[M]. Taipei: Sanmin.
——. 2009. The “localization” research play of academic research under globalization[G]//Cheng Boqing, Edited by Zhou Xiaohong. Social Theory Series (4th Edition). Beijing: Peking University Press: 158–185.
——. 2012. Confession before Farewell[G]//Editors Ying Xing and Li Meng. Social Theory: Modern Sexuality and Localization: Collection of Essays on the 70th Anniversary of Su Guoxun and the Emeritus of Professor Ye Qizheng. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore: 36-44.
——. 2013a. Dismantling the theoretical myth of "structure-agency": the phenomenon of the integration of positive and negative emotions Theoretical Implications [J]. Society 33 (4): 1–34.
——. 2013b. Symbolic exchange and the blending of positive and negative emotions [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
——. 2013c. Ten years [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
——. 2013d. Historical jumps in profound ideological tethers: Hobbes, Nietzsche to Freud and the rebellion of the masses [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
— —. 2015. Response to feeling helpless [J]. Taiwan Journal of Sociology (56): 185–198.
——. 2016. Sociologists as storytellers [J]. Society 36 (2): 77–98.
Zeng Bowen. 2008. A brief reflection on “Native vs. Western” in social sciences [OL]. https://alberttzeng.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/ A brief reflection on “Native vs. Western” in social sciences Reflection. Date of access: August 30, 2016.
Zheng Zhicheng. 2013. Weber’s Cultural Science Methodology─A Tribute to Professor Zhang Wangshan[OL].http://soc.thu.edu.tw/courses/g102–2 .htm. Access date: August 29, 2016.
——. 2014. The binary opposition structure of cognitive anthropology as a methodological understanding strategy: Also on Georg Simmel’s sociological attempts [G]//Wang Zhenhuan , edited by Zhu Yuanhong, Huang Huanglin, and Chen Jiexuan. West and East: Gao Chengshu and Taiwanese Sociological Theory. Kaohsiung: Juliu: 157–201.
Zheng Zubang, Xie Shengyou. 2009. Ye Qizhengism and the localization of Taiwanese social theory [G]// Edited by Zou Chuanxiong and Su Fengshan. Reflections and Prospects on the Localization of Social Sciences: Collected Papers in Celebration of the Retirement of Professor Ye Qizheng. Chiayi: Institute of Educational Sociology, University of South China: 289–312.
Yuan Juzheng. 2014. Development of Social Science Methodology in Taiwan Philosophical Reflections[G]//West and East: Gao Chengshu and Taiwanese Sociological Theory. Edited by Wang Zhenhuan, Zhu Yuanhong, Huang Huanglin, and Chen Jiexuan. Kaohsiung: Juliu: 41-78.
Augustine. 1963. Confessions [M]. Translated by Zhou Shiliang . Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Burnham, Douglas, 2015, The Nietzsche Dictionary. London: Bloomsbury.
Chakravartty, Anjan, 2015, “Scientific Realism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. .), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/scientific-realism/.
De Zwart, Frank, 2015, “Unintended but not Unanticipated Consequences.” Theory and Society 44(3):283 –297.
Geertz, Clifford, 1995, After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Gorski, Philip S., 2016, “The Matter of Emergence: Material Artifacts and Social Structure. Qualitative Sociology 39(2):211-215.
Hirschman, Daniel, and Isaac Ariail Reed, 2014, “Formation Stories and Causality in Sociology.” Sociological Theory32(4): 259–282.
Liu, Sida and Emirbayer, Mustafa, 2016, “Field and Ecology.” Sociological Theory34(1):62–79.
Marshall, Gordon, ed., 1996, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mervyn, Hartwig, ed., 2015, Dictionary of Critical Realism. Oxford and New York: Routledge.
Lincoln Yvonna S. and E. G. Guba, 2007, “Paradigms.” Pp. 3355-3356 in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Ritzer Oxford and New York: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Reed, Isaac, 2008, “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory26(2): 101–129.
Sahlins, Marshall, 1981, Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Scott, John ed., 2014, A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Sewell, William Jr., 1992, “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation .” American Journal of Sociology98(1):1-29.
——, 2005, Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, William, 1923, “The Unadjusted Girl: With Cases and Standpoint for Behavior Analysis." Criminal Science Monographs(4) 1–257.
Wang, Yingyao, 2016, "Homology and Isomorphism: Bourdieu in Conversation with New Institutionalism." The British Journal of Sociology67(2):348–370.
Weber , Max, Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Wheeler, Michael, 2015, “Martin Heidegger”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, URL = http: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/heidegger/.
（Sociological Theory VAT Issue 301）
[Note: This article is a paper submitted to the 2016 Taiwan Sociology Annual Conference and the 2017 First Sociology Graduate Forum. I’m not ready to submit my article for a long time, just make it public]
The push is divided into three times
The first time is an introduction to Ye Qizheng’s theory
“Four ounces of weight” and “Iron sharpens iron”: the sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (1)
The second time is an introduction Lv Bingqiang’s theory
“Four ounces of heavy lifting” and “iron sharpens iron”: sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang (2)
This/third time is the dialogue between the two
“ Four ounces of heavy lifting ” and “ Iron sharpens iron ": The sociological dialogue between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang
1. Introduction
2. Historical-cultural background discussion in Ye Qizheng's theory, philosophical anthropology, ontology , epistemology , methodology
3. Lu Bingqiang's theory Basic ontology, ontology, realism and hermeneutics
4. Comparison of similarities and differences and complement each other
How to compare the theories of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang?
Judging from recent research, Ye Qizheng's theory has received certain comparative observations. For example, Wang Zhihong (2015) discussed the local sociological theories of Ye Qizheng, Xie Guoxiong and Lin Wenyuan according to "Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory" (Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory) frameworks to classify and compare. Sun Yufan (2013) also tried to compare and combine Ye Qizheng's sociology of cultivation with Fei Xiaotong 's differential order pattern theory according to Zhang Zai's Qi theory philosophy to develop an integrated Qi theory sociology. However, these comparisons presuppose at least two levels of discussion: first, Ye Qizheng's theory is at the same level as other theories. Second, it also presupposes a pre-existing and comprehensive comparative standard system, or a post-integration system of convergence. Such hierarchical processing can easily make comparison become a "tool", while inspection standards or meta-supposition integration become the "purpose" [Footnote 1].
In comparison, Lu Bingqiang’s theory has also been used to compare with Zhao Dingxin’s theoretical assumptions about social science (compared to natural science). (Liu Zhongwei, 2016) Judging from the application of comparison, it is not to develop another theoretical level besides comparison, and its method is worth learning from - that is to say, comparison itself is the purpose of comparison.
Indeed, such a single-level parallel conversational comparison method (such as Liu and Emirbayer, 2016; Wang, 2016) makes it easier for both parties to be inspired and improved. As Ye Qizheng said, "they can complement each other and refer to each other." ,...we grind each other out.” (Doxa, 2008)
On the basis of the semantic system combing of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical texts, the following will put the two semantic systems together and compare the same or similar ones. Theoretical levels and research themes are compared, and five comparison points are proposed, that is, mutually beneficial interfaces
. The first comparison point is the localization stance.
Looking back at the two theories mentioned above, the most direct comparison is that Lu Bingqiang’s theory does not directly involve local historical and cultural resources, especially it does not propose local concepts such as self-cultivation like Ye Qizheng did.
Indeed, Ye Qizheng presupposed the plurality of "models" under the historical and cultural background of "we-(post)modernity", and positioned localization as a way to overturn the mainstream models of Western sociological theory in order to reverse and develop Indigenous Sociology on the Border.
As early as the early 1980s, Ye Qizheng (1991b: 178-179; 2005: 48) proposed the two concepts of "the vital control of culture" [footnote 2] and "the diffusion of cultural advantages" [footnote 3] , to explain that in the world system pattern that has been formed in the process of modernization, a "core-periphery" dominant relationship has been formed between the East and the West, so that the mainstream or dominant model in the Western academic world has a vital and controlling role in the East. The same unifying effect also arises (e.g. empiricist epistemology).
However, although Ye Qizheng (2009: 181-183) acknowledges the common scene of this unequal "global modernization", he also believes that there are "opportunities" that have been "missed but never mentioned" - localization, which is It is to develop such opportunities and create such gaps, and to contribute "alternative" reflections to the "big question" of "where should the development of human civilization as a whole go?"
Therefore, the plurality of paradigms is a plurality with internal divisions of "mainstream and blank space", a plurality with "vital control-opportunities", and a cross-cultural or cross-regional "control-turn" relationship. . Ye Qizheng stood on the latter side of the classification, or the "weak" side, in the hope of rebuilding the entire paradigm structure.
Figure 11: The relationship between sociology and the times in Ye Qizheng’s sociology
Returning to the above theoretical discussion with such a localization proposition, Ye Qizheng’s so-called “return” is based on the philosophical anthropology of the mainstream model of Western sociology. Reflect and criticize, and find "allies" (such as Nietzsche) in the "blank" field, so as to establish a set of physical and mental states that are not only suitable for border society, but also "we-(post)modernity" in a "four-two-two" way. ” Helpful “models” (such as cultivation, solitude).
Let’s put it the other way around: Is Ye Qizheng’s local sociology the “Eastern ally” of the “blank-space Western sociology”? After all, if Westerners read and use Ye Qizheng's works, wouldn't they also be able to develop the marginalized Western sociological theories by drawing on Eastern resources, thereby changing the plural pattern of the entire sociological paradigm? [Footnote 4] Once
accepts such a proposition, it means that it not only has the contemporary nature of "we-(post)modernity" across the East and the West, but also has the theoretical possibility of "we-theory" - which is consistent with Lu Bingqiang's theoretical society The academic concept resonated.
Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228; 2009b: 259) is based on "we-theory" rather than "we-the times" and denies the plurality of models: he believes that Kuhnian models can only compete for jobs and the winner takes all. Collecting all sociological theories that can accept data verification and using them as cases is called "theoretical sociology" [Footnote 5]. A one-size-fits-all approach like
is obviously a hard-line style of "iron sharpens iron". There is no distinction between the East and the West, the mainstream and the border, and there is no room for discussion: once there are counterexamples that cannot be included (whether from the East or the West) , theoretical sociology will be "laid off" from its paradigmatic position.
For this reason, Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical system does not delimit itself with “historical-cultural background discussion”. Also, because of its scientific orientation, it does not require philosophical anthropological concepts or social theories that cannot be tested by data. It is necessary to treat all sociological theories "equally" and take it as its own responsibility to incorporate them, to achieve the same relationship as theoretical physics to experimental physics.
Although this seems to be alienated from local sociology, if we take (1) local theory to be able to fit the local physical and mental state; (2) to have turning significance for "our era", then Lu Bingqiang's theory Sociology is equally qualified for this role. After all, in the absence of counter-example challenges from the academic community, as long as the sociological theory being incorporated meets the above-mentioned localization requirements, this attribute will naturally become part of theoretical sociology.
Therefore, either directly or indirectly, both theories can accept "we-era" and "we-theory" as the common basis. The subtle differences in the localization stance of Ye Qizheng's and Lu Bingqiang's theories are respectively : (1) The priority of choosing “our-era” as the basis for argumentation is different from “we-theory”; (2) Direct analysis and response to “our-era” and indirect analysis and response; (3) Model The plurality of "core-periphery" and the singularity of "inclusion-all-counterexample laid-off"; (4) the difference between reflection on social theory in non-data testing fields such as philosophical anthropology and not including social theory in the inclusion content , see the figure below for details.
Figure 12: The localization stances of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are connected.
The second point of comparison is extended from the first point of comparison: Although Lu Bingqiang’s sociology is a “theoretical science”, can it be compared with Ye Qizheng’s “not tested by data”? "Discussion", that is, from the perspective of philosophical anthropology-style social theory, in contrast to Lu Bingqiang-style sociology?
After all, compared with the ontology, epistemology and methodology discussions that have been accepted by the social science community, Ye Qizheng’s contribution is to add the social theoretical discussion of philosophical anthropology as a presupposition. Therefore, what can be asked and compared is: Is there any philosophical anthropological presupposition in Lu Bingqiang's sociology? If there is or is approximately there, what are the presuppositions? What are the similarities and differences with the "super-overcoming people" in Ye Qizheng's sociology? Lu Bingqiang (2007: 310-311) commented on Ye Qizheng's book "In and Out of the "Structure-Action" Dilemma", which gives clues:
Regarding the dilemma of being unable to rationally place the opposition of action and structure in the same theory,... How does Ye Qizheng himself deal with the same problem? He advocated "developing the world view of 'human' editorially from the perspective of nothingness, emptiness and emptiness. What is immediately obvious should be that 'human' and 'society'... are not necessarily as essential as the relationship between 'human' and 'society' as many Western social theorists believe." They are tense and destined to be in opposition to each other. Rather, their relationship can become a situation of... rubbing or rubbing against each other... It is this kind of "cultivation" that people can achieve. 'The autonomy of disappeared. This "borrowing the east wind" is of course as light as "four ounces moving a thousand catties". The problem is: for actors with insufficient training, the old perspective will still return, and the opposition between action and structure will not disappear. After all, there are only a very small number of people who can become Buddhas and immortals. There is no distinction between east and west. Sociology has always been a theory about mortals.
If philosophical anthropology is about "the basic concepts and connotations of how people construct images of 'society' and 'people' themselves" (Ye Qizheng, 2013a: 27), then Lu Bingqiang's excerpts, interpretations and criticisms at least say that The "image of man" in his eyes.
However, the "ordinary people" he mentioned are different from the "ordinary routine" mentioned by Ye Qizheng. "Mortal people" is a complete set, including two subsets: those with sufficient cultivation and those with "insufficient cultivation", or two subsets, the "very few" who have become Buddhas and immortals, and the majority who have not become Buddhas and immortals. The dividing line is Ye Qizheng's "new" Perspective" and the "old perspective" criticized by Ye Qizheng, which takes structure as cause and action as effect. In other words, as Lu Bingqiang (2007: 36-37) said, it is divided into "reflexive - mundane":
We declare straightforwardly: actors live in a very unique time structure, and this time structure only has The two tenses, namely introspection ("a little introspection") and haunxun ("very hazy"), are two tenses that constantly alternate, forming a continuous time sequence, that is... introspection - hazy - Introspection -..., we might as well call it the "Garfinkel time series" [Footnote 6]. Actors in two tenses such as
echo the distinction between Schutz and Husserl . We can find "social images": Schutzian actors are "unconscious" and are "taken for granted". for grant) is the world or "life world" guaranteed by "We Trust", and the Husserlian actor is "introspective", questioning the "taken for granted", and thus entering into the "I" "I think" world or "Descartesian world". (Lu Bingqiang, 2009c: 12)
Returning to Lu Bingqiang’s theoretical level, in the former case, there is no conflict between the actor and the mutual objectivity that he faces as a knowledge inventory. The actor follows the request. Surre-Bourdieu talks about reference positions on the Internet as his own situational definition, and this definition is brought into his interpretation process when actors interact and face otherness.Different from this, during "introspection", actors will challenge the knowledge inventory with "rationality and creativity", thereby adjusting the network position between the original reference positions, and even using themselves as the "incarnation" of the overall network. (Sun Yufan, 2016)
Therefore, these two types of people are more in line with the image of "average people-superior people" supported by "ordinary routines-extraordinary exceptions" used by Ye Qizheng, although in the "historical-cultural background" structure It is difficult to compare, but in terms of the "principle of relationship between people and society", there are many similarities: as people with insufficient cultivation, ignorant people are similar to average people. They also face the constraints of objectivity, making it impossible to pursue The freedom of will is drawn by the resources and rules structured by society, and has to rely on the existing knowledge inventory to continue its own time state. Introspective people are not insufficiently cultivated people, and are similar to super-excellent people, which means breaking the original existing conditions, constantly transcending and striving to overcome them. In other words, they also voluntarily fall on the edge of the knowledge inventory and remain "independent of it". "Lonely attitude.
However, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 211) further drew on Emmanuel Levinas’s point of view: “Each actor is an enigma (enigma) for other actors in the same interaction.” This actually returns to the minimum requirements for human images and is also the most stringent restriction for researchers.
In this way, there are three types of human images in Lu Bingqiang's eyes: "Mortal" as a whole or "Mr. I-am-enigma" (Mr. I-am-enigma), including and only including two subsets - "Mr. Cogito" ” (Mr. I-think) and “Mr. We-trust” (Mr. We-trust). (Lu Bingqiang, 2009a: 211) Ye Qizheng’s contrasting Chinese and Western images of human beings also have a universal meta-reliance, see the figure below for details.
Figure 13: The connection between Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang’s philosophical anthropological images of people
The third point is ontological comparison and mutual benefit: both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang drew a line with social ontology and returned to the past. An ontology in which actors are the content, but the former is mainly based on process-based discussion, while the latter is mainly based on event-based discussion, but such a "process-entity" distinction is also complementary to each other. potential.
In social ontology, it is difficult to prioritize individual status. As Sewell (2005:330) points out, the common sense understanding of “society” is a “building-block model”, of which actors are components—“building blocks.” Although he criticizes this view, his alternative ontological project is still sociocentric, arguing that individuals who are "autonomous and given" are only "their changing participants in social processes." Products”. (Sewell, 2005:330)
Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang both hold different views. Ye Qizheng's ontology does not first put "society" or the entire "building block model" into it, but only regards it as the consequences of the process of generation. However, although this ontology uses "conception" to demarcate the process, "void" limits the setting of relevant matters. Therefore, what is clear is "how to conceive", and "who conceives" is not clear. The answers to questions such as "who is pregnant" are not as clear as the "real" ontology that Ye Qizheng opposed. It is even difficult to say clearly whether the "building blocks" will be used after the "building block model" is revoked. Still in ontology.
also comes from the reflection on social ontology. Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 228)’s approach is carried out by comparing phenomenology and sociology, believing that the ontological focus of the two disciplines runs through a three-point spectrum: actors and their situations, actors in interaction, and otherness.
Although the ontological focus of sociology is the phenomenological "incorporeal other" or "otherness", such as "building block models" such as institutions and structures, the development of this matter in phenomenology is indeed lackluster.To this end, Lu Bingqiang (2009a: 198-229) took the advantage of phenomenology to enter the path of sociology. Starting from the end of "actors and their situations", he constructed a basic ontology of "action = present moment = body". , and an ontology of subjectivity and agency expanded in Augustinian time.
However, in order to deduce realism and hermeneutics from ontology, Lu Bingqiang designed derivative "realizations" for human abilities, such as objectivity and otherness. However, what is the process of "derivation", what is the "construction process" from "building blocks" to other "building blocks", and even what is the "construction process" of "building block models", are not as specified as the Augustinian subjectivity.
However, since both of them are in the "same trench" because of their opposition to social ontology, can Lu Bingqiang's ontology learn from Ye Qizheng's ontology to supplement the processual discussion? Although the meaning and origin of the words that Lu Bingqiang did not "derive" are not indicated, we can try to understand them linguistically.
The term "derivation" in linguistics refers to "any series of changes in a form or structure that are effected by a successful process." Modification. For example, cellsists are derived from cello". (Matthews, 2000: 93)
There are two points worth learning from this definition: (1) The derived matter is "form or structure". (2) The derived process is "successive processes" or "sequences". In contrast, from the perspective of subjectivity [Footnote 7], it can be regarded as the "form or structure" of Augustinian time, and its "successive processes" or "sequences" can be regarded as "presentification" (presentification) from subjectivity. ) to derive Weberian or Giddensian diachrony respectively, that is, two courses of action. Based on this, it is further derived into Weberian or Giddensian synchronicity, that is, social territory and symbolic universe.
Looking at it on the other hand, can Ye Qizheng's ontology describe the ontological entity of "empty" like Lu Bingqiang did? Can.
According to the relationship between philosophical anthropology and sociological ontology conceived by Ye Qizheng, matters in philosophical anthropology can provide presuppositions for matters in ontology, and the latter can be derived from the former. Based on this, referring to Lu Bingqiang’s discussion of events, Ye Qizheng’s “cultivation” in philosophical anthropology will lead to ontological “generalized agency” or “subjective agency?” [Footnote 8]. The first question
addresses is, if the void is "originally nothing", can it "have" "dust"?
As mentioned above, cultivation is both a visible practice and an invisible realm of life, and the structure under the horizon of cultivation is both a condition and a trajectory. If we regard structure as language [Footnote 9], then the so-called "void" can be regarded as the "blank part" that is "unspeakable" under the condition of language. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 371-372) Therefore, "void" is just the place beyond its power when "conditions" want to be overstepped and used as "basis". It is this void that cannot be reached by remote control that can create "alternative" possibilities compared to structures, become the internal cause and basis for actors, and give birth to a new social world.
It can be said that the reason why the realm of life is invisible is because "there is" a void that is beyond the reach of language, and the reason why practice is visible is because through the void, new possibilities of language are born. Structure as a condition is the reality before the void, and structure as a trajectory is the embodiment of the reality of the void.
For this reason, the ontology of the void is not incapable of accommodating things, but only needs to be able to accommodate "new possibilities" and "invisible" things that transcend "conditions". This kind of thing can be understood from Ye Qizheng’s philosophical anthropology. Ye Qizheng (2004: 299, 301, 381; 2015) pointed out that human beings, as "subjects of existence", are "action bodies of subject initiative", and the cultivation of cultivation or the ability to cultivate is an empirical demonstration of subject initiative. Cheng is “a deep-seated disposition that exhibits initiative,...a potential state that is sufficient to generate kinetic energy” [Footnote 10].
If you want to try to use the concept of subject initiative as an ontological matter, then while understanding it through Dao cultivation, you can also make another twist: Ye Qizheng believes that the concept closest to his in Western sociological theoretical discussion is Yuna. Hans Joas' theory of action.
The reason why Yonas’s theory attracts Ye Qizheng is that it uses the concept of “creativity to demonstrate the subjective initiative of people as actors” (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 211). However, the reason why Ye Qizheng feels that it is still insufficient is that it supports The two concepts of creativity lack other concepts to match them - the concept of corporeality that enables actors to have a holistic awareness of their own actions, and the concept of "mind" that lacks matching; The concept of sociality of externally constrained “over-structured” worries lacks the matching concept of self-control or internal basis. (Ye Qizheng, 2013b: 212)
In this case, according to Ye Qizheng’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Yunus’ action theory, the formula “subject initiative = creativity” needs to be further developed:
Figure 14: Ye Qizheng’s sociology and The relationship between Jonas' theory of action
From this inference, if the subject's initiative is to be regarded as an ontological matter, its referent can be regarded as the "action" of "creativity". From the perspective of Weber's action typology, Ye Qizheng's conception is a special ontology of action types. (Weber, 2010: 114) Action itself has "body" and "soul", and its situation is "social" and "lonely", just like the relationship between "action" and "habit" in the traditional definition of action. . (Weber, 2010: 114) Further transformed into Ye Qizheng’s statement, the combination of soul and loneliness is the cultivation at the level of life realm, and the combination of physicality and sociality is the cultivation at the practical level. These two types of cultivation derive and justify the subject's initiative. The updated formula is as follows:
Figure 15: Expansion of the relationship between Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Yunus’ action theory
This formula, viewed from the bottom up, is Ye Qizheng’s presupposition from philosophical anthropology to ontology to answer the subject’s initiative. Looking from the top down, it is the regression of ontology to philosophical anthropology.
Therefore, the newly explained ontology of Ye Qizheng, like Lu Bingqiang’s basic ontology and ontology, both accept the concepts of action and flesh (bodily), but the difference is that Ye Qizheng chose self-cultivation as the subject’s initiative. To a specific ontological definition - creativity, Lu Bingqiang added the "present moment" and expanded the distinction between subjectivity and initiative, without specifically indicating such creativity.
However, in this way, the ontology of both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang has been supplemented: Ye Qizheng’s theory can draw on and supplement the subject-specific discussion, and Lu Bingqiang’s theory can absorb and explain its process-based discussion, see the figure below [Footnote 12].
Figure 16: The connection and mutual benefit between Ye Qizheng’s ontology and Lu Bingqiang’s ontology
The fourth point is to compare Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology, and Lu Bingqiang’s realism and hermeneutics: both are incompatible or opposed to logical positivism ( logical positivism) realism, and Ye Qizheng's epistemology and methodology contain the premises, guarantees, methods and matters of realism, and the causality of Stooges in Lu Bingqiang's hermeneutic theory can also provide a causal explanation for it .
As Yuan Juzheng (2014: 42) recalls, Taiwan introduced social science research from the United States in the 1950s, laying the foundation for what it is today. In that era, the logical positivism advocated by Yin Haiguang should be used as a model. When reviewing his academic career, Ye Qizheng (2013c: 53-54) also stated that he had doubts about logical positivism when he was studying in the Department of Philosophy at National Taiwan University, and that he only learned about "competing" theories such as hermeneutics and phenomenology when he studied in the United States. trend of thought. This learning process may have influenced him to take logical positivism as the mainstream model, think about epistemology and realism in reverse, and explore wisdom "beyond reason, logic, and science."(Ye Qizheng, 2013c: 52) Zeng Bowen's (2008) summary provides a further interpretation path for understanding the realism or epistemology of the sociological localization trend in which Ye Qizheng belongs:
In fact, the confrontation in the Taiwanese social science localization movement in the 1980s Looking back, the object of research is not so much "Western social science" as "naïve empirical research that emphasizes quantification and deframes phenomena through theoretical models" that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. The same dissatisfaction occurred on both sides of the Pacific. But on the other side is the rise of qualitative research, constructivism, deconstruction, postmodernity, and feminism. In Taiwan, it is attached to the broad division of “East and West” and is presented as “research localization”.
According to this interpretation, if the "East-West divide" is returned to the original internal confrontation of social sciences, it is the distinction between "naïve empirical research" and "qualitative research, constructivism" and other ideological trends. This is also consistent with Ye Qizheng's oral review "Logical positivism" has certain similarities with the "competition" of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Similarly, let’s go back to Ye Qizheng’s discussion on localization in the 1980s and 1990s. Compared with the "indigenous fit" proposed by Yang Guoshu, who participated in the localization movement of social sciences at the same time, Ye Qizheng (2006h: 58-60) also believes that its origin is still the "empirical empirical methodology" of the United States, and it is a firm belief that "'reality 'A true reflection of the original appearance of Ke Cun'.
It can be said that whether it is "empirical empirical methodology", "naïve empirical research" or "logical positivism", they are all "empiricism" under the sect of "anti-realism". This discipline asserts that "experience is a resource and subject matter of knowledge, and thus naturally competes with the concept of unobservable knowledge." (Chakravartty, 2015)
In other words, empiricism only recognizes the observable world and prioritizes the knowledge framework held by the researcher, ignoring the world that cannot be observed by its own observation tools, and does not recognize realism. "Metaphysical commitment" - the world of scientific research is a mind-independent reality. (Chakravartty, 2015) Applying such anti-realism to local research, it is no wonder that Ye Qizheng (2006i: 23) would criticize Taiwan’s scale research in the 1980s as “not necessarily consistent with their daily lives.” Consistency with experimental experience must lead to false overjudgments that are essentially forced.”
Along the direction of (1) the world being studied is independent of the researcher’s mind; (2) recognizing both observable and unobservable things at the same time, Lu Bingqiang’s theory based on the phenomenological background and Ye Qizheng once again “side by side” combat".
In addition to accommodating unobservable events such as action processes, Lu Bingqiang (2007: Chapter 2) did not adopt Bourdieu’s position in deriving the Saussure-Bourdieu theory of network and regarded it as a power The relationship network is closer to Saussure, and from the perspective of language, it is regarded as an autonomous meaning network. From the perspective of the process of empirical research, it is precisely because of this autonomy that it has become a mutual object matter that has been precipitated by history and used by the world, and is not controlled by the minds of individual people (including researchers) [Footnote 13].
So, as a camp against empiricism, and Ye Qizheng’s epistemological criticism is inseparable from realism, can his epistemology be transformed into a realist discussion? Can.
If epistemology is regarded as the task of understanding and studying reality, then the epistemology of metaphorical representation provides the presupposition, guarantee and method of realism: "Historical-cultural quality" is the presupposition of understanding reality ( presupposition). It is this premise that makes Ye Qizheng draw a clear line from logical empiricism that puts knowledge framework first, such as "removal of time and space". At the same time, this epistemology also makes it clear that understanding reality is not a strictly accurate correspondence, but a metaphor guaranteed by similarity and representation as a method.
Furthermore, if Ye Qizheng’s epistemology includes the presuppositions, guarantees and methods required to develop realism, then what kind of reality does he recognize? In other words, what is the whole with "historical-cultural quality"? What is to be metaphorized? What do you want to represent?
This can be explained from Ye Qizheng's understanding of metaphor and the use of methodology. Ye Qizheng's metaphor conforms to the definition of "metaphor" in a philosophy dictionary:
A superior metaphor... lies in the good use of the transformation of semantic meaning, so that people can fully develop the space for resemblance, feeling and understanding. (Ye Qizheng 2004: 39)
The best metaphors evoke a complex and effective inner response by showing the similarity between the literal meaning of a word and what it implies. (Bu Ning and Yu Jiyuan, 2001.) [Footnote 14] The so-called "semantic conversion" of
can be regarded as the conversion between "written meaning" and "implied things". The "space of likeness, feeling, and understanding" uses a sociological academic approach to show the extraordinary exceptions of the people being studied or actors in the process of solitary cultivation.
In order to further respond to the idea of similarities between research discourse and the stories of the people being researched, Ye Qizheng (2016) introduced the ideal type as an example of interpretive methodology, arguing that it can be achieved by "appropriating specific axial concepts (such as rationality) ), constantly refine it repeatedly, and constantly create (find) bifurcated circuits, enriching our perceptual understanding of specific social (historical) phenomena and the process of their continuous growth."
The "appropriation", "refining", "creation (searching)" and "enrichment" here refer to the continuous transformation back and forth, using the "imagination-feeling" method to understand the "opportunistic nature" carried out by the actors. "The state of creation" allows the researcher as a "storyteller" to "find order in chaos", turning "searching" into "creation", and constructing the relationship between the actor's "imagination-feeling" and the researcher's observation. Sufficient similarity to reveal the extraordinary exceptions of individual actors. (Ye Qizheng, 2016)
As a result, what Ye Qizheng sees as "a state of opportunity and destiny" has replaced the "society" with objective pre-existing significance in the mainstream tradition and has become what researchers and actors see. Similar objectivity or objectivity.
However, which concepts or discussions in Ye Qizheng’s sociology are similar to this new concept?
To put it simply, the so-called "nature of opportunity" can only be interpreted when it is implemented into individuality, and the "state of being formed by fate" echoes Ye Qizheng's conception of philosophical anthropology. After all, the interactive dual relationship between cultivation and structure is the condition for structure to act as an actor, and it is the "track" that is implemented based on the internal cause of the life realm. Therefore, the social reality in Ye Qizheng's eyes can also be seen as the trajectory of cultivation-based practice in transcendent philosophical anthropology.
’s further question is: If we deal with the “state of opportunity and destiny”, what is the difference between the “nature of opportunity” brought about by the invisible realm of life and the “state of opportunity” reflected in the visible trajectory? What about relationships? The urgency of this issue lies in: first, Ye Qizheng's realist approach to philosophical anthropology in terms of "a state of chance and destiny" will inevitably face the question of whether it can be transformed from a speculative social theory into a feasible one. Issues in sociological theory of data validation. Second, from the perspective of the application of conceptual methods, if we only observe the "state of being created by conditions" without examining the "nature of opportunity" behind it, we will not be able to reach agreement with the "perceptual understanding" mentioned by Ye Qizheng.
Ye Qizheng (2004: 186; 2016) did not fail to consider the internal tension of this kind of reality. His answer may be the intimacy and "empathetic way" of "open and expedient" meaning selection. But this is equivalent to only answering the "appropriateness of meaning" requirement of Weberian methodology, which corresponds to the "similarity" in epistemology.However, once the Weberian ideal type is adopted, how will "causal validity" be placed? According to Ye Qizheng (2016), such causal validity may be replaced by “causal bifurcation” [Footnote 15].
However, according to Ringer (2013: 86), Weberian causality is singular. Lu Bingqiang (2007: 225-240) is on the side of Ringer in his understanding and application of Weberian methodology. Therefore, clarifying the difference between forking and unity in causality is helpful to explain the "causal validity" in Ye Qizheng's eyes and its relationship with Lu Bingqiang's theory.
In Ringer's view, what Weber wanted to analyze was to use the method of causal abduction or causal inference to compare the actual results with other possibilities that did not occur, so as to prove that a single phenomenon "evolved into this rather than like this". That's the reason." (Linger, 2013:92) Weber said this:
If a certain historical element in the complex of historical conditions disappears or changes, it will cause... the course of historical events to change course. This judgment plays a role in determining the "history" of this element. "Importance" (is the key point) (quoted from Ringer, 2013: 90)
Weber's conception reflects the idea of hypothesis testing. A "process of events" is connected by an "effect A" that the researcher thinks is important, and a "cause A" that the researcher may think is the "effect A". Since "cause A" is undetermined, in order to determine its "historical importance", we can say that we make the assumption that this "cause A" disappears or changes from the "historical complex", and we get "cause B", and When "because of B" is no longer "because of A", the "process of historical events" may "change its course" and lead to "result B" instead of "result A".
For this purpose, there are two hypotheses: the alternative hypothesis is "Cause A-Effect A", and the null hypothesis is "Cause B-Effect B". If the null hypothesis holds, then the alternative hypothesis is not accepted and vice versa. Therefore, there is always a non-overlapping distance between the historical event programs formed by the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis.
What Ye Qizheng calls "causal bifurcation" when using the conceptual method, from the perspective of the actor, it is a process of continuous adaptation, but from the perspective of the researcher, it is a series of twists and turns in which either the alternative hypothesis is established or the null hypothesis is established. Process, that is, a series of "single causality" in different directions.
However, the tortuous process of the concept type is not just an objective route, but "a mental image shaped through experience." This means that if the "effect" is the "track of cultivation practice" that can be seen by researchers, then the "cause" to be inferred - "life realm cultivation" cannot be observed and can only be seen by the actor. To this end, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the visible and the invisible, what the researcher sees and what the actors see. Lu Bingqiang extended from Weberian methodology to the Stoic causality in hermeneutics - the cause is deep and can be used as a parameter, the effect is on the surface and can be used as variable data, and hypothesis testing can be done between parameters and variables - it is enough become a reference. Therefore, "sociologists as storytellers" (Ye Qizheng, 2016) can also have strict causality.
From this, once Ye Qizheng’s representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology are transformed from the realist position of “anti-empiricism”, it can achieve realist transformation and transform the cultivation and structural relationship in philosophical anthropology according to the Stooges. The causality of Karma can be explained, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 17: The realist transformation of Ye Qizheng’s epistemology and methodology
The fifth comparison and mutual benefit is in the treatment of the "structure-action" dilemma: neither of them regards "artifact" as a structure On the basis of elements, they are all resolved from action to structure. However, due to their different definitions of actions and structures, they present different resolution characteristics.
According to Philip S. Gorski's point of view, both Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang should be included in the scope of "interactionist ontology", which defines structure from the perspective of actors and interaction. (Gorski, 2016) Or, according to Swale’s criticism of Giddensian structures, the “structures” of Ye Qizheng and Lu Bingqiang are only virtual rather than actual.(Sewell, 1992)
Indeed, even if Ye Qizheng understands the philosophical anthropological meaning of "value" and "need" from the modern/postmodern situation of production and consumption, because he is concerned with the issue of symbolic exchange, he only Turning to symbols rather than matter. Although Lu Bingqiang also uses the concepts of objectivity and mutual objectivity, he also does not include materials, resources and artificial objects.
Although as Gorsky said, such a stance will restrict the diversified understanding of social change, adding artificial objects to the structural definition of the two will bring about greater landscape adjustments, so it is not discussed in this article. Within the scope, no further details will be given.
Judging from the scope restricted by Gorsky and Sver, the two people still have different definitions of structure.
As mentioned above, Ye Qizheng's structure is the embodiment of the duality of the trajectory of implementation and the conditions of life realm, but he did not explain how the nature of the process from structure to conditions to trajectory changes, and at most it is only through the individual transformation to produce a transformation in the "nature of opportunity". However, the original "action" has changed significantly, allowing it to get out of the predicament: due to the addition of the "realm of life", it not only has the implementation of "observable behavioral performance", but also has the "various qualities of human beings" ”, changing the original single thing of “action” into a cultivation with internal duality, both visible and invisible. (Ye Qizheng, 2008: 134) Obviously, if the structure is viewed as a discourse or language, it has no ability to control such invisible parts, and this is also the innovation of Ye Qizheng.
From this, according to the above-mentioned expression of "soul" as compared to "body" as the realm of life, the order of Ye Qizheng's way out of the predicament is "Discourse→Mind→Body→Discourse". This strategy also echoes Ye Qizheng’s (2006h: 71) theory of the “physical and mental state” on which the localization of sociology is based.
To put it simply, Ye Qizheng got out of the "structure-action" dilemma, but because he transformed his actions, he came out of the "action-structure" door, as shown in the picture below.
Figure 18: The "structure-action" dilemma of entry and exit in Ye Qizheng's sociology
How does Lu Bingqiang "enter and exit" this dilemma?
He took a seemingly more radical approach, so much so that he gave up even "structure as a condition". He did not need to turn the dilemma around to find a way out like Ye Qizheng did, but simply canceled the dilemma, leaving only "action-structure". "The front-to-back support relationship.
As mentioned above, Lu Bingqiang's concepts of "structure" and "action" can be divided into loose and tight concepts. In a broad sense, "structure" has completed two stages of transformation through the support of "action". Since the concept of action is fundamentally ontologically equated with the present moment and the physical body, it becomes ontologically two things: subjectivity and initiative, or broad-based agency (human ability). Therefore, it has no ontological meaning. Leave room for "structure".
According to the provisions and developments of the current moment, "action" supports the realist social territory, the symbolic universe as "objective reality within the subject's experience" (Lu Bingqiang, 2007: 404), and Saussure as mutual objectivity —Bourdieu talks about the Internet. At this level, the relationship between "action" and "structure" also evolves into a diachronic and synchronic relationship.
As for hermeneutics, "structure" further serves as the otherness compared to agency in the actor's deduction process. It obtains the linguistic value of situation definition from Saussure-Bourdieu's words on the Internet and repeats it in narrative or planning. Computation and optimization. However, the definition of situation used in hermeneutics is also inseparable from the mutual objectivity established in realism. Therefore, the two-stage transformation of "structure" itself is the former supporting the latter.
Only in this way can Lu Bingqiang say that in this plan, “the debate between ‘structure’ and ‘action’ is a wrong proposition.” (Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, et al., 2015: 134)
Figure 19: The “action-structure” support relationship of Lu Bingqiang’s sociology
5. Conclusion
This article combs and analyzes the semantic systems of Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology. , and by comparing the similarities and differences, as well as the parallels and mutual benefit between the two systems, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Ye Qizheng's sociology includes five levels: the historical-cultural background discussion of modernity and postmodernity, It opens the way to philosophical anthropology. The transcendental philosophical anthropology also presupposes the theory of void-born existence, representational epistemology and imagination-feeling methodology.
2. Lu Bingqiang’s sociology includes three levels: (Basic). ) Ontological "action = present moment = body" and broad-based agency, realism composed of action processes, social territories, symbolic universes, and Saussure-Bourdieu networks, as well as actors' narratives and planning The interpretation theory supported by parametric causality and Stoic causality
3. From the standpoint of localization, Ye Qizheng’s sociology and Lu Bingqiang’s sociology differ in their understanding of the plural form and the singular form of paradigm. The two ends of "we-era" and "we-theory" can be combined and communicated through Lu Bingqiang's three-part "theoretical sociology-sociological theory-social theory"
4. Ye Qizheng's sociological reflection. The philosophical anthropological presupposition of Lu Bingqiang's sociology can be concluded as the latter's presupposition: "I am Mr. Mystery" is a universal proposition, and the distinction of this proposition is connected with Ye Qizheng's super overcoming of people
5. The processual discussion of Ye Qizheng's ontology of void gestation can benefit from the event-based discussion of Lu Bingqiang's ontology, supplementing its own "creative action-mind-body" event connotation on the subject's initiative, while Ye Qizheng's The processual discussion forces Lu Bingqiang's ontology to supplement the meaning of the "derivative" process.
6. They both hold an anti-empiricist realist stance, and can inspire and transform by looking at the clear realist level in Lu Bingqiang's theory. The realist transformation of epistemology and methodology in Ye Qizheng's sociology, and the causality of Stooges proposed by Lu Bingqiang, supplementary explanation of the causal relationship between Ye Qizheng's cultivation and structure.
7. The basis for the two to resolve the "structure-action" dilemma. However, in terms of the resolution strategy, Ye Qizheng entered from "structure-action" and then came out with "action-structure", while Lu Bingqiang directly canceled "structure-action". "The proposition of "dilemma or debate" directly constructs and analyzes the action layer support structure and the second-order transformation process of the structure in the direction of "action-structure".
References:
Buning, Yu Jiyuan. 2001. Western Philosophy in English and Chinese Dictionary[M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House.
Cai Bofang. 2014. Alternative Theoretical Research[G]//Fan Ganghua (ed.). Local Theories Re-identify: Sympathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Qunxue: 107-153.
Doxa. 2008. "Classics of Cross-Century Sociology Masters" Dialogue" (verbatim draft of the speech) [OL]. http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~95254005/20080417_word.doc, accessed on August 29, 2016.
Fei Xiaotong. 1983. I see people seeing me [J]. Reading (3): 99–103.
Gao Guokui. 2014. Traveling through utopian illusions: from loneliness to the possibility of cultivating sociology [G]// Fan Ganghua Editor. Re-identification of Native Theory: Empathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Group Studies: 253–296.
Geertz. 2011. Pursuing Facts: Two Countries, Four Decades, and One Anthropologist[M] . Translated by Lin Jingwei. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Huang Xinyang. 2007. "Reading" in the world of "scholars" - Comment on "Gaze, Action and the Social World" [J]. Taiwan Sociology (14): 191–199.
Liu Zhongwei. 2016. Time, action and otherness—Another conception of the “dilemma of social sciences” [J]. Sociological Review (1): 56—69.
Luo Zhongfeng. 2014. Cultivation, Beyond Sociology: Exploring the Theoretical Landscape of Professor Ye Qizheng [G] // Edited by Fan Ganghua. Local Theory Re-identification: Sympathy and Dialogue in Ye Qizheng’s Thoughts. New Taipei: Group Studies: 157-187.
Lu Bingqiang. 2007. Gaze, action and Social World [M]. Taipei: Wanderer Culture.
——. 2009a. Actors, Actors in Interaction, Otherness [G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, Our Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 198-229.
——. 2009b. Conclusion: The Prospects of Phenomenology in Sociology[G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, Our Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 252- 261.
——. 2009c. Cogito—We Trust[G]//by Lu Bingqiang. Cogito, We Trust and the Mystery of Society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 252-261.
——. 2009d. The Course of Action [G]//by Lu Bingqiang. I think, our trust and the mystery of society. Taipei: Wanderer Culture: 63-82.
Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, Sun Yufan, Liu Yonghua. 2015. Sociology of Listening and Speaking Email Collection 2012–2013[ M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Lu Bingqiang, Li Yuemin, Sun Yufan, Liu Zhongwei. Unpublished manuscript. Tao and Reason: Sociology Email Collection 2013–2014[H].
Ringer. 2013. Weberian Thoughts. Translated by Jian Huimei. New Taipei: Qunxue.
Max Weber. 1999. Basic Concepts of Sociology [G]. Translated by Lin Rongyuan//Max Weber. Collected Works of Weber. Compiled by Han Shuifa. Beijing: China Radio and Television Press: 107–166.
——. 2005. Basic Concepts of Sociology [M]. Translated by Gu Zhonghua. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press.
——. 2010. Economy and Society (Volume 1) [M]. Translated by Yan Kewen. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Matthews, P.H..2000. Oxford Linguistics Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Peter Hestrom. 2010. Analyzing Society: Principles of Analytical Sociology[M]. Translated by Chen Yunsong. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.
Sun Yufan. 2013. The journey of discovering the sociology of gasology [A]. Compilation of papers of the second social theory workshop [C]. Harbin: Harbin Engineering University, July 7–8.
——. 2016. The Mystery of the Monarch and Incarnation: Starting from Kong Feili’s Soul-Calling: China’s Great Sorcery Panic in 1768 [J]. Sociological Review (6): 76-93.
——. Unpublished manuscript. Time, Zhu Causality and Sociological Imagination: Discussing with Cheng Boqing[H].
Wu Hongchang. 2014. Sociologists come back to do theory: On the inspiration of Ye Qizheng’s sociology[G]//Fan Ganghua (ed.) Local theory is similar again: Ye Qizheng Ideological resonance and dialogue. New Taipei: Qunxue: 63–105.
Wang Zhihong. 2015. Cultivation, displacement and the big loop: three paths of local action theory [J]. Taiwan Journal of Sociology 56: 151-183.
Ye Qizheng . 1982. Discussing the direction and problems of "Sinicization" in sociological research from the existing characteristics of Chinese sociology [J]. Special issue of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. B Type 10: 115-152.
——. 1991a. Views and impacts on human nature and society from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment[G]//Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and Intellectuals. Taipei: University of Tokyo: 367–388.
——. 1991b. The Dilemma Facing Modern Chinese Culture[ G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and Intellectuals. Taipei: University of Tokyo: 175-198.
——. 1991c. Talking about the problems of modern people from a sociological perspective [G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Society, Culture and intellectuals. Taipei: Tokyo University: 389-426.
——. 1993. The “localization” of academic research localization. Native Psychology Research (1): 184–192.
——. 1994. Discourse on Social Sciences Fundamental issues of transplantation and localization [G]//edited by Du Zuyi. Compilation of papers from the Collaborative Research Program on the Transplantation and Application of Western Social Science Theories. Hong Kong: Social Sciences and Educational Theories Applied Research Program of the Chinese University of Hong Kong: 19–20.
——. 2004. The Dilemma of Entering and Exiting "Structure-Action" (Revised Second Edition). Taipei: Sanmin.
——. 2005. The Diffusion of Cultural Advantages and the Dual Relationship of "Center-Periphery" [G]// Written by Ye Qizheng. Looking forward to the dawn: the friction between tradition and modernity. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House: 39-71
——. 2006a. Preface [G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 1– 4.
——. 2006b. Reflection on some presuppositions of sociology: the fundamental issue of localization [G]//Ye Qizheng. The localization construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 97–120.
— —. 2006c. Theoretical Implications of “Individualized” Society [G] // Written by Ye Qizheng. The Localization of Social Theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 209–243.
——. 2006d. On the Localization of Sociological Research Research directions and issues[G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 3-54.
——. 2006e. The historical destiny of the enlightenment humanistic spirit: from production to consumption[G ]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 247–272.
——. 2006f. The Tower of Babel of the Concepts of Mean Man and Discrete Man—Two Myths in Statistical Sociology Thinking A cornerstone[G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 121–171.
——. 2006g. Some myths in Western sociological theoretical thinking[G]//Ye Qizheng Written by Ye Qizheng. Social Theory The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press.
——. 2006i. The rubbing game of globalization and localization [G]//Ye Qizheng. The local construction of social theory. Beijing: Peking University Press: 75 –94.
——. 2008. Toward a Sociology of Cultivation[M]. Taipei: Sanmin.
——. 2009. The “localization” research play of academic research under globalization[G]//Cheng Boqing, Edited by Zhou Xiaohong. Social Theory Series (4th Edition). Beijing: Peking University Press: 158–185.
——. 2012. Confession before Farewell[G]//Editors Ying Xing and Li Meng. Social Theory: Modern Sexuality and Localization: Collection of Essays on the 70th Anniversary of Su Guoxun and the Emeritus of Professor Ye Qizheng. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore: 36-44.
——. 2013a. Dismantling the theoretical myth of "structure-agency": the phenomenon of the integration of positive and negative emotions Theoretical Implications [J]. Society 33 (4): 1–34.
——. 2013b. Symbolic exchange and the blending of positive and negative emotions [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
——. 2013c. Ten years [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
——. 2013d. Historical jumps in profound ideological tethers: Hobbes, Nietzsche to Freud and the rebellion of the masses [M]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
— —. 2015. Response to feeling helpless [J]. Taiwan Journal of Sociology (56): 185–198.
——. 2016. Sociologists as storytellers [J]. Society 36 (2): 77–98.
Zeng Bowen. 2008. A brief reflection on “Native vs. Western” in social sciences [OL]. https://alberttzeng.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/ A brief reflection on “Native vs. Western” in social sciences Reflection. Date of access: August 30, 2016.
Zheng Zhicheng. 2013. Weber’s Cultural Science Methodology─A Tribute to Professor Zhang Wangshan[OL].http://soc.thu.edu.tw/courses/g102–2 .htm. Access date: August 29, 2016.
——. 2014. The binary opposition structure of cognitive anthropology as a methodological understanding strategy: Also on Georg Simmel’s sociological attempts [G]//Wang Zhenhuan , edited by Zhu Yuanhong, Huang Huanglin, and Chen Jiexuan. West and East: Gao Chengshu and Taiwanese Sociological Theory. Kaohsiung: Juliu: 157–201.
Zheng Zubang, Xie Shengyou. 2009. Ye Qizhengism and the localization of Taiwanese social theory [G]// Edited by Zou Chuanxiong and Su Fengshan. Reflections and Prospects on the Localization of Social Sciences: Collected Papers in Celebration of the Retirement of Professor Ye Qizheng. Chiayi: Institute of Educational Sociology, University of South China: 289–312.
Yuan Juzheng. 2014. Development of Social Science Methodology in Taiwan Philosophical Reflections[G]//West and East: Gao Chengshu and Taiwanese Sociological Theory. Edited by Wang Zhenhuan, Zhu Yuanhong, Huang Huanglin, and Chen Jiexuan. Kaohsiung: Juliu: 41-78.
Augustine. 1963. Confessions [M]. Translated by Zhou Shiliang . Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Burnham, Douglas, 2015, The Nietzsche Dictionary. London: Bloomsbury.
Chakravartty, Anjan, 2015, “Scientific Realism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. .), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/scientific-realism/.
De Zwart, Frank, 2015, “Unintended but not Unanticipated Consequences.” Theory and Society 44(3):283 –297.
Geertz, Clifford, 1995, After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Gorski, Philip S., 2016, “The Matter of Emergence: Material Artifacts and Social Structure. Qualitative Sociology 39(2):211-215.
Hirschman, Daniel, and Isaac Ariail Reed, 2014, “Formation Stories and Causality in Sociology.” Sociological Theory32(4): 259–282.
Liu, Sida and Emirbayer, Mustafa, 2016, “Field and Ecology.” Sociological Theory34(1):62–79.
Marshall, Gordon, ed., 1996, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mervyn, Hartwig, ed., 2015, Dictionary of Critical Realism. Oxford and New York: Routledge.
Lincoln Yvonna S. and E. G. Guba, 2007, “Paradigms.” Pp. 3355-3356 in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Ritzer Oxford and New York: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Reed, Isaac, 2008, “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory26(2): 101–129.
Sahlins, Marshall, 1981, Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Scott, John ed., 2014, A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Sewell, William Jr., 1992, “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation .” American Journal of Sociology98(1):1-29.
——, 2005, Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, William, 1923, “The Unadjusted Girl: With Cases and Standpoint for Behavior Analysis." Criminal Science Monographs(4) 1–257.
Wang, Yingyao, 2016, "Homology and Isomorphism: Bourdieu in Conversation with New Institutionalism." The British Journal of Sociology67(2):348–370.
Weber , Max, Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Wheeler, Michael, 2015, “Martin Heidegger”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, URL = http: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/heidegger/.
（Sociological Theory VAT Issue 301）
![[830301] Team BFF - DayDayNews](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3luW-Yx3rjw/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEcCOADEI4CSFXyq4qpAw4IARUAAIhCGAFwAcABBg==&rs=AOn4CLDeW3wYfdwL81yHsyMxPk98jdAIjg)
