结构-制度分析,还是过程-事件分析?——从多元话语分析的视角看  

"Process-Event Analysis",or"Structural Insitiuational Analysis"?——Perspective from Pluralistic Discourse Analysis

作　　者：谢立中[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学社会学系

出　　处：《中国农业大学学报（社会科学版）》2007年第4期12-31,共20页Journal of China Agricultural University;Social Sciences

基　　金：国家"十五"社会科学基金项目"社会研究中的话语-文本分析:后现代思潮的社会学意涵"(04BSH007)研究成果之一

摘　　要："过程-事件分析"(或"实践社会学")的倡导者批评"结构-制度分析"把社会现实当作一种静态的结构来加以看待,因而不能揭示社会生活的真实奥秘。他们主张只有采用"过程-事件分析"的研究策略,把社会现实当作一种动态的、流动的过程来加以看待,才能够对社会现实作出更为适当的描述和理解。"结构-制度分析"的倡导者则对此种看法进行了严正的反驳。其实,从多元话语分析学者的立场来看,这两种研究策略都只不过是我们可以用来建构社会现实的两种不同的话语系统而已。在它们的引导和约束之下,我们能够采用不同的话语策略来对社会现实做出不同的话语建构。但对于这两种话语系统及人们在它们各自的引导和约束之下所完成的那些话语建构之间到底孰优孰劣这样的问题,我们却难以做出绝对的判断和回答。The advocators of “Process-Event Analysis” （or “Practical Sociology” ） criticize that “Structural-Institutional Analysis” cannot divulge the real essence of social life because it views social reality as a static structure. Practical sociolo- gists argue that social reality can only be properly described and understood when it is considered as a dynamic and evolving process using “Process-Event Analysis” approach. Such views were solemnly rebutted by the advocators of “Structure-In- stitutional Analysis”. From the standpoint of Pluralistic discourse analysis, these two seemingly conflicting approaches are iust two different discourse systems which can be used to construct social reality. Under the guidance and constraint of these two approaches, we can construct two different social realities with different strategies of discourse. However, with regard to the question： which approach is better than the other, there is no definite answer.

关 键 词：过程-事件分析 实践社会学 结构-制度分析 多元话语分析 

分 类 号：C91[经济管理]