“俘获论题”与相对主义的政治——西方马克思主义STS与科学知识社会学的交锋  

‘The Capture Thesis’ and the Politics of Relativism:The Controversy between Western Marxism STS and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

作　　者：丁奎元 赵万里[1] DING Kui-yuan;ZHAO Wan-li(Department of Sociology,Zhou EnLai School of Government,Nankai University,Tianjin 300350,China)

机构地区：[1]南开大学周恩来政府管理学院社会学系,天津300350

出　　处：《自然辩证法研究》2022年第9期62-69,共8页Studies in Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“新时代中国马克思主义社会学的理论创新和意识形态建设研究”(18ZDA163)。

摘　　要：深受马克思主义-贝尔纳学派-激进科学这一学术传统影响的行动主义科学社会学者,通过提出“俘获论题”,质疑了SSK强纲领所塑造的中立的研究者角色。而柯林斯在回应中接受了“俘获论题”的分析但是拒绝了它的结论——“中立”作为一种方法论的处方应该得到坚持。在进一步的争论中,相对主义者和行动主义者明确和发展了各自的政治信奉与方法选择,并批评了对方体系中存在的问题。承认中立性作为信奉而不是方法论准则就为行动主义的取向留有了空间,但是行动主义者先验式的信奉以及其“干预”式的研究方法也受到了相对主义者的攻击。这场关于争论的争论推动了科学批判的学术化和SSK的反思。Deeply influenced by the academic tradition of Marxism-Bernalism-Radical Science,activist sociologists of science questioned the neutral researcher role created by the SSK Strong Program by proposing ‘the Capture Thesis’.In his response,Collins accepted the analysis of ‘the Capture Thesis’ but rejected its conclusion that “neutrality” as methodology should be upheld.In the further debate,relativists and activists defined and developed their own political commitment and method choices,and criticized the problems existing in the system of the other side.The recognition of neutrality as a commitment rather than a methodological criterion left room for the orientation of activism,but the transcendental commitment of activists and their “intervention” research methods were also attacked by relativists.This debate on the controversy had promoted the academicalization of the critique of science and the reflection of SSK.

关 键 词：俘获论题 行动主义 相对主义 SSK 西方马克思主义STS 

分 类 号：G301[文化科学]