國家圖書館 期刊文獻資訊網

連結國家圖書館 連結期刊文獻資訊網

臺灣期刊論文索引

摘要

本篇出處 國立臺灣大學社會學刊 26 民87.06 頁53+55-97
篇名 「行動」和「結構」的拿捏
作者 葉啟政
中文摘要        在一九六零年代,Lockwood企圖以社會╱體系整合的二元概念來修補傳統結構功能論和衝突論之間理論論述上的裂痕。自此,學者們以「行動╱結構」來對應「社會╱體系整合」的二元概念,開展了一系列的論爭。在這一系列論爭中,Giddens以結構化理論立場提出了所謂的結構二元性,Habermas則企圖融薈Lockwood之社會╱體系整合的二元概念與Parsons的AGIL的社會體系說,提出體系╱社會世界的二元說,而Archer持形態衍生的立場,透過對Giddens結構化理論的批判,力主「行動╱結構」二元論。最後,Mouzelis則在兼顧二元性與二元論的情形下,提出了聯組╱項類的二元性╱二元論的主張。綜觀這些不同的主張,他們事實上分享著一個共同的思考模式-笛卡兒的主客對張二元觀。其所意圖處理的是,在同時承認「行動」與「結構」的存有意義的前提下,考察它們彼此之間如何讓渡或交錯。然而,其結果卻是,整個理論論述,最後又不自主地深陷進入「結構」概念所佈之天羅地網安排下的悲劇性「命運」結局。
英文摘要        In the 1960's, Lockwood proposed a pair of concept, namely, "social-versus system-integration" to re-articulate the lasting theoretical controversy between structural functionalism on the one side and conflict theory on the other side. Since then, this pair of concept has been brought into the rubric of "action versus structure" controversy, an important theoretical issue which has long been debated in the Western sociology. Along this line of debate, four main theoretical statements are examined. They are, namely, Giddens' theory of structuration, Habermas' field theory of system/life-world duality, Mouzelis' theory of hierarchy and Archer's theory of morphogenesis. In spite of the differences in theoretical perspectives appeared as they are, all of these four theoretical statements have in fact shared a common theoretical ground in which the notion of structure turns out as a real backbone of theoretical argument. As a result, in effect, the concept of actor or agency has been diluted into the water of the concept of structure which was initially regarded as merely a counterpart force with equivalent, but opposite momentum. However, such a structural-prone style of thinking has been a predomiinant model of viewing human society ever since the emergence of modern sociology back to Comte's age. In the final part of this article, the author presented a proto-type of alternative theoretical framework as a foundation to initiate a dialogue with the structural-prone model of society as illustrated in the tradition of Western Sociology.