文献驿站01｜《古典社会学刊》（Journal of Classical Sociology）2024年8月，第24卷第3期
文摘
2024-10-01 04:19
美国
“为了激发社会科学家们从社会学经典中汲取的深邃见解，并用那些被遗忘或从未被充分利用的观点和事实来丰富当前的研究，保持对这些文本的访问至关重要。《古典社会学刊》（Journal of Classical Sociology）持续提供关于经典作家及其主题的文章，为我们重新发现这些宝贵资源提供了独特的机会。每一期我都学到了一些有价值的东西。” —— 唐纳德·N·莱文（ Donald N. Levine），芝加哥大学“通过精心挑选的个人论文、专题问题以及对国内外出版物的广泛评论，《古典社会学刊》已确立其作为社会思想领域顶尖期刊的地位。它提供了对古典社会学家的新解读和阐释，以及对他们思想在当代知识辩论和思潮中的实际意义的把握。在这个全球化的时代，《古典社会学刊》为连接过去与现在提供了不可或缺的材料。” —— Edward A. Tiryakian，杜克大学《古典社会学刊》（Journal of Classical Sociology）是一个重要的资源，它专注于国际上对古典传统的贡献。该期刊阐明了社会学的起源，并展示了古典传统如何更新当今的社会学想象力。它是对从启蒙运动到21世纪社会学的根源和形成的批判性但建设性的反思。它促进了对早期社会理论的讨论，如霍布斯的契约理论，以及与19世纪和20世纪初孔德、马克思、涂尔干、韦伯、西美尔、凡勃伦等思想家相关的经典作品。它也涵盖了帕累托和莫斯卡的思想，一直到当代的网络理论和社会系统理论的变革。《古典社会学刊》发表探讨社会理论在思想上的争议性的论文。虽然社会学是该期刊的主要焦点，但欢迎跨学科的贡献，例如来自精神分析、经济学、政治理论、人类学和文化研究等领域。《古典社会学刊》特别刊登关于关键思想家和辩论的评论文章。此外，它还发表扩展的评论文章，以鼓励对新出版作品的批判性讨论。 Durkheim, Religion, and the Postcolonial Critique of Sociology’s Eurocentrism涂尔干、宗教和对社会学欧洲中心论的后殖民批判José Juan Osés BermejoIn light of the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism, the epistemological foundations of sociology and the legacies of classical sociologists have certainly become controversial. Postcolonial critiques of sociology’s Eurocentrism have denounced the “parochial” nature and limitations of the theoretical contributions left by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the reductive and stereotyping orientation of the “primitivist” and/or “orientalist” representations of non-Western peoples that can be identified in their work, and the incomplete and misleading accounts of the Western processes of modernization that we have inherited from them, which fail to fully address and satisfactorily account for the realities of modern Western forms of colonialism and imperialism. However, the nature and consequences of Durkheim’s specific sociological Eurocentrism raise opposing views within postcolonialism. This article aims to evaluate the pertinence of the divergent and sometimes contradictory postcolonial appraisals of Durkheim’s Eurocentrism by focusing particularly on the controversies generated by his sociological approach to religion. Placing Durkheim’s sociological project within both the academic field and the socio-political context in which it took shape, this article highlights the shifting relevance and the implications of his evolving sociological approach to this object of study in his science of morals. Although it is not exempt from inconsistencies and Eurocentric assumptions, Durkheim’s sociological approach to religion leaves an invaluable legacy for a non-dualistic sociological understanding of the rituals through which humans (re)create their social identities and their forms of belonging and solidarity. In line with the priorities of some postcolonial agendas, it can fully reveal its explanatory potential in the sociological investigation of modern and contemporary interethnic and racial conflicts and forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism.鉴于后殖民主义对欧洲中心论的批判，社会学的认识论基础以及古典社会学家的遗产确实变得颇具争议。后殖民主义对社会学的欧洲中心论的批判揭露了马克思、韦伯和涂尔干留下的理论贡献的“狭隘性”及其局限性，以及在他们作品中可以识别的对非西方民族的“原始主义”和/或“东方主义”表现的简化和刻板化倾向，还有我们从他们那里继承的对西方现代化进程的不完整和误导性叙述，这些叙述未能充分探讨并令人满意地解释现代西方殖民主义和帝国主义的现实。然而，涂尔干特有的社会学欧洲中心论的性质和后果在后殖民主义内部引发了对立的观点。本文旨在通过特别关注涂尔干对宗教的社会学方法所引发的争议，评估后殖民主义对涂尔干欧洲中心论的不同（且有时相互矛盾）评价的相关性。本文将涂尔干的社会学项目置于其形成的学术领域和社会政治背景之中，强调了他的社会学方法在道德科学中与这一研究对象之间不断变化的相关性和影响。尽管涂尔干的宗教社会学方法不免存在前后矛盾和欧洲中心主义假设，但它为从非二元对立的社会学视角理解人类（重新）构建其社会身份及其归属和团结形式的仪式留下了宝贵的遗产。与一些后殖民主义议程的优先事项相一致，它在社会学研究中对现代和当代的种族间和种族冲突以及殖民主义和新殖民主义的各种形式具有充分的解释潜力。A disenchanted world: Max Weber on magic and modernity一个祛魅的世界：马克斯·韦伯论魔力与现代性Mario Marotta Despite its great popularity in both the scientific and non-scientific fields, Max Weber’s concept of “disenchantment” remains mostly obscure and in recent years it has become the center of an interdisciplinary debate on modernity involving both Weberian specialists and non-specialists. The aim of the article is to return to Weber’s text and analyze Weber’s use of the term and the meaning of what he calls the “disenchantment of the world.” To do so I follow Taylor’s and Schluchter’s insight and investigate how Weber would picture an initial condition of enchantment. However, while these interpreters did not explore the Weberian perspective on magic, I instead show that not only Weber had a precise and original conception of magic as the primitive attitude toward the world, but also that this conception may clarify the meaning and dynamics of the process of disenchantment in both the spheres of religion and of science.尽管马克斯·韦伯的“祛魅”概念在科学和非科学领域都广受欢迎，但它在大多数情况下仍然晦涩难懂，近年来已成为韦伯专家和非专家就现代性问题展开的跨学科辩论的焦点。本文旨在回归韦伯的文本，分析韦伯对“世界的祛魅”这一术语的使用及其含义。为此，我采纳了泰勒和施鲁赫特的见解，探讨韦伯如何描绘出一种被魔力笼罩的初始状态。然而，这些解释者并未深入探讨韦伯对魔力的看法，我则展示了韦伯不仅对魔力作为对世界的一种原始态度有着明确而独特的理解，而且这一理解还可能阐明宗教和科学领域中祛魅过程的意义和动态。The postwar Columbia tradition in sociology: Its cognitive commonalities and social mechanisms战后哥伦比亚大学社会学传统：其认知共性与社会机制Charles Crothers For a period of some three decades (1940s–1970s) the faculty and graduate students at the Department of Sociology at Columbia University, and its associated research unit (the Bureau of Applied Social Research: BASR), successfully produced a stream of innovative sociological studies which was particularly important in building on the foundations of classical sociology to establish modern sociology. Modern Sociology was produced as a theoretically sophisticated scientific enterprise firmly based on a solid empirical foundation produced by appropriate social research methods (as master-minded by Paul F. Lazarsfeld). The ‘Columbia Tradition’ is an approach, rather than being focussed on any particular subject matter, involved the development of ‘middle-range theory’, often broken-out from classic theory (as propounded by Robert K. Merton), and backed up by efforts at knowledge cumulation and institution building. But the School included a glittering array of important sociologists and hosts of others who extended the work of the two leaders, developing it in further directions, as is expected of any school. This school was sustained by the vision of a developing scientific sociology propounded by its founders, but it faltered as its founders retired from active leadership roles, in addition to being impacted by changes in Columbia University and broader Sociology environments.在大约三十年的时间里（20世纪40年代至70年代），哥伦比亚大学社会学系的教师和研究生，以及相关研究单位（应用社会研究局，BASR），成功地开展了一系列创新性的社会学研究。这些研究对于在古典社会学的基础上建立现代社会学尤为重要。现代社会学作为一项理论精深的科学事业，其坚实的经验基础是通过适当的社会研究方法（由保罗·F·拉扎斯菲尔德主导）建立起来的。所谓的“哥伦比亚传统”是一种方法论，而非专注于任何特定主题，它涉及“中层理论”的发展（如罗伯特·K·默顿所倡导的理论），这些理论通常从经典理论中提炼出来，并得到了知识积累和制度建设努力的支持。该学派汇集了一批杰出的社会学家长和众多其他学者，他们扩展了两位领军人物的工作，并将其推向了更广泛的发展方向，这是任何学派所期望的。这一学派得益于其创始人提出的科学社会学发展愿景的支撑，但随着创始人逐渐退出活跃的领导岗位，以及受到哥伦比亚大学和更广泛社会学环境变化的影响，该学派逐渐衰落。Disassembling the actant: A valediction to actor-network theory拆解行动者：告别行动者-网络理论Anthony KingOn 9 October 2022, Bruno Latour died. His death was widely and deeply mourned. He is a great loss to sociology. This article takes Latour’s death as cue to make an initial posthumous assessment of his work. It argues that, with Latour’s death, sociology is at a cross-roads which in some ways reprises the Tarde-Durkheim debate. When Tarde died in 1904, the Durkheimian school became dominant. After Latour’s death, this article considers whether that history might now been reversed with a subsidence of the Durkheimian tradition. The article argues it should not. While recognising Latour’s ingenious creativity and his massive contribution to sociology, the article rejects Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Despite the many strengths of ANT and the extraordinary influence it has exerted, the article dissects the actant to claim that ANT is a flawed project. It argues in order to avoid accusations of determinism, the status of the actant was always ambiguous in ANT. As a result, although Latour consistently denied the power of human social groups, his analyses eventually relied upon surreptitious appeals to them. The neo-Durkheimian currents which are evident in contemporary sociology should re-assert themselves.2022年10月9日，布鲁诺·拉图尔逝世。他的去世引起了广泛的深切哀悼。他对社会学界是一个巨大的损失。本文以拉图尔的逝世为契机，对他生前的工作进行了初步的身后评价。文章主张，随着拉图尔的去世，社会学界正站在一个十字路口，这在某种程度上重现了塔尔德与涂尔干之间的辩论。1904年塔尔德去世后，涂尔干学派成为了主导。拉图尔去世后，本文探讨了是否这一历史可能会随着涂尔干传统的衰退而逆转。文章认为，这种逆转不应发生。尽管承认拉图尔的非凡创造力和他对社会学的深远贡献，但本文对行动者-网络理论（ANT）持反对态度。尽管ANT有许多优点，并且产生了巨大的影响力，但本文通过剖析行动者的概念，认为ANT是一个有缺陷的项目。文章认为，为了避免被指责为决定论，行动者在ANT中的地位始终是模糊不清的。因此，尽管拉图尔一直否认人类社会群体的影响力，但他的分析最终仍然依赖于对这些群体的隐秘诉求。在当代社会学中，新涂尔干主义的思潮应当重新确立其地位。
