The analysis of the borders of the social world: A challenge for sociological theory
The analysis of the borders of the social world: A challenge for sociological theory
复制标题
社会世界边界分析：对社会学理论的挑战
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gesa Lindemann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gesa Lindemann
为了划定社会现象的领域，社会学家含蓄地或明确地提到活人与其他实体之间的区别，也就是说，社会学家将社会世界等同于活人的世界。这一共识只受到少数作者（如Luckmann）和一些科学研究学者的质疑。根据这些方法，将只有活着的人类才能成为社会行动者的前提视为不言而喻的，这将是种族中心主义。这种批判在方法论上的结果是社会学研究的彻底去人类化。是否只有活着的人才能成为社会行动者，这必须被视为一个悬而未决的问题。本文首先讨论了这种对社会世界边界的分析所带来的方法论问题，并提出了在重症监护和神经康复领域对这些边界进行实证分析的结果。在这些领域中，必须确定一个身体是一个活生生的人体还是一个利用人体的符号。对这些基本边界现象的分析挑战了基本的社会学概念。当代相关的社会学理论将二元星座作为其社会性概念的系统起点。至少两个实体之间的复杂关系被理解为新秩序发展的基础，新秩序作为相关各方之间的中介结构发挥作用。根据经验数据，我认为有必要改变这一基本假设。不是二元星座，而是三元星座必须被理解为基础星座。这意味着对第三行为者的新理解，这与西梅尔、伯杰和卢克曼提出的概念不同。
:In order to delimit the realm of social phenomena, sociologists refer implicitly or explicitly to a distinction between living human beings and other entities, that is, sociologists equate the social world with the world of living humans. This consensus has been questioned by only a few authors, such as Luckmann, and some scholars of science studies. According to these approaches, it would be ethnocentric to treat as self-evident the premise that only living human beings can be social actors. The methodological consequence of such critique is a radical deanthropologization of sociological research. It must be considered an open question whether or not only living human can be social actors. The paper starts with a discussion of the methodological problems posed by such an analysis of the borders of the social world, and presents the results of an empirical analysis of these borders in the fields of intensive care and neurological rehabilitation. Within these fields it must be determined whether a body is a living human body or a symbol using human body. The analysis of these elementary border phenomena challenges basic sociological concepts. The relevant contemporary sociological theories refer to a dyadic constellation as the systematic starting point of their concept of sociality. The complex relationship between at least two entities is understood as the basis of the development of a novel order that functions as a mediating structure between the involved parties. Based upon empirical data, I argue that it is necessary to change this foundational assumption. Not the dyad but the triad must be understood as the foundational constellation. This implies a new understanding of the third actor, which is distinct from the concepts developed by Simmel and Berger and Luckmann.