臺灣社會變遷研究的歷史轉向：對整體觀與貶抑歷史敘事的一點反思

戰後社會學門臺灣社會變遷研究的歷史轉向不幸經歷了雙重的斷裂：與知識社群的斷裂以及與知識傳承的斷裂。與學術社群的斷裂包含「大小」不同的兩個斷裂：一是與本土社會變遷研究社群的斷裂，一是與國際社會變遷研究社群的斷裂。前者造成人類學漢人社會的歷史研究引領戰後臺灣社會變遷研究多年，後者造成臺灣社會變遷研究與九○年代國際人文社會科學界新興之「歷史轉向」潮流「脫鉤」多年。與現存國際「歷史轉向」學術傳承的斷裂包含「層次」不同的兩個斷裂：一是與方法學反省的斷裂，一是與社會存有觀反省的斷裂。前者造成敘事方法繼續被視為「異類」，後者則造成機遇與能動力一直被「視而不見」。筆者除了藉由反省既有臺灣社會變遷研究的「歷史化不足」與「整體化過度」，努力讓「結構與歷史」、「文化研究與政治經濟學」彼此相互批判之外，更思索要如何妥善處理好它們彼此間的關係，以導引出更加值得信賴的概念和方法立場，諸如「在地化」的社會變遷研究以及「霸權體制」的概念，聊供參酌。 The historic turn of post-war Taiwanese social change studies has experienced two ruptures: exile from knowledge communities, and a split with knowledge traditions. The exile resulted domestically in the delegation of social change studies to “Taiwanese anthropology,” while internationally a delinking from the historic turn trend in the social sciences. The split occurred at two levels: methodology and the conception of social existence. The first has prolonged the ongoing slight of narrative as the epistemological other, and the second has contributed to the invisibility of contingency and agency, rendering both as ontological anomalies. Rethinking the insufficient historicization and the over-totalizing holism in Taiwanese social change studies, the author argues for candid dialogue between structure-oriented and action-oriented studies as well as cultural studies and political economy, believing that direct engagement will result in more productive relationships. He also encourages localized social change studies as well as the adoption of hegemonic regime concept.