社會科學理論的建構 黃光國 2015.03.02

五四時期「新文化運動」 Ψ 知識界普遍盛行著三種意識形態： 社會達爾文主義、 科學主義、 反傳統主義。

「歐洲輸入之文化與吾華固有之文化，其根本性 質極端相反」，「吾人倘以新輸入之歐化為是， 則不得不以舊有之孔教為非」 「新舊之間絕無調和兩存之餘地」（陳獨秀， 1918）

1919年五四運動

科學主義的意識形態 「意識型態」：對於人、社會、及其與宇宙之關係的整體認知與 信念，有高度明確的「系統性」意見，將系統中的其他成分整合 在一個或幾個顯著的價值之下； 此種系統性並不蘊含「正確性」，也未必要經過任何客觀的檢驗。 這樣的思想系統往往是封閉的，傾向於對系統外的意見採取排斥 的態度（Shils, 1982）。

極端的「科學主義」者甚至將科學當做是全知全能的人類救世 主，而盲目地加以崇拜（Wellmuth, 1944）。 胡適（1923）：「這三十年來，有一個名詞在國內幾乎做到了 無上尊嚴的地位；無論懂與不懂的，無論守舊和維新的人，都 不敢公然對它表示輕視或戲侮的態度。那個名詞就是『科學』。 這樣幾乎舉國一致的崇信，究竟有無價值，那是另一個問題。 我們至少可以說，自從中國講變法維新以來，沒有一個自命為 新人物的人敢公開毀謗『科學』的。」

台灣自由主義派的學術傳統 1945年，台灣各級學校日籍教師都被遣返回國。 1949年，追隨國民政府撤守台灣的外省籍菁英，迅速填補了日籍 教師所留下的真空。 他們也同時帶來了五四時期新文化運動的意識形態。 中共在中國大陸推行「三反」、「五反」及「文化大革命」； 國民黨則在台灣推動「中華文化復興運動」。

殷海光教授 台大哲學系教邏輯，介紹邏輯實證論，以之作為批判國民黨的武 器，藉以提倡民主政治， 出版《中國文化的展望》（殷海光，1966），從他所謂「社會科 學」的角度，深入批判中華文化。

儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研 目次 第一章 本土心理學的知識論目標 第二章 從建構實在論看非西方社會的現代化 第三章 西方哲學中的人觀與典範轉移 第四章 〈人情與面子〉理論的建構 第五章 儒家思想的內在結構 第六章 華人道德思維的研究典範：後設理論分析 第七章 儒家社會中的道德思維與道德判斷 第八章 儒家關係主義與社會交換 第九章 儒家社會中的生活目標與成就動機 第十章 儒家社會中的道德與面子 第十一章 華人社會中的「關係」與組織行為 第十二章 華人社會中的衝突化解模式 （新增）跋 實在論、多重哲學典範與含攝文化的理論 15

第六章 華人道德思維的研究典範：後設理論分析 第七章 儒家社會中的道德思維與道德判斷 第八章 儒家關係主義與社會交換 第九章 儒家社會中的生活目標與成就動機 第十章 儒家社會中的道德與面子 第十一章 華人社會中的「關係」與組織行為 第十二章 華人社會中的衝突化解模式 第一章 本土心理學的知識論目標 第二章 從建構實在論看非西方社會的現代化 第三章 西方哲學中的人觀與典範轉移 第四章 〈人情與面子〉理論的建構 第五章 儒家思想的內在結構 第六章 華人道德思維的研究典範：後設理論分析 16

Carl Martin Allwood

On the Foundation of the Indigenous Psychologies Carl Martin Allwood   Social Epistemology Vol. 25, No.1, January 2011, pp.3-14

Reification of Culture in Indigenous Psychologies : Merit or Mistake? Kwang-Kuo Hwang   Social Epistemology Vol. 25, No. 2, April 2011, pp.125- 131

Calling for Scientific Revolution in Psychology Kwang-Kuo Hwang Social Epistemology Vol. 25, No. 2, April 2011, pp.153-166

Linking Science to Culture: The Third Wave of Psychology Chapter 1 The Mandala Model of Self Chapter 2 Lifeworld and Scientific Microworld Chapter 3 Philosophical Switch from Positivism to Post-Positivism Chapter 4 Linking Science to Culture Chapter 5 From Collectivism to Relationalism Chapter 6 The Construction of Culture-Inclusive Theories Chapter 7 Third Wave of Psychology Chapter 8 Cultural Identity, Subjectivity and Cultural Rehabilitation

Chapter 35　SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: DISCIPLINE, INTERDISCIPLINE OR TRANSDISCIPLINE?

In consideration of the discursive dualisms between the psychology-oriented social psychology and the sociology-oriented social psychology, author(s) of this chapter argued that : ……interdisciplinarity is often regarded as ‘desirable’ and is set in contrast to being overly specialised. However, the disciplinary organisation of sociology and psychology has generally meant that a genuine interdisciplinary approach to social psychology has proved elusive. This is unfortunate and has meant that social psychology has arguably suffered in terms of lacking an over-arching theoretical perspective.

Unfortunately, the author(s) did not know the works done by a Chinese indigenous psychologist Kwang-Kuo Hwang who is trying to propose a series of culture-inclusive theories on Confucian Relationalism for the sake of establishing research tradition of Chinese psychology. It is obviously an over-arching theoretical perspective: Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations. New York: Springer.

In the section on Transdiscipline, the author(s) indicated that “Perhaps the most significant impact on social psychology over the past quarter of a century or so has been the turn to language.” Perhaps the most influential approach has been that of discursive psychology”

But, in the Conclusion section, the author(s) also recognized that: ……whilst discursive psychology is capable of showing how people orientate towards each other in their discourse as being driven by an internal machinery of mind, it offers little in the way of explaining where this derives from. Those who adopt a broader explanatory framework in terms of the structural constraints of discourse fail to adequately offer a social psychology of action. Instead what we have is a very broad brush picture of how discourse operates. The origins of social psychology in both psychology and sociology effectively make this local/global split inevitable as it pulls in these different directions.

Hwang (2012) claimed that his works of theoretical construction had overcame the local / global split by following the principle of cultural psychology: “one-mind, many mentalities” (Shweder et al., 1998), In his book, Hwang advocated that book that the epistemological goal of indigenous psychology is to construct a series of theories that represent not only the universal mind of human beings, but also the particular mentality of people in a given society. He explained how he constructed the theoretical model of Face and Favor which was supposed to represent the universal mind for social interaction, then he used it to analyze the inner structure of Confucianism and discussed its attributes in terms of Western ethics. In the remaining chapters of that book, he constructed a series of theories on the presumption of relationalism to integrate findings of previous empirical research on social exchange, the concept of face, achievement motivation, organizational behaviors, and conflict resolution in Confucian society.

Hwang’s approach may also overcome the split between discourse and structural constraint. As an example for discourse as driven by an internal machinery of mind, please see Ch.12 of Hwang’s book on Conflict resolution models in Chinese society; As an example for structural constraints of discourse and actions, please see Ch.11. Guanxi and Chinese organizational behaviors.

Therefore, Hwang’s approach may alleviate the struggle of discourse psychology as indicated by the author(s) in the Abstract of this chapter: ……discourse involves a struggle for explanatory power in terms of either examining the ways in which psychological accounting is implicated in a flexible way as part of social practices at a ‘local’ level, or moving up an explanatory notch to a consideration of the operation of discourses on a more deterministic ‘global’ level.

I totally agree with the author(s)’ argument that : To be seen to be intelligible and to be able to convey one’s ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ in the form of judgements, reasons, and evaluations as the outcome of some kind of mental process. In perceptual-cognitive processing terms it is an “input-process-output” model.

Hwang’s (2012) book Foundations of Chinese Psychology may be used to support this argument. But, I would like to emphasize that Hwang claimed that his universal models of self and social interaction can be applied to other cultures as well. Please see: Hwang, K. K (2015). Culture-Inclusive Theories of Self and Social Interaction: The Approach of Multiple Philosophical Paradigms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45(1), 39-62.

The author(s) said that: However, it is also apparent that social psychology has considerable scope to involve other disciplines such as anthropology, political science and linguistics. Each of these areas has contributed to some degree or other a more interdisciplinary form of social psychology. For example, the importance of culture has aided social psychology in providing a broader perspective on gender, whilst the inclusion of a political science perspective has helped in studying political persuasion and voting patterns. However, it is the turn to language where the greatest degree of cross-fertilisation has occurred.

I agree with the general discussion of this paragraph, but I don’t agree with its conclusion because of the weakness of discursive psychology in contrast to Hwang’s approach of multiple philosophical paradigms. It seems to me that a genuine interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approach to social psychology can be achieved by the turn to philosophy rather than the turn to language. Speaking more specifically, Hwang’s approach multiple philosophical paradigms has utilized philosophies frequently used by different disciplines including philosophy of post- positivism (psychology), structuralism (anthropology), hermanentics (language) and critical theory (political science).

Chapter 2 THE CONVERGENT PARADIGM IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Epistemological Bases for the Development of the Discipline

Tracing historical profiles in Western social psychology which stands between psychology and sociology, this article grouped the different conceptualizations of social psychology into four perspectives: (1) group, (2) individualist, (3) institutional, and (4) transactional, and advocated for the different alternatives of ethogenics approach which share such features as: the rejection of positivism, the recognition of human beings as active agents, the historical character of psychosocial events, the consideration of a practical rationality, and also the interest for daily aspects of life including reflecting on available knowledge.

The author(s) argued that: New scientific proposals are supported by thoughts of modern philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Popper, Lakatos or Derrida (Infante & Irizo, 2009). From rather different points of view towards science, all of them agree in postmodern, post-positivist, and/or post-industrial ideas. The key element in a post-positivist perspective is the one admitting that theory precedes observation, the lack of theories in any fact, and that theories are socially constructed.

Hwang’s approach of multiple philosophical paradigms is also very different from the so-called ‘convergent paradigm’ with such features as: (1) political awareness, (2) eclecticism, (3) vulnerability of study object, (4) methodological pluralism, (5) circular world vision, (6) disengagement from quantitative tendency, and (7), scientific relativism.

Because Hwang’s approach consisted of two steps: (1) the construction of theoretical models to represent universal minds; (2) using those models to construct culture-inclusive theories of psychology. His approach of multiple philosophical paradigms shares many features with that of convergent paradigm, including: (1) political awareness; (2) methodological pluralism; (3) vulnerability of study object; (4) circular world vision; But, these two approaches are incompatible in several aspects: (1) eclectism; (2) disengagement from quantitative tendency; (3) scientific relativism. The difference between these two approaches can be seen from Hwang’s two aforementioned articles.

The difference are very important for the discourse of this article, because the author(s) claimed in its Background section that ‘A deconstruction view is mainly what guides the present work.’ ‘My research have moved from the quantitative approach by which I was brought up as a student and researcher to a set of qualitative methodologies which I found them more suitable……’, and ‘most of quantitative results derived by experimental designs are rather inapplicable to society and strictly serve its value in the academic realm.’

However, Hwang (2015) cited Bhaskar’s philosophy of Critical Realm to argue that if culture-inclusive theories for social mechanisms can be constructed, those theories can be used for either qualitative research on social events or quantitative research on empirical experiences. Table 1 Bhaskar’s three ontological domains (adapted and revised from Bhaskar, 2008, p. 13)

Hence this article is designated to discuss ‘Epistemological Bases for the Development of the Discipline’, I suggest the author(s) to change its title into ‘ The Convergent Paradigm and Multiple Philosophical Paradigms in Social Psychology’, to increase a section to include Hwang’s works, and to discuss the difference between these two approaches. Otherwise, the content of this article would be biased.

社會科學的理路(三版) 目次 第四篇 結構主義 第五篇 詮釋學 第六篇 批判理論 第七篇 一個新的起點 第十二章 李維史陀的結構主義 第一章 學術生涯的視域 第一篇 維根斯坦的語言哲學 第二章 邏輯哲學論 第三章 語言遊戲論 第二篇 實證主義 第四章 石里克的邏輯實證論 第五章 卡納普的經驗主義 第六章 韓佩爾的邏輯經驗主義 第三篇 後實證主義 第七章 波柏的進化認識論 第八章 孔恩的科學革命 第九章 拉卡托斯的科學研究綱領 第十章 費耶本德的科學無政府主義 第十一章 勞登的研究傳統 第四篇 結構主義 第十二章 李維史陀的結構主義 第十三章 皮亞傑的結構主義 第十四章 傅柯的後結構主義 第五篇 詮釋學 第十五章 胡塞爾的現象學 第十六章 海德格的存在哲學 第十七章 高達美的詮釋學 第六篇 批判理論 第十八章 哈柏瑪斯的知識論 第十七篇 一個新的起點 第十九章 建構實在論 第七篇 一個新的起點 第二十章 批判實在論 第二十一章 多重哲學典範的研究取向 52

《盡己與天良：破解韋伯的迷陣》 目次 第一部：以理論挑戰韋伯學說 第一章 韋伯學派與東方主義 第二章 多重哲學典範：由「集體主義」到「關係主義」 第三章 「自我的曼陀羅模型」：智慧與行動 第二部：傳統中國的理性化 第四章 西歐與中國：解除世界的魔咒 第五章 西方的眼鏡：巫術或科學？ 第六章 「天道」與「鬼神」：儒家道德的形上學基礎 第三部：先秦儒家的文化型態學 第七章 儒家的庶人倫理：「仁、義、禮」倫理體系 第八章 儒家的「士之倫理」：濟世以道 第九章 「道」與「君子」：儒家「自我」的追尋 第十章 反思與實踐：儒家的自我修養理論 第十一章 歷練與中庸：儒家的政治行動理論 第四部：儒家的文化衍生學 第十二章 程朱的理學：「正宗」或「別子」？ 第十三章 陸王的心學：由「天人合一」到「知行合一」 第十四章 經學的反思：從「批判」到「揚棄」 第十五章 陽明學在日本：武士刀與算盤 第十六章 本土社會科學：從「復健」到「復興」  

儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究 目次 第一章 本土心理學的知識論目標 第二章 從建構實在論看非西方社會的現代化 第三章 西方哲學中的人觀與典範轉移 第四章 〈人情與面子〉理論的建構 第五章 儒家思想的內在結構 第六章 華人道德思維的研究典範：後設理論分析 第七章 儒家社會中的道德思維與道德判斷 第八章 儒家關係主義與社會交換 第九章 儒家社會中的生活目標與成就動機 第十章 儒家社會中的道德與面子 第十一章 華人社會中的「關係」與組織行為 第十二章 華人社會中的衝突化解模式 （新增）跋 實在論、多重哲學典範與含攝文化的理論 55

倫理療癒與德性領導的後現代智慧 目次 第一章 「主／客對立」與「天人合一」：後現代的智慧 第二章 盡己：儒家倫理療癒的理論 第一章 「主／客對立」與「天人合一」：後現代的智慧 第二章 盡己：儒家倫理療癒的理論 第三章 儒家文化中的倫理療癒 第四章 華人組織中的陰／陽均衡與德性領導 第五章 王道與霸術：儒家文化中的企業管理 第六章 中國人的兵法與計策行為

自我與關係的理論聯結

Figure 1. A theoretical model of Face and Favor (Adopted from Hwang 1987: 948)

Figure 3. Fei’s differential order (adopted from Fei, 1948)

Figure 4. The psychosociogram of man (adopted from Hsu, 1971)

Figure 5. The prototype of self as a Mandala

Figure 6. The properties of renqing as a kind of resource for social exchange