透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.137.178.133
  • 期刊

政治學改造運動的爭議和啟發:從「通則」到「脈絡」的轉向

Indications in the Perestroika in Political Science: Turning from Generalization to Contextualization

摘要


2001年美國政治學年會爆發了一場類似政變的政治學「改造運動」,指摘理性抉擇和實證量化研究形成聯合「霸權」,扭曲了政治學的發展方向,故要求進行改造。就方法論的訴求而言,改造者從「理論負載」和「問題驅策」等訴求,形成一條明確的批判主軸。然而彼等的重建主張卻很單薄,許多方面是在重複後行為主義政治學革命的論調。本文發現,在改造者和其他批判者言語的字裡行間,透露了不少對「脈絡」的殷切需求。而此一需求和1960年代開啟的諸多知識「轉向」有呼應關係,旨在開啟更寬廣而有系統的脈絡探索之學。基於此,本文特別強調當代語言學的「論述轉向」,認為政治學可以從偏重「通則」轉向偏重「脈絡」。如此,將有助於達成改造者所揭示的方向:「周全科學的政治學」。

並列摘要


The Perestroika Movement in political science reflects the long existed ”fractured” situation in the discipline and confusion for the future development in the post-cold war era. Perestroika activists accuse that quantitative-oriented positivism and rational choice have conformed a united ”hegemony” in the discipline as distorting research resource and developmental courses. This article contends that the so called ”hegemony” refers to the superior of knowledge status based on the logic foundation of the nomological model of explanation. Perestroika activists present strong criticisms on this problem. However, they did not see the much more serious problem of the short of ”context” in the discipline and thus can not give good suggestion of reconstructing. For reversing this biased view, this article suggests that the discipline should take the way of ”discourse turn” to follow the new perspective of the post-positivism and to adopt the new research methods such as textual content analysis and textual narrative analysis. Eventually, it may enhance the dialectical interactions between empirical science and interpretative science in the discipline. And hopefully it may help to reach the goal of ”an ecumenical science of politics” stated by the Perestroika activists.

參考文獻


Francis, Fukuyama李永熾譯(1993)。歷史之終結與最後一人。台北:時報。
Sokolowski, Robert李維倫譯(2004)。現象學十四講。台北:心靈工作坊。
林繼文(2005)。虛假霸權:台灣政治學研究中的理性抉擇。政治科學論叢。25,67-104。
苑舉正(2004)。維根斯坦哲學對後實證科學哲學。東海大學文學院學報。45,427-454。
徐振國(2002)。政治學方法論偏頗發展的檢討。政治社會哲學學報。2,123-178。

被引用紀錄


莫大華(2020)。國際關係建構主義理論發展的世代危機或轉機:十字路口或死巷?政治學報(70),77-119。https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.202012_(70).0003

延伸閱讀