知识社区_价值基点_制度自觉_关_省略_学社会科学创新的若干思考_英文_王卓君

Social Sciences in ChinaV ol. XXXIII, No. 3, August 2012, 157-170SPECIAL ISSUE: THEORETICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY SYSTEM OF CHINESE ACADEMIC DISCOURSEKnowledge Community, Value Base and System Consciousness: A Refl ection on Innovation in Philosophy and Social SciencesWang ZhuojunSchool of Politics and Public Administration, Soochow University如何推进哲学社会科学创新是“十二五”期间的重大课题。

把握哲学社会科学创新的社区逻辑，厘清阻碍哲学社会科学创新的价值矛盾，探索实现哲学社会科学创新的制度路径，对于推进我国哲学社会科学的基础创新、整体进步意义重大。

关键词：哲学社会科学创新发展知识社区价值基点制度自觉An important task in the period of 12th Five-year Plan is to promote innovation in researchin philosophy and social sciences. In order to fulfi ll this task, we need to grasp the logic ofthe knowledge community, clear up value confl icts that hinder our progress, and map theroute of system change in this fi eld.Keywords: philosophy and social sciences, innovation and development, knowledge community, value base, system consciousnessInnovation, structural transformation and changes in our mode of development are some of the key words frequently appearing in our 12th Five-year Plan. They are also thematic words for the development of our research on philosophy and social sciences. Recently, scholars in this fi eld have presented multi-dimensional papers in which valuable opinions abound. In the author’s opinion, with respect to overall strategies, priority should be given to understanding the deeper logic of the knowledge community, reconciling internal value confl icts that hinder innovation, and exploring ways to establish knowledge systems that facilitate innovation. Those priorities are of great theoretical signifi cance for the promotion of innovation in these fi elds.ISSN 0252-9203© 2012 Social Sciences in China PressDOI: /10.1080/02529203.2012.702949158Social Sciences in ChinaI.Knowledge Community Divisions and Innovation in Research in Philosophy andSocial SciencesIn today’s society, people tend to place more importance on individual freedom, individual rights and individual status. So in the production and management of knowledge, more often than not the stress is on the importance of individual freedom and individual innovation in research on philosophy and social sciences at the expense of neglecting their holistic and communal properties. Reflecting upon the historical development and spatial structure of philosophy and social sciences, we consider innovation in this realm to be a consequence of the unifi cation of individual and communal properties. The development of the knowledge community as a whole is of primary signifi cance to the promotion of creativity in this fi eld.To a considerable extent, “knowledge community” is a synonym for what Thomas S. Kuhn termed the “scientific community.”1 As Kuhn sees it, the knowledge community is of fundamental significance to our understanding of scientific revolutions and advances in knowledge. He claimed that his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions neglected to some degree the relationship between the knowledge community and the scientifi c revolution and advances in knowledge. “If this book were being rewritten, it would therefore open with a discussion of the community structure of science, a topic that has recently become a signifi cant subject of sociological research and that historians of science are also beginning to take seriously.”2The demonstration by Kuhn of the relationship between paradigm shifts and the knowledge community is in the fi nal analysis a revelation of the relationship between knowledge innovation and the knowledge community. Kuhn says: “A paradigm is what the members of a scientifi c community share, and, conversely, a scientifi c community consists of men who share a paradigm.”3In the relationship between knowledge production and the knowledge community, the knowledge community is an important carrier of scientific knowledge, and both normal science and scientifi c revolutions are based on the activities of this community.4 Individual manipulation of a piece of knowledge or a method may contain elements of truth, but in terms of effect and function, it is not really part of social knowledge or a research paradigm. A1　The Chinese translation of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions uses two words here, both of which mean community. “Community” (shequ社区) and “common body” (gongtongti 共同体) do not differ in essence. In the Chinese context as well as in this article, we use “community” instead of “common body” for two reasons. First, “common body” is more likely to be understood as referring to a relatively enclosed entity with a stronger ideological overtone, whereas “community” sounds more neutral, open and inclusive. Second, the concept of community can be generalized as referring to the particular structural relationships between the individual and the collective, which are the main bodies in knowledge production. In comparison to the relationship among knowledge producers, their relationship with their work units and the community is relatively loose, fl exible and subject to change.2　Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions, p. 158.3　Ibid.4　Ibid., p. 161.Wang Zhuojun159paradigm “stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community.”5 “Paradigms are something shared by the members of such groups.”6 An important prerequisite for a piece of knowledge to become part of social knowledge is consensus within a certain group. On the other hand, sharing is a precondition for the existence of a community who share not only common knowledge but also a common background, discourse, methodology and research subject. “A scientifi c community consists of the practitioners of a scientifi c specialty.”7 “Communities of this sort are the units that this book has presented as the producers and validators of scientifi c knowledge.”8 “The need for agreement depends on what it is the community does.”9 As opposed to a community of daily life, a working community or an ethnic community, the scientific community is a special kind of community centered on knowledge. Its central tasks are the production, innovation, handing down and dissemination of knowledge.A knowledge community is spontaneous and constructive. It can form on its own, yet it also needs conscious cultivation. The relationship between the knowledge community and creativity in philosophy and social sciences, as well as the functions the knowledge community performs in this fi eld, can be illustrated as follows:(1) The ongoing differentiation and specialization within the knowledge community serve as a major driving force for the creativity and progress of research in philosophy and social sciences.The history of the development of research in philosophy and social sciences in general and its modern history in particular is in a sense a history of the ongoing differentiation and specialization of the knowledge community. Reviewing the history of ancient Greek philosophy and science, we see that the emergence and existence of a variety of knowledge communities contributed greatly to the fl ourishing of research in the philosophy and science of the time. There were a great variety of philosophical schools, represented by the Milesians who emphasized “quintessential substance,” Pythagoras who gave priority to mathematics and “eternity,” and Heraclitus who placed “fl ux” above all other things, not to mention the great philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. All of them attracted a great many followers and disciples. In Europe, starting from the Enlightenment, the scientifi c revolution and the knowledge revolution accelerated. This was also closely related to the further differentiation and specialization of the knowledge community from which sprang such prominent fi gures as Montesquieu, Hume, Adam Smith, Kant and Hegel. As great thinkers, they interpreted the development and history of society from different angles and gathered many followers of their own. The fact that at the time social and philosophical studies were divided into5　Ibid., p. 157.6　Ibid., p. 160.7　Ibid., p. 159.8　Ibid., p. 161.9　Ibid., p. 162.160Social Sciences in China“prescriptive” and “descriptive” contributed to people’s acceptance of the different social studies methodologies initiated by Marx, Comte, Weber and Freud. In the era of modern philosophy and social sciences, the frequent emergence of new methodologies that contribute to the fl ourishing of these fi elds is in a sense also the result of the continued differentiation of the knowledge community. Newly emerging academic and knowledge communities facilitate the exploration of new issues and new academic interests.This tells us that the achievements of research in philosophy and the social sciences should be attributed not only to research on new issues pertaining to social production and life and to the establishment of relatively autonomous disciplines with their own methodologies, but also to the formation of particular knowledge communities centered on particular problems and methodologies. In this sense, the construction and formation of new knowledge communities serves as a major structural driver for innovation in these fields. Those communities are helpful in rallying specialist researchers to concentrate on developing new methodologies and paradigms for particular issues. They also help to revitalize the creative potential of traditional knowledge communities, and to promote competition and communication between them. In this sense, embracing and encouraging the differentiation of knowledge communities is as wise as it is inevitable.(2) Seen from the point of view of the problems and confl icts in knowledge innovation, a major hindrance to the progress of modern research in philosophy and the social sciences is the over-differentiation of knowledge communities and the multiple “intersubjective ruptures” those communities confront.As the division of labor in our society becomes ever more fine-grained and as self-organizing social or quasi-social systems become more independent or even hedged off from each other, the isolation of these specialized social systems, including systems of social production and knowledge production, is becoming more evident. As a profound problem of modernity, “intersubjective ruptures” manifest themselves in the realm of philosophy and social sciences as deep-seated and multiple “intercommunity ruptures.” On the one hand, “everyday” innovations in the social production system (production community) cannot be integrated into the knowledge production system (knowledge community) in a systemized, standardized and concentrated way. At the same time, different knowledge production systems (knowledge communities) often do not communicate well with each other.“Every researcher speaks from within a distinct interpretive community, which configures, in a special way, the multicultural and gendered components of the research act.”10 Complex and multi-dimensional “intercommunity ruptures” greatly impede synthesis and innovation as well as overall progress in philosophy and social sciences and damage the degree of science and quality of civilization in social development.On the one hand, the differentiation of communities is a sign marking the progress 10　Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research,” p. 23.Wang Zhuojun161and maturity of knowledge. On the other hand, as Kuhn puts it, this process involves a compromise: “Something important is sacrificed by the change.”11 One manifestation of over-differentiation of the knowledge community is the pursuit of individuality, individual freedom, individual interests, and localization and contextualization in research on philosophy and social sciences. “Rapid social change and the resulting diversification of life worlds are increasingly confronting social researchers with new social contexts and perspectives…traditional deductive methodologies…are failing…thus research is increasingly forced to make use of inductive strategies instead of starting from theories and testing them…knowledge and practice are studied as local knowledge and practice.”12 At a time when more and more people pursue the maximization of their self-interest under the guise of “rationalism,” the sustainable and healthy development of the knowledge community is facing a profound challenge. Therefore, it is important for philosophy and social sciences that we promote and strengthen communication and integration in the knowledge community.Generally speaking, the differentiation and integration of the knowledge community has historical and dialectical functions in innovation in philosophy and social sciences. In order to promote conscious creativity in research on philosophy and social sciences in China, we should handle correctly the contradiction between integration and differentiation. At present, we face a situation in which, on the one hand, the knowledge community is not suffi ciently differentiated and lacks dynamism; on the other hand, over-individualization and lack of community exist in the actual operations of knowledge production and methodological innovation. The co-existence and interlocking nature of this two-fold problem has become a major structural fl aw in in many fi elds of our research and even in our innovation as a whole. Advancing the restructuring of China’s knowledge communities is an important foundational task. As well as encouraging the diversification and specialization of our knowledge communities, it can prevent them from being over-differentiated and over-specialized and encourage effective communication within knowledge communities and between knowledge communities and social communities. Solving this contradiction may offer us a chance to open a new era of creative research in the fi eld of philosophy and social sciences.II.Change of Value Base and Creativity in Research on Philosophy and Social SciencesInnovation in research on philosophy and social sciences is, by its nature, community-related. Different knowledge communities often have different value bases and ethics. So understanding such value bases and their orientation and properly handling the value relationship between different knowledge communities is of fundamental importance to the promotion of innovation in these fi elds.11　Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions, p. 161.12　Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln,“Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research,” p. 12.162Social Sciences in ChinaSince Weber, Mill and Comte, the idea of value-free research has gradually become an important aim of social sciences. For positivism and utilitarianism, values and ethical meaning are “extrinsic” to scientifi c research, and it is only when research in philosophy and social sciences is value-neutral that it can be considered scientifi c and objective. “Given its dualism of means and ends, the domain of the good in utilitarian theory is extrinsic. All that is worth valuing is a function of their consequences.”13 For a given historical period, the emphasis on value-free research may be significant. “Weber’s opposition to value judgments in the social sciences was driven by practical circumstances. Academic freedom for the universities of Prussia was more likely if professors limited their professional work to scientifi c know-how.”14However, the question is whether the deliberate cultivation of value-free research should become a general and basic principle in research in philosophy and social sciences. “Weber thought that the best way to increase the power and economic prosperity of Germany was to train a new managerial class learned about means and silent about ends.”15 Whether this approach of exclusion of values and separation of means and ends, of methods and values, was related to the destruction the Nazis loosed on human civilization in World War II is worth further examination, but certainly individual cases did exist of scientists who took such an approach. However, if science, and especially philosophy and social sciences, become purely a “means” and a methodology or become value-free, it is highly likely that this approach will produce an overall bias in research in social sciences, leading to a norm that has lost its purpose and meaning. Or even worse, such research may be used to serve the forces of evil. What Kuhn revealed about the paradigms of scientifi c revolutions and about the subject nature and community nature of those paradigms may, to a certain extent, be understood as a challenge to the neutrality and value-free character of natural sciences. To an even greater extent, scholars in the field of research in philosophy and social sciences reflect deeply on the foundation of values. Many believe that “There is no value-free science.”16“Paradigms represent belief systems that attach the user to a particular worldview.”17“Protecting and promoting individual autonomy have been the philosophical rationale for value neutrality since its origins in Mill. But the incoherence in that view of social science is now transparent.”18 A so-called “value-free methodology” does not exist: “Questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we defi ne as the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically13　C.G. Christians, “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research,” p. 149.14　Ibid., p. 148.15　Ibid.16　Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research,” p. 8.17　Ibid., p. 7.18　C.G. Christians, “Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research,” p. 163.Wang Zhuojun163and epistemologically fundamental ways.”19 It is safe to say that in general, “It is no longer possible for the human disciplines to research the native, the indigenous other, in a value-free inquiry. Today researchers struggle to develop situational and transsituational ethics that apply to all forms of the research act and its human-to-human relationships.”20We have always believed that, analyzed from the perspective of the cultural nature of the existence and creativity of philosophy and social sciences, these fi elds represent the union of “value system, descriptive system and behavioral system,” and any innovation in this fi eld is jointly driven by all those systems. No philosophy or social science is value-free, purely descriptive and purely behavioral, nor is there research in these fi elds that is purely objective and value-free. Given the particular situation in China, confi rmation of this fact is of great signifi cance for gaining a deeper understanding of the philosophical essence of philosophy and social sciences and promoting their progress.In the complex developmental context of globalization, marketization and urbanization, the key question is not only understanding the ontological relationship between creativity and values in philosophy and social sciences, but also grasping their value confl icts at a deeper level and consciously reviewing the value base and value tensions in our research in these fi elds, especially in relation to methodology. At present, the task of carrying out innovation in research in philosophy and social sciences in China faces the following value dilemmas and value tensions:(1) The value tension between academic freedom and social responsibility. The relationship between the two is a topic for discussion worldwide. “It is essential to think through the power, obligations and responsibilities of social research.”21“We are compelled to try to move a public conversation about researchers and responsibilities toward a sense of research for social justice.”22“Thus we seek to narrate a form of reflexivity in our concerns with representation and responsibilities in these very mean times.”23Western scholars may not be accurate in defi ning our times as mean, but they are right in their concern for and emphasis on the social responsibilities of academic research. Over-emphasis on academic freedom and neglect of the social responsibilities of academic research is to some extent also one of the important causes of the lack of creativity in research on philosophy and social sciences in China.(2) The value confl ict of an elite orientation versus serving the public. This is also a global issue. In the context of the market economy and the logic of capital, research on philosophy and social sciences and even on the natural sciences is likely to be “co-optated” by capital19　Ibid.20　Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research,” p. 24.21　M. Fine et al., “For Whom? Qualitative Research, Representations, and Social Responsibilities,” p. 114.22　Ibid.23　Ibid., p. 115.164Social Sciences in Chinaand power. “Universities are now in the employ of government research agencies and big private sector actors. Although they may do work of value to these stakeholders, universities characteristically ignore the interests of a much more diverse and larger group of stakeholders who do not have the power and money of governments and large corporations.”24 We need to “break this pattern of co-optation”25 of social sciences, and to “break this pattern of co-optation by the few in favor of service to the many.”26 Although in China such a phenomenon does not exist, in a situation driven by the overwhelming logic of the market, the question of how to coordinate the relationship between services oriented to an elite and public service in general has become an issue of value choices that must be taken up by Chinese social science researchers and managers.(3) The value relationship between individual development and academic community. Although all those doing research in philosophy and social sciences belong to a given knowledge community, the level of their research dimensions, methodologies and conditions and whether they are doing cutting-edge research are to a considerable extent dependent on the overall academic level of the community to which they belong. The “choice of research practices depends upon the questions that are asked, and the questions depend on their context, what is available in that context, and what the researcher can do in that setting.”27 However, in the practice of knowledge production and methodological innovation, the contribution of knowledge communities and academic communities in supporting and guiding individual researchers often comes in an anonymous and externalized form. Individual researchers are more often than not willing, hoping and ready to attribute their innovation and success to themselves. On the other hand, the present system of knowledge management, which makes fame and interest allocation its priority, is also more than willing to keep this situation as it is. So how to protect individual innovation while maintaining the collective potential of knowledge community and how to promote interaction between the individual and the community are really both a matter of individual and collective value choices in the course of the transition of China’s knowledge production system and management system.Refl ecting on the present situation of the development of Chinese research in philosophy and social sciences, we see that these deep-rooted contradictions and complexities with regard to value choice have seriously hindered innovation and progress in this fi eld as a whole. In this regard, our guiding principle should be respecting and protecting individual values and freedoms while gaining the necessary resources for academic research by securing the backing of power and capital, and at the same time promoting an awareness of responsibility, of the masses and of the community and achieving a consciousness of the value bases of innovation24　Davydd J. Greenwood and Morton Levin, “Reconstructing the Relationship between Universities and Society through Action Research,” p. 111.25　Ibid., p. 110.26　Ibid., p. 111.27　Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research,” p. 5.Wang Zhuojun165in research in philosophy and the social sciences. This is the crucial guiding orientation for innovation in this fi eld as a whole.III.Knowledge System Self-consciousness and Innovation in Research on Philosophy and Social SciencesAs we face the underlying community and value confl icts in research in philosophy and social sciences, we should enhance our consciousness not only of community and values but also of systems and system innovation. Kuhn points out that whether we are talking about revolution and progress in society or in knowledge, their success “necessitates the partial relinguishment of one set of institutions in favor of another.”28 The new system constitutes a normative confi rmation of the development rationale, the means of development, and its ends. Changes of knowledge system can directly and profoundly liberate and revitalize research potential in philosophy and social sciences and can drive their progress in practice.System change requires, first and foremost, clarification of direction and goals. Understanding the historical and contemporary function of philosophy and social sciences is of great significance to guiding the innovative reform of the knowledge system. Our reflections on the social function of philosophy and social sciences should be multi-dimensional and multi-directional. In designing the goals of an innovative knowledge system, we should address the following tensions. Firstly, the tension between cultural innovation and heritage. In a modern context where development and innovation are key words, people tend to lay more emphasis on new ways, new perspectives, new knowledge and new values, and less on preserving and carrying on traditional knowledge, ways and values. Refl ecting on the history of human development, including the history of the advance of knowledge, we see that the most effective and sustainable development has been achieved through appropriate handling of the tension between innovation and transmission, so an important and basic goal of the reform of the knowledge system should be the reconciliation of the two. Secondly, the tension between contemporary tasks and historical mission. Faced with the ever more massive and complex task of development, people often ask researchers in this field to engage in practical projects. Such requests are not altogether inexcusable, given the fact that research in philosophy and social sciences is in essence an effort to provide logical answers to contemporary concerns. However, the problem is that research in this field is different from other kinds of practical research. The answers it provides should not be of a purely utilitarian nature, nor should they only follow the trail of capital and infl uence. Rather, they should respond to questions from the heights of trends in historical development, the laws of development and the nature of development. A correct handling of the tension between contemporary trends and our historical mission is a strategic goal for the reform of the knowledge system. Thirdly, the tension between academic research and humanistic concerns.28　Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions, p. 86.166Social Sciences in ChinaIn the contemporary context of differentiation among communities, increased disciplinary specialization and increased secularization of knowledge activities, applying the methods of one’s own discipline to solving problems within a particular fi eld often becomes a practical choice for researchers in philosophy and social sciences, as well as one that suits their interests. Faced with systemic confl icts between the dignity of life and one’s job performance, between social progress and the constraints of the natural world, and between technological progress and humanistic concerns, strengthening the humanistic nature of philosophy and social sciences and correctly handling the tension between academic research and humanistic concerns are increasingly becoming value objectives that must be taken into full consideration in the design of a future-oriented knowledge system.Full awareness of the need to reform the present knowledge system means the initiation of a synthesizing project leading to the protection and promotion of innovation in the fi eld of research in philosophy and social sciences. This project should be able to handle the following relationships.(1) Relationship between disciplinary differentiation and integration. The differentiation and professionalization of the knowledge community is an important trend in the development of knowledge. The endeavors of different disciplines and specialties to explore different issues and different levels within an issue have always been an important historical path for the constant advance of research on philosophy and social sciences. Renewal of the knowledge system should provide free space for different disciplines to produce preliminary innovations based on their specialized perspectives. At the same time, the integration of the knowledge community and the overlapping and interaction of different disciplines play an ever more prominent role in driving forward innovation in the field as a whole. So what the renewal of the knowledge system needs is multi-dimensional dialogues and innovative coordination between scholars who are good at organizing and integrating different disciplines and who are concerned about the progress of philosophy and social sciences. And whether one is talking about disciplinary differentiation or disciplinary integration, the primary driver of an innovative knowledge system and the criterion of its success is that innovation should be in tune with the spirit of the times and facilitate the interpretation of and solutions to major issues of social development. We should correctly handle the relationship between discipline differentiation and integration, take problems as the core and take as our objectives the transmission of history, solving contemporary issues and pointing towards the future. This will help disciplinary independence and, more than this, will be conducive to a knowledge system with interlocking and integrated disciplines. Such a system will provide an in-depth driver for the development of Chinese research in philosophy and social sciences, shifting from spontaneous, sporadic and individual innovation to consciously developed, intensive and integrated innovation.(2) Relationship between respect for knowledge and winnowing the chaff from the academic fi eld. One important feature of philosophy and social sciences is that they originate。