社会学的想象与想象的社会学帕森斯、米尔斯社会学研究进路比较论要

摘要

Talcott Parsons’ social theory and C .Wright Mills’ social research represent two important and distinctive approaches in American sociology after World War II .This paper begins with a discussion of the differences between Parsons and Mills in the 1950s in order to make an in‐depth investigation into the research orientation of these two sociologists .Parsons’ grand theory of social science ,referred by himself as his research approach ,focuses on the dynamics of reciprocity between theory and experience ,attempting to provide social science research with a mutual theoretical base and a common language and thus to promote an accumulative development of social science .However , building a unified social science ,much like building an academic Tower of Babel ,is an unachievable goal .Meanwhile ,Mills’ sociological imagination is a different research approach that is guided by political imagination .Inevitably ,it introduces a dilemma of double sociological and political imaginations .The two research approaches understandably have resulted in very different conclusions about American society .Parsons insists on a liberal pluralistic interpretation of society and puts forward a comprehensive analysis of an interconnected common American society .In contrast ,Mills is a fierce critic of American society ,a power concentrated elitist society in his eyes .Nevertheless ,his disenchantment never stops Mills’ hope for a political “public” that would remake history .The difference in their research approaches reflects the deep political division between Parsons and Mills .As a political liberal ,Parsons’ views on modernity represent a type of moderate and rational optimism ,while Mills’ political position can only be described as a peculiar mixture of radical utopianism and nostalgic romanticism .%帕森斯的社会理论和米尔斯的社会研究是“二战”后美国社会学的两条重要且独特的研究路径。帕森斯倡导社会科学中的一般理论研究，核心在于理论和经验的互惠发展的动力学，意在促进社会科学的积累性发展，但确立统一的社会科学无异于建立一种不可能实现的“学术巴别塔”。米尔斯强调的基于社会学想象的社会研究纲领，实质上是一种政治导向的社会研究，最终难免落入学术和政治的双重“想象”困境。研究范式的差异，导致他们对其身处的美国社会作出了判然有别的研究论断。进而言之，这种差异的背后隐含着研究者对现代性问题的不同态度以及政治立场上的深刻分歧。