two paragraphs of
Since our purpose in this treatise is a sociological analysis of the reality of everyday life, more precisely, of knowledge that guides conduct in every day life, and we are only tangentially interested in how this reality may appear in various theoretical perspectives to intellectuals, we must begin by a clarification of that reality as it is available to the common sense of the ordinary members of society. How that common sense reality may be influenced by the theoretical constructions of intellectuals and other merchants of ideas is a further question. Ours is thus an enterprise that, although theoretical in character, is geared to the understanding of a reality that forms the subject matter of the empirical science of sociology, that is the world of everyday life.
由於本書的目的在於社會學式地分析日常生活的真實面貌,更精確地說,分析指引我們日常行為舉止的相關知識,也由於多數人只是片面地對於專家如何從不同的理論面向來理解社會真實感興趣,因此我們必須首先澄清,這是一個常人常識容易親近的社會真實。這個作為常識的社會真實如何被專家的理論架構及其他不同理解所影響,將是更進一步的問題。因此,你我即專家,專家主要是為了了解形成實證科學裡最主要部份的社會真實-即日常生活,儘管專家本質上強調理論。
It should be evident, then, that our purpose is not to engage in philosophy. All the same, if the reality of everyday life is to be understood, account must be taken of its intrinsic character before we can proceed with sociological analysis proper. Everyday life presents itself as a reality interpreted by men and subjectively meaningful to them as a coherent world. As sociologists we take this reality as the object of our analyses. Within the frame of reference of sociology as an empirical science it is possible to take this reality as given, to take as data particular phenomena arising within it, without further inquiring about the foundations of this reality, which is a philosophical task. However, given the particular purpose of the present treatise, we cannot completely bypass the philosophical problem. The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful conduct of their lives. It is a world that originates in their thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real by these. Before turning to our main task we must, therefore, attempt to clarify the foundations of knowledge in everyday life, to wit, the objectivations of subjective processes (and meanings) by which the intersubjectve commonsense world is constructed.
的確,我們的目的並不是致力於哲學。相同的是,假如日常生活的真實是為了被理解,故事本身的特質就必須在進一步接受社會學分析前被檢視。日常生活呈現出一個跟協調一致的世界一樣被人們詮釋且主觀認為對人們有意義的社會真實。作為社會學家,我們將這個社會真實當作我們的分析對象。在這個作為實證科學的社會學的參考框架裡,我們很可能視這個社會真實為假設,甚至視這個社會真實裡的特殊現象為研究資料,而忽略進一步採取哲學任務去質疑這個社會真實的功能。然而,因為本文被賦予這個特殊目的,我們不能全然不顧這個哲學式的問題。日常生活不能只被常人依其主觀上認為有意義的行動,而把它看得像社會真實一樣理所當然。這是一個在人們的想法與行動中組織而成且藉此持續運作的世界。因此,在本文討論主要的任務前,我們必須努力澄清知識在日常生活中的功能,以得知這個被主觀過程(與主觀意義)建構出來的多數人所能了解的常識世界的客觀形成。
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385058985/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-9695098-0734320#
Berger, Peter and Lucmann, Thomas (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Bantam Dell Pub Group.
留言列表