%0 Journal Article
%T 论“依法抗争”概念的误区：对李连江教授的回应<br>Regarding “Rightful Resistance”: A Rebuttal
%A 赵鼎新
%J 社会学评论
%D 2016
%R abstract/abstract91.shtml
%X 《社会学评论》2015 年第4 期发表了《社会科学研究的困境：从与自然科学的区别谈起》一文。该文所波及的李连江教授对其中一些说法多有不同看法。本文对李教授有所回应。笔者分析李教授提出的“依法抗争”概念与斯科特的“日常抗争”概念之间的关系，并说明为什么“依法抗争”是一个失败的概念。笔者进一步指出一个成功的解读性概念必须是解构性而不是建构性的。换而言之，它必须指出当前研究中存在的大面积误区或盲区，而不是为一个复杂群体的行动方式“正名”。<br>：This article is a response to Professor Li Lianjiang’s criticism of my earlier article entitled “Differences between the Natural and Social Sciences and Their Implications for Social Science Research.” It discusses the relationship between the concept of “rightful resistance” developed by Professor Li and the concept of “everyday resistance” proposed by James Scott, and explains why everyday resistance is a successful concept, but rightful resistance is not. More generally, I argue that the value of an interpretative concept lies in its capacity to deconstruct rather than to construct. Put differently, a successful interpretive concept should highlight previously neglected aspects of social life, rather than delineate the pattern of activities of a category of people that has a very complicated nature
%U http://src.ruc.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract52.shtml