如何定义我们的研究对象？我的另类翻译之旅 078

【絮语】

这一小节，整篇都在讨论如何给社会科学下一个定义，虽然最后还是没有一个准确的定义提供给我们。

但是，本小节所探讨的下定义方法或流程，却是值得我们每一个阅读此书的人细细咀嚼。

【翻译】

什么是社会科学？

我们一直在谈论社会科学，好像社会科学是一个独立的学科门类。情况并非如此。

那么，事实上，哪些才是社会科学呢？

回答这个问题的其中一种方法，就是去看看大学将社会科学划归到哪个院系和学科名下。

社会科学通常被划分到的院系，包括人类学（anthropology），经济学（economics），政治学（politics），以及社会学（sociology）。

为什么它们通常不包括法律、教育、工商、社会服务，以及公共行政管理院校？事实上，所有这些院校的发展，均需凭借社会科学的概念与方法。

对于把这些院校从社会科学院系区别开来，给出的理由通常是因为这些院校的主要目的是为大学之外的专业工作提供培训，而前面提到过的院系，则是更专注于人类社会系统化知识的追寻求索，而这种活动通常在大学中进行。

当今大学有一种趋势，致力于跨学科研究中心和研究机构的创建。

上述研究中心跨越了传统的社会科学院系与专科院校，并涵盖了以下理论与方法的研究：统计学（ statistics），人口统计学（ demography），选举学（ psephology，即选举与投票的科学），政策与决策（ policy-and decision-making），人员招聘与待遇（ recruitment and treatment of personnel），人类社会生态学（ human ecology），等等。

这些中心所做的研究与报告，混合了上述专业十几个甚至更多的研究发现。光是辨识这些研究工作的各种不同分支，就需要相当的成熟老练，更别提判断这些发现与结论的有效性了。

那么，心理学又是什么的呢？那些社会科学家，他们倾向于将心理学排除在外，从而严谨地阐释他们自身领域，其原因在于心理学是从个体的（ individual）、个人的（ personal）特性来关注个体自身，而社会科学则完全聚焦在文化的，制度的，以及环境的要素之上。

那些不那么严格的社会科学家，虽然承认生理心理学（ physiological psychology）应该归于生物科学（ biological sciences），但也坚持心理学，无论正常心理学还是变态心理学，都应该被看作社会科学，理由是个体与其社会环境不可分割。

顺便提一下，心理学是当下在学生中大受欢迎的社会科学领域的一个典型代表。整个国家的心理学注册学生，很可能比其他任何学科都要更多。而且，心理学的作品文献，从技术流到通俗派的每一个层级，其数量都是非比寻常的。

还有，行为科学（ behavioral sciences）又是关于什么的呢？它们适合放在社会科学拼图中的哪个位置？

按照原本的用法，“行为科学”这个术语包括社会学（ sociology）和人类学，以及生物学、经济学、地理学（ geography）、以及政治科学（ political science）的行为方面。

着重点放在行为上，是为了强调可观察的，可预见的，系统化调查研究并产出可证实发现成果的行为能力。

最近，行为科学一词几乎渐渐成为社会科学的代名词，虽然许多“纯化论者（ purists）”反对这种用法。

最后，历史是什么呢？

社会科学凭借历史研究，以获取数据（ data）以及社会科学方面普遍化的典型范例。

不过，尽管历史被视为是对特定事件和人物的描述，从构建系统性知识的最小意义上来讲，也许是科学的，但是，历史自身就产生有关行为与发展模式及规律的系统性知识，从这个意义上讲，历史并不是一门科学。

那么，给我们所讲的社会科学下一个定义，是否可行呢？我们认为可以，至少在本章节是以此为目标的。

像人类学、经济学、政治学、以及社会学这些领域，共同构建了一种社会科学的重要核心，几乎所有社会科学家都会将其纳入任何一种社会科学定义之中。

另外，我们认为大多数社会科学家都会承认，诸如法律、教育、以及公共管理等领域的大部分，虽然不是全部作品文献，以及诸如工商和社会服务领域的部分文献，再加上相当可观的部分心理学文献，全部都在一个合理定义的范围之内。

我们将假定这样一个定义，尽管不可否认，这不太准确，但后文的内容对你来讲，还是一清二楚的。

【英文原文】

What Is Social Science?

We have been talking of social science as if it were a single entity. That is hardly the case.

Which, in fact, are the social sciences? One way to answer the question is to see what departments and disciplines universities group under this name. Social science divisions usually include departments of anthropology, economics, politics, and sociology. Why do they not ordinarily include as well schools of law, education, business, social service, and public administration, all of which draw on the concepts and methods of the social sciences for their development? The reason commonly given for the separation of these schools from the social science divisions is that the main purpose of such schools is to train for professional work outside of the university, while the previously mentioned departments are more exclusively dedicated to the pursuit of systematic knowledge of human society, an activity that usually goes on within the university.

There is presently a trend in universities toward the establishment of centers and institutes for interdisciplinary studies. These centers cut across the conventional social science departments and professional schools, and include studies in the theories and methods of statistics, demography, psephology (the science of elections and polling), policy- and decision-making, recruitment and treatment of personnel, public administration, human ecology, and many more. Such centers are producing studies and reports that incorporate findings of a dozen or more of these specialties. Considerable sophistication is required even to discern the various strands of these efforts, let alone judge the validity of the findings and conclusions.

What about psychology? Those social scientists who interpret their field strictly tend to exclude psychology on the grounds that it concerns itself with individual and personal characteristics, while the social sciences proper focus on cultural, institutional, and environmental factors. Those who are less strict, while conceding that physiological psychology should be subsumed under the biological sciences, hold that psychology, both normal and abnormal, should be regarded as a social science on the grounds of the inseparability of the individual from his social environment.

Psychology, incidentally, is a prime example of a social science area that is currently enjoying great popularity among students. It is possible that enrollments in psychology across the country are larger than in any other subject. And the literature of psychology, at every level from the most technical to the most popular, is enormous.

What of the behavioral sciences? Where do they fit into the social science picture? As originally used, the term behavioral science included sociology and anthropology and the behavioral aspects of biology, economics, geography, law, psychology and psychiatry, and political science. The accent on behavior served to emphasize observable, measurable behavior capable of being systematically investigated and of producing verifiable findings. Recently, the term behavioral sciences has come to be used almost as a synonym of the term social sciences, but many purists object to this usage.

Finally, what about history? It is acknowledged that the social sciences draw on the study of history for data and for exemplifications of their generalizations. However, although history, viewed as accounts of particular events and persons, may be scientific in the minimal sense of constituting systematic knowledge, it is not a science in the sense that of itself it yields systematic knowledge of patterns or laws of behavior and development.

Is it possible, then, to define what we mean by social science? We think so, at least for the purposes of this chapter. Such fields as anthropology, economics, politics, and sociology constitute a kind of central core of social science, which almost all social scientists would include in any definition. In addition, we think it would be conceded by most social scientists that much, though not all, of the literature of such fields as law, education, and public administration, and some of the literature of such fields as business and social service, together with a considerable portion of psychological literature, falls within the confines of a reasonable definition. We will assume that such a definition, although admittedly imprecise, is clear to you in what follows.