摘要
在研究方法的讨论中,研究者身份角色及其与研究对象的关系等细枝末节的问题往往被忽略。本研究基于笔者自身对男同性恋群体的多年田野经验,利用主体间性视角,反身性地重新审视整个研究过程。研究发现,亚文化研究中研究者与受访者两大主体互构的过程是一种更为复杂的动态的“他者-自我”“主流-边缘”“区隔-共生”等矛盾性相互交织的循环往复的关系。具体田野里两大主体都经历了身份转变,在“共享话语”“他者的污名共鸣”以及“身外之境的全局观”互动中,实现了不同程度的主体间性。前两者体现了语言符号和文化冲突等结构体系对“自我”与“他者”状态的影响,后者强调亚文化研究中受访者对研究者理解的重要性,以及他们在日常生活中的自我呈现和诠释。三个过程共同反映出亚文化研究中不同文化之间冲突与合作的结构机制。最后,尽管主体间的理解可能不够充分,但是我们不能忽略在亚文化研究中主体间性视角所带来的主体身份及对文化冲突的警觉性。
In the discussion of research methods,the details of the researcher’s identity or role and his or her relationship with the research subject are often ignored.Based on the author’s years of personal field experience of the gay community,this study uses the wisdom of intersub⁃jectivity to re-examine the whole research process.It is found that the process of mutual construction between researchers and interviewees in the subculture research is a more complex and dynamic cycle of contra⁃dictions such as“other-self”,“mainstream-edge”and“separationsymbiosis”.In the concrete field,both the two subjects have undergone the identity transformation,and achieved intersubjectivity in different de⁃grees in“sharing discourse”,“sharing stigma of the other”and“the over⁃all view of the outside world”.The former two reflect the influence of structural systems such as language symbols and cultural conflicts on the state of“self”and“other”,while the latter emphasizes the importance of respondents’understanding of researchers in the subculture research and their self-presentation and interpretation in daily life.The three pro⁃cesses jointly reflect the structural mechanism of conflicts and coopera⁃tions between different cultures in the subculture research.Finally,al⁃though the understanding between subjects may not be sufficient,we can’t ignore the subjective identity and vigilance against cultural conflicts brought by the perspective of intersubjectivity in the subculture research.
出处
《社会研究方法评论》
2023年第2期236-264,共29页
Social Research Methods Review
关键词
主体间性
研究者
受访者
亚文化研究
Intersubjectivity
Researcher
Respondents
Subculture Research
