As we all know, when a discipline just rises, it is always based on drawing a clear line between disciplines and expanding its territory. However, with the substantial recognition of this legitimacy in the system, the pressure for a discipline to get rid of the separatist regime of other disciplines is obviously reduced [5](P66). In fact, although the emergence of many human disciplines has the objective law of knowledge differentiation, it is more the result of artificial construction. This is especially true in the humanities and social sciences. Under the pressure of institutionalization, there are always strict barriers between disciplines, which invisibly gives all disciplines an "illusion", that is, there is a one-to-one correspondence between disciplines and research topics. In other words, pedagogy studies education and economics studies economy. Pedagogy cannot study economy, and economics should not study education. It should be said that the emergence of this view is an inevitable product in the process of discipline institutionalization, which has existed for a long time in history and still permeates the subconscious of some discipline researchers today. The author believes that if this concept still has some positive significance in the early stage of discipline development, such as ensuring the loyalty and recognition of discipline researchers, then if this concept is still held today, it can only be a symbol of the backwardness of discipline development. Because today, this concept has become an "illusion" of the tunnel. Nowadays, there is not a one-to-one linear relationship between disciplines and research objects. Education may still be the only research topic of pedagogy, but this does not mean that only pedagogy can study education, and other disciplines cannot study education. Pedagogy has gained institutional legitimacy, "there is no need to maintain an isolated attitude taken out of self-defense." Besides, interdisciplinary research has "become a self-evident social norm" [5](P72). In this context, the development of pedagogy must get rid of the misunderstanding of the linear relationship between education and pedagogy, and can no longer discipline for the sake of discipline and stand for the sake of position. We should have a broader mind and dare to admit that education is by no means the exclusive field of a certain subject. Pedagogy is only a discipline that focuses on education, and other disciplines also have the right to conduct their own research on education. When the time is ripe, pedagogy should also have the confidence to go out and explain its possible views on other issues. In other words, as far as the development of pedagogy is concerned, going out is not only necessary, but also necessary. In fact, pedagogy can only study education and can't talk about education. "In order to study education, we always come back to study society; Only here can an educator discover his thinking principles "[1](P362). Back to the previous topic, as a companion of discipline institutionalization, "discipline feudalism" still has a universal influence today, and it is definitely not only pedagogy, but also other disciplines have similar debates. In this regard, Merton has made a wonderful exposition on the topic of "insiders and outsiders" from the perspective of sociology. As he said: "The role of an outsider does not guarantee that someone will get rid of a collective myth. Similarly, the role of an insider does not guarantee that someone has a reliable insight into his social life and belief system. " [5](P 175) "Internal and external integration. What you lose is your opinion, but what you will gain is the whole world of knowledge "[5](P 190). On the surface, overemphasizing the position of pedagogy in China's pedagogy research is due to maintaining the position of pedagogy, paying attention to the development of pedagogy and strengthening the construction of pedagogy. However, it essentially reflects the consistent conservatism and xenophobia in the development of pedagogy, and holds that education is the main feudal complex in the exclusive research field of pedagogy and a typical "insider" perspective. The emergence of this situation profoundly reflects the rigidity of the whole pedagogy discipline consciousness. Therefore, the development of pedagogy must adapt to the general trend of the development of discipline system, we must re-examine the relationship between the subject research object and the discipline itself, and we must make a new answer to the "relationship between education and pedagogy" and establish a new view of pedagogy, that is, pedagogy is only a way for human beings to understand education, not the only way. On the contrary, if the discipline construction of pedagogy only focuses on pedagogy and educates for pedagogy's sake, but ignores the change of the relationship between education and pedagogy, the result can only be "opposite directions". Compared with other disciplines, it is an objective fact that pedagogy is immature, and it is also very necessary for pedagogy to strengthen discipline construction. However, the reconstruction of pedagogy can never be achieved through the "declaration" of "disciplinary position", nor can it be ensured by blindly excluding foreigners. The development of pedagogy needs not only the participation of pedagogic researchers, but also the participation of outsiders. There is a saying in the west: "To understand Caesar, you don't have to be Caesar." Similarly, "research education does not have to be an educator." The reconstruction of pedagogy can never be achieved by strengthening the position of discipline, strengthening the barriers of discipline and raising the threshold of discipline; Education and pedagogy are no longer the only corresponding relationship, and pedagogy is no longer (perhaps never) the only way for human beings to understand education. Therefore, for the development of pedagogy, the more pragmatic discipline construction requirements are: first, the discipline must be properly positioned. Secondly, we should actively dilute the subjective subject status, blur the artificial subject boundary, and strengthen the construction of subject autonomy with an open attitude and multidisciplinary methods. Under the background of open social science, we no longer need to ask: "Is it insiders or outsiders who monopolize social knowledge or can get it first?" On the contrary, we began to consider their different and interactive roles in the process of exploring truth. " [5](P 179) As long as pedagogy has accumulated enough knowledge, a mature paradigm and an explanatory theory, its disciplinary position will naturally stand out. On the contrary, if these conditions are not met, pedagogy will never have a real "disciplinary status" because the subject has raised the issue of "disciplinary status of pedagogy". Because, the disciplinary position is by no means an interesting phenomenon that can be artificially constructed in human society, that is, what is emphasized must be lacking. China University insists on calling the popular "College of Education" as "College of Education Science", which is a good example. Today's "pedagogy standpoint" problem may be another example. In the development history of other disciplines, there are few successful cases of artificially constructing discipline positions. .