As the most scientific and complete philosophical methodology of historical materialism, it was founded by Marx and Engels in the middle of19th century, but the specific Marxist methodology of social science has not been systematically constructed so far. Although there are many reasons for this situation, the serious deviation of people's views on Marxist social science methodology for a long time is undoubtedly the main reason People are used to thinking that since historical materialism is the most scientific and complete methodology for studying social history in human history, there is no need to study and construct the so-called Marxist social science methodology. It is true that historical materialism is the most scientific and complete methodology for human beings to understand and study society so far, but it is only a general philosophical methodology, not a specific social science methodology. As a specific methodology, Marxist social science methodology is different from the general philosophical methodology of historical materialism. It is formed on the basis of historical materialism, which has direct guiding significance for specific social science research. The problem of historical materialism and Marxist methodology of social science is a relationship between generality and particularity, guidance and guidance. Historical materialism is the foundation of Marxist social science methodology, which provides general methodological guidance for Marxist social science methodology, and Marxist social science methodology is the concretization of historical materialism in the field of social science research. Historical materialism and Marxist social science methodology are two different levels of methodology, both of which play a guiding role in specific social science research, but historical materialism only plays an overall and indirect guiding role in specific social science research, while Marxist social science methodology plays a direct guiding role in specific social science research. Marxist social science methodology is the intermediate link and bridge between historical materialism and concrete social science research, so it is biased to think that historical materialism can directly guide concrete social science research rather than Marxist concrete social science methodology. In order to further promote the development of social science research and enrich historical materialism, it is necessary to construct Marxist social science methodology, a concrete social science methodology. The author believes that the construction of Marxist social science methodology can start from the following two aspects.
First, actively sublate the research results of traditional social science methodology.
With the formal formation of social science as a discipline in the middle of19th century, the research on methodology of social science has been systematically and comprehensively carried out. In the research of social science methodology for 100 years, many positive results have been produced, mainly including two pairs of opposing social science methodologies systematically created by many social scientists represented by Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Weber, Winch and Giddens, including the methodology of humanities (understanding methodology) and natural science (empirical methodology), methodological individualism and methodological holism, and various kinds of them. As far as the construction of Marxist social science methodology is concerned, the positive results of the latter research are of greater significance, because Marxist social science methodology is a comprehensive social science methodology, and in the history of social science methodology research, the research results obtained by social scientists such as Weber, Winch and Giddens who tried to synthesize opposing social science methodologies are the direct theoretical premise for the construction of Marxist social science methodology.
Although Weber regards the methodology of humanistic science (understanding methodology) as the methodology of his sociological research, he also tries to combine the methodology of natural science (empirical methodology) as a supplement to his methodology of humanistic science. The definition of sociology put forward by Weber in Economy and Society reflects his tendency to try to integrate the methodology of humanities and natural sciences. He said: "Sociology ... should be called a science. It wants to interpret social behavior and explain its causes and effects in the process of social behavior in this way." In short, sociology or understanding sociology is a science of explanatory understanding and causal explanation of social behavior. That is to say, understanding sociology not only explains social behavior, but also explains the causal relationship of social behavior, that is, the explanatory understanding of social behavior confirms subjective understanding by comparing with the specific event process. Because in Weber's view, social behavior needs to be understood, but understanding alone is not enough. Because a clear understanding, after all, is a subjective form and can only be used as a concrete assumption. Therefore, understanding sociology is to combine explanatory understanding with causal explanation. Obviously, Weber regards the methodology of understanding sociology as a combination of explanatory understanding and causal explanation, in which explanatory understanding is the methodology of humanities and causal explanation is the methodology of natural science. Therefore, the methodology of understanding sociology is a methodology that combines the methodology of humanities and the methodology of natural science.
Winch fully affirmed Weber's attempt to conduct sociological research by combining the methodology of humanities and natural sciences, and further focused on the relationship between Weber's explanatory understanding and causal explanation in his famous book The Concept of Social Science and its Relationship with Philosophy, that is, the relationship between obtaining an explanatory understanding of the meaning of an act and providing a causal explanation that leads to this act and its consequences. However, Winch holds a negative attitude towards Weber's "statistical scheme" which integrates explanatory understanding and causal explanation, that is, "understanding is a logically incomplete thing, and it needs another different method to supplement it, that is, statistical collection method" f3 1(P 123). In Winch's view, "If a given explanation is wrong, then statistics-although it can be pointed out that it is wrong-is by no means the decisive and final court to judge the validity of sociological explanation as Weber said. What is needed at this time is a better explanation, not something of different types. " Net (P 123) Even so, Winch still tried to integrate the methodology of humanities and natural sciences along Weber's thinking, but unlike Weber, he was not limited to discussing methodology with methodology, but rose to the philosophical level. Later, based on Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, he discussed the integration scheme of humanities and natural sciences.
First of all, he distinguished the methodology of humanities from that of natural science. It is believed that the empirical methodology of natural science is the external observation methodology, while the understanding methodology of humanities is the internal methodology, so understanding must be carried out in the internal relationship. Secondly, the close relationship between interpretation and understanding is discussed. It is considered that understanding is the goal of interpretation and the final product of successful interpretation, but it cannot be considered that understanding exists only where interpretation already exists. "Unless there is some form of understanding that is not the result of explanation, it is impossible to explain something like that. Interpretation is called interpretation only when there is a defect in understanding, or at least it is considered to be a defect, and such a standard can only be the understanding we already have. Furthermore, what we already know is expressed in the concept, which constitutes the form of the subject matter we care about. On the other hand, these concepts also express some aspects of the life characteristics of the people who apply them. " In a word, although Wen Qi maintains that there is a close relationship between "explanatory understanding" and "causal explanation" of social science methodology, that is, social science research should be both "explanation" and "understanding", Wen Qi's combination of "explanation" and "understanding" still emphasizes the space of causal explanation (logic) and understanding (rational logic).
Giddens, in New Rules of Sociological Methods —— Constructive Criticism of Interpretive Sociology Based on Hermeneutics, also tried to conduct sociological research by integrating humanities methodology and natural science methodology, as well as methodological individualism and methodological holism. Giddens agrees with Winch's query to Weber, that is, Weber "mistakenly assumes that the explanation of human behavior can take the same form of causality as natural science in logic (if not in content)", and further explores the relationship between explanatory understanding and causal explanation with his theory of "actor causality". He said: "Causality is not based on the" law "of eternal connection (if there is such a situation, it must be the opposite), but on the inevitable connection between causality and the concept of causal effect. Action is triggered by the actor's reflective monitoring of his intention, which is not only related to demand, but also related to the evaluation of the' external' world demand, which provides a full explanation for the necessity of this study. I am not against causality and freedom, but I am more inclined to oppose' event causality' and' agency causality'. Therefore, in social science,' determinism' involves any theoretical scheme that completely reduces human behavior to' event causality'. " Obviously, Giddens is different from Winch in the viewpoint of the relationship between explanatory understanding and causal explanation, because in his view, there is no boundary between explanatory understanding and causal explanation.
Giddens also synthesized methodological individualism and methodological holism by constructing the theory of "structural duality". Giddens believes that "the duality of structure" in The Composition of Society refers to "structure as the intermediary and result of its own repeated organized behavior; The structural feature of the social system is nothing more than behavior, but repeated participation in the production and reproduction of behavior. " Therefore, "from the point of view of structural duality, the structural characteristics of social system are both intermediary and the result of the latter's repeated organization and practice."
Compared with the individual, structure is not a' foreign object': in a sense, structure, as a memory trace, is embodied in various social practices and the' inside' in human activities, rather than the' outside' as Durkheim said. Structure should not be equated with constraints. On the contrary, structure is always restrictive and stimulating at the same time. Of course, this does not hinder the extension of the structural characteristics of the social system in space and time, which is beyond the control of any single actor. It does not rule out the possibility that the actors' own theories about social systems materialize these systems, and the repeated formation of these social systems is precisely due to their own activities. Obviously, Giddens changed the dualism of "actor and structure" into "duality", trying to solve the comprehensive methodological individualism and methodological holism of social science methodology in the concrete process of reflective and continuous social practice, and thought that the opposition between individuals and society in social science research could be embodied as the opposition of "the autonomy or initiative of individual behavior and the constraint of social structure". This specific relationship of opposites has been unified in Giddens' theory of "structural duality", and its unity is based on the concrete process of circular social practice.
Weber, Winch and Giddens tried to integrate the methodology of humanities (understanding methodology) and natural science (empirical methodology), as well as methodological individualism and methodological holism to carry out sociological or social science research. Weber emphasizes the integration of explanatory understanding and causal explanation to carry out sociological research, but he thinks that causal explanation is only a useful supplement to explanatory understanding, because the methodology of social science he advocates is essentially a methodology of humanities. Winch profoundly explained the relationship between explanatory understanding and causal interpretation from Wittgenstein's later philosophy of language, but in his view, there is still a boundary between explanatory understanding and causal interpretation. Winch's shortcoming is that he has not found a realistic basis for synthesizing these two opposing methodologies. Giddens integrated or unified two opposing social science methodologies from the standpoint of humanistic science methodology (understanding methodology), and finally established their integration or unification on the basis of circular social practice, but he was still spinning in the whirlpool of methodology. Generally speaking, their efforts have deepened people's understanding of the relationship between the understanding methodology of humanities and the empirical methodology of natural sciences, as well as their understanding of the basis for integrating them. This undoubtedly provides a direct theoretical premise for the construction of Marxist social science methodology.
Second, the integration of traditional social science methodology based on historical materialism.
Generally speaking, what kind of world outlook or philosophy is what kind of methodology, and the world outlook or philosophy is consistent with methodology. People's theoretical and systematic view of society is the so-called social philosophy, and observing, studying, analyzing and dealing with various social phenomena under the guidance of this social philosophy is the so-called methodology of studying society, that is, the methodology of social science. Therefore, the methodology of social science is based on social philosophy. Traditional social science methodology mainly includes two pairs of opposing scientific methodologies, namely, humanistic science methodology (understanding methodology) and natural science methodology (empirical methodology), as well as methodological individualism and methodological holism, which are based on two pairs of opposing social philosophy respectively. First of all, the methodology of humanities (understanding methodology) and natural science (empirical methodology) is based on the social philosophy of "social uniqueness theory" and "social similarity theory". The theory of social uniqueness holds that although society is the product of the development of nature to a certain stage, once it comes into being, society has its own uniqueness, which is the characteristic that distinguishes it from nature. The uniqueness of society lies in that it is a humanistic or cultural phenomenon and the result of people's subjective activities. Therefore, in the view of "social uniqueness", since society is a unique humanistic or cultural phenomenon different from natural phenomena. Then we should not copy the natural science method (empirical method) which is very effective in studying natural phenomena, but should use the humanistic science method (understanding method) to study this unique social phenomenon. "Social Similarity Theory" holds that society is the product of the long-term development of nature, and it is also a part of nature. Society is a kind of "quasi-natural phenomenon" with objective characteristics and laws similar to nature. Therefore, in the view of "social similarity theory", since society is a phenomenon similar to nature, the natural science method (that is, empirical method) which is very effective in studying natural phenomena should also be very effective in studying social phenomena. Secondly, "methodological individualism" and "methodological holism" are based on social nominalism and social realism. Social nominalism holds that individuals precede society and society is made up of individuals. Without individuals and their behaviors, social groups and social activities will cease to exist, and society or collective will only be a "collection of individuals." Therefore, studying social phenomena from the perspective of social nominalism will inevitably lead to "methodological individualism", that is, only from the perspective of personal behavior and based on personal analysis can we make a reasonable explanation of social phenomena. Social realism holds that although individuals are the main body of society and individual life constitutes society, society is not a "collection of individuals" but a "class of its own". Once formed, it will produce new characteristics, and then shape personal consciousness and personal behavior. Therefore, society does not come from personal choice. On the contrary, personal choice assumes that society comes first. Therefore, studying social phenomena from the perspective of social realism will inevitably lead to "methodological holism", that is, only from the perspective of social environment, taking group, system and society as the basic point of 5J analysis, can we make a reasonable explanation of social phenomena. However, whether it is "social uniqueness", "social similarity", "social nominalism" or "social realism", it is a one-sided understanding of real social life, so it is a one-sided social philosophy. The theory of social uniqueness only sees the uniqueness of society different from nature, that is, the individuality, subjectivity and spirituality of society, but ignores the similarity of social and natural, the integrity, objectivity and naturalness of society. The methodology of social science based on this one-sided social philosophy attaches importance to the methodology of humanities and ignores the methodology of natural science. On the contrary, "Social Similarity Theory" sees social and natural's similarity, social integrity, objectivity and naturalness, but ignores the individuality, subjectivity and spirituality of society. The methodology of social science based on this one-sided social philosophy attaches importance to the methodology of natural science and ignores the methodology of humanities. "Social nominalism" only sees individuals and their subjectivity and spirituality in society, but ignores society and its objectivity, materiality and wholeness. The methodology of social science based on this one-sided social philosophy pays attention to "methodological individualism" and ignores "methodological holism". "Social realism" sees society and its objectivity, integrity and materiality, but ignores individuals and their subjectivity and spirituality. The methodology of social science based on this one-sided social philosophy pays attention to "methodological holism" and ignores "methodological individualism".
Historical materialism's view of social history is different from one-sided social philosophy such as social uniqueness, social similarity, social nominalism and social realism. It is believed that human social and natural is both opposite and unified, which constitutes an interactive contradictory movement, and the fundamental way of interaction between them is social material production and labor; Human society is the unity of the dual relationship between man and nature and between people. Practice is the basis of this dual relationship and the way of existence of human society. There is a dialectical relationship between the subject and the object of history. Human activities not only transform nature, society and human beings, but also are restricted by nature, society and human beings. Human beings are the unity of initiative and passivity. Therefore, the realistic social and natural is similar but not exactly the same, which transcends individual characteristics and is based on individuals and their activities. It is a complete and comprehensive process of the unity of nature and spirit, objectivity and subjectivity, object and subject, whole and individual based on realistic social practice. Therefore, the Marxist methodology of social science based on this comprehensive and complete historical materialist view of social history (the core of which is the concrete view of social practice) can not only eliminate the internal opposition of traditional social science methodology based on one-sided social philosophy (that is, the opposition between humanistic science methodology (cognitive methodology) and natural science methodology (empirical methodology), methodological individualism and methodological holism), but also make these opposing social science methodologies merge.
In a word, the Marxist social science methodology we want to construct is a truly independent, scientific, complete and concrete social science methodology in the history of social science methodology development. It will certainly promote the great development of social science research and even the whole social science.