"Discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized" —Michel Foucault, from “The Order of Discourse”

The Mandarin version (originally written in mandarin)

社會學的分析將“現在”和“未來/理想”對比，而產生理論。社會學研究社會結構，但又成爲組成社會結構的參與者。社會學成爲敘事理解的一個手段，或是爲了自我和解（情感）、或是爲了社會角色定位（個體與他人互動）、或是爲了政治話語權（群體和群體互動）。如果希望通過社會學理解世界的本質（何爲本質？），或許研究社會學本身的組成（範式），更爲有意思？

根據個人觀點，進行資料檢索：

1. 社會學學派 - 涂爾干：當一群人互動形成一個穩定的參考架構，運行良久，對他們來說就是「常態」。當社會制度問題積累下來，此一穩定狀態被打破，形成混亂，即上述所謂「瓦解」時，就形成病態。因此涂爾幹認為，社會學家職責在於找出一個社會的「日常常態」，如此才能確定出「病態」的判斷標準。 Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th edition, trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964 edition), pp. 45 對我來講，涂爾干的學派揭示了本質的一部分：周期性。社會制度形成的條件，和變化的過程。

2. 托馬斯·庫恩（Thomas Kuhn）： 庫恩的「科學革命結構」認為科學進步是通過範式轉移實現的，而非單純的證偽過程。在社會學中，不同理論框架可能互不相容，證偽性對於不同範式並不總是適用。 Kuhn 的理論意指，某些群體在某些場景下會不適用某個理論框架，因此需要轉移。雖然Kuhn很溫柔地把“證僞”用另一個符號去代替（“轉移”），但我認爲，更爲顯著的區別在於，證僞（幾乎可以説是）是可以復現的（replicable)，而轉移是依照不同情景而變的（比如不同文化經濟會有不同速度的轉移）。 所以，在我的眼裏，Kuhn 的理論其實就是在說，社會學無法證僞。

3. 傅柯（Michel Foucault）： 傅柯認為知識和權力密切相關，社會學理論更多地反映了特定時代的話語權力，與經驗證偽的標準無關。 社會學不僅僅反映了特定時代的話語權，更是動態地促成新的社會結構。因爲社會學是一種敘事理解，人們通過閲讀擁有話語權的人所敘述的故事（“因爲...所以...”），而產生諸多的思考與行動。

我的出發點在於，驗證學科的科學性。因爲無法證僞的學科，就如宗教信仰。 即便社會學運用了諸多的科研方式，但由於學科研究對象的特殊性，我不認爲它具有可證僞性。 這或許不代表這個學科毫無意義。就如信仰仍是很多人生活的根本。

只不過社會的進步或許不在於社會學的進步，而是科學的進步。 就如經濟學家的自嘲—總是在經濟發生了變化之後，才能馬後炮地用經濟學原理解釋。 社會學是如此符合人性的學科。它能夠提供給人類大腦所需要的因果。 那麽社會學的弊端或許就是人性的弊端。

The English version (translated by Chatgpt)

Sociological analysis often generates theory by contrasting the "present" with the "future" or the "ideal." Sociology studies social structures, yet it is also composed of participants within those very structures. Therefore, the studies itself is less of a science, and instead, is more of a means of understanding narratives — whether for self-reconciliation (emotionally), for locating one’s social role (in interaction with others), or for political discourse power (interaction between groups). If one hopes to understand the essence of the world through sociology (but what is essence?), perhaps it is more interesting to study the structure (paradigms) of sociology itself.

From this perspective, I conducted further exploration on how different people uses sociology as a tool:

1. Sociological Schools – Durkheim: When a group forms a stable frame of reference through interaction over time, it becomes “normal” for them. When problems in the social system accumulate and this stable state breaks down—what we might call “disintegration”—a pathological condition arises. Thus, Durkheim believed that the sociologist’s task is to identify a society’s “everyday norm” so that deviations (i.e., “pathologies”) can be recognized.

Durkheim, Émile [1895] "The Rules of Sociological Method" 8th ed., trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964 ed.), p. 45

To me, Durkheim's school reveals part of the essence: cyclicality—both the conditions that give rise to social systems and the processes through which they change.

2. Thomas Kuhn: In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argued that scientific progress happens through paradigm shifts rather than simple falsification. In sociology, different theoretical frameworks may be incompatible, and falsifiability doesn’t always apply across paradigms. Kuhn’s theory suggests that certain groups, under certain circumstances, cannot apply a given theoretical framework and thus require a shift. While Kuhn gently replaces "falsification" with the idea of "shift," I believe the more essential distinction is that falsification is (more or less) replicable, while shifts are contextual (e.g., differing speeds of transition across cultures or economies). So in my view, Kuhn is effectively saying: sociology cannot be falsified.

3. Michel Foucault: Foucault believed that knowledge is deeply intertwined with power. Sociological theories reflect the discursive power of their times and are not tied to falsifiability. Sociology not only reflects the dominant discourse of an era—it also actively shapes new social structures. Because sociology is a form of narrative understanding, people think and act based on stories told by those who hold discursive power ("because... therefore...").

If sociology is not science, what good could it bring to the society?

A discipline that cannot be falsified is, in a sense, like religious belief.Even though sociology employs scientific methods, due to the unique nature of its subject, I do not believe it is falsifiable.

Yet, that may not mean the discipline is meaningless. After all, faith remains the foundation of life for many.

Still, perhaps social progress doesn’t come from the advancement of sociology, but from that of science. As economists self-deprecatingly note—they always explain changes after the fact. Sociology is a discipline that aligns closely with human nature. It offers the cause-and-effect patterns our brains crave.

And so, the flaw of sociology may simply be the flaw of human nature. By realizing what sociology could not explain, might bring us a little closer to understanding ourselves.

“People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what what they do does.” — Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization (1961)

The interesting jargoons from sociology

1. The debunking motif:

The debunking motif involves seeing beyond taken-for-granted assumptions of social reality. According to C. Wright Mills, the sociological imagination involves the ability to recognize that private troubles are rooted in public issues and structural problems.

2.Narrative Understanding:

Understanding the past and orienting toward the future through storytelling ("because... therefore...").

3. Habitus:

A child’s lifestyle shaped by habits formed under the influence of the cultural capital (taste, lifestyle, etc.), social capital, and symbolic capital present in their original family’s class environment. “By nature alike, by habit far apart.”