【Friday Dictionary】什么是结构（Structure）

结构、社会结构 该词（可）松散地应用于社会行为的任何重复出现的纹路：或更仔细说，应用于一社会系统或社会的不同元素之间的有秩序的诸相互关系。它普遍被认为是社会科学里，最重要也最琢磨不透的概念之一。（见休厄尔，《关于结构的一种理论》，AJS，1992）

结构有时甚至被松散地指向社会活动中的任何可观察的“纹路”（pattern）。对于经验研究者来看，也以指工作与职业的统计分布来解密一个社会的结构。然而，更为典型的是，它也被称为：关于诸个人和诸团体所指派给的那些更庞大的事体——即涂尔干所说的诸社会事实。因此，（可以）举例说，一个社会的不同的亲属、宗教、经济、政治和其它制度可以说是组成了它的社会结构，也可以说，它的诸规范、诸价值和诸社会角色组成了它的诸配件。

然而，该词并无一个（可）被普遍接受的意义（吕注：准确地说，“所指”），而尝试提供一清脆俐落的定义已被证实是从未成功过。对于结构功能主义（吕注：庆是指帕森斯—默顿一系的功能主义或英国社会人类学家拉德克利夫—布朗一系的功能主义）、结构主义（吕注：应是指由结构语言学衍生出来的结构人类学，如列维—斯特劳斯的结构主义）和后结构主义，该词都是关键所在。对于这三派，它都是同时被用作为指称的和解释的效能。

因此，无论是社会生活的轨些方相被指定为结构，它们也也被赋予把社会这回事的其他方相结构化的效能。当结构被放在社会学讨论的前台时，它便会引发一个因果决定论，在其中人类能动性（吕注：在此词典里，此词只是行动的异称）丧失了它的功效。诸结构看来总是跟有动机的社会行动分隔开来，却又是决定的（因）。如此一来，诸（社会）变迁便往往是难以解释，因为诸结构意味着诸纹路在时间是稳定的，甚或是固定的。

除了这些难处，在社会学用词上的主要分歧是：有人视此词为指涉着那些可观察的、有纹路的社会实践（角色、规范，诸如此类），这些实践造成了诸社会系统或诸社会。也有人认为，结构是那些把纹路加诸这些外露的实践的背后原则。结构功能主义者是前者的范例，结构主义者是后者的一个好例子。

不像建筑或有机体的结构，社会结构是不能直接可见的。它虽是证见于可观察的关于诸个人的诸运动与诸行动，但社会结构并不能化约于此。出于这个原因，面向某种文化的社会化，被视为一个社会结构得以维持的核心。

“结构化”的研究者强调，社会结构是可携身的效果，因为它通过社会化，以特定结构化了的方式，来提供关于行动的诸布置、诸倾向，使结构具身于诸个人。关于这一议题的最近讨论见José Lòpez and John Scott, SocialStructure, 2000。

（注：我抄上了吕炳强在《凝视、行动与社会世界》中对1996版《简明牛津社会学词典》的词条释义。但2014年版已有修订，故，我加入了2014年词条释义中的一些内容。合并之后，与下面的2014年版的原文有一定不同。

该词典中，1996年的“结构”词条释义，到2014年的“结构”词条释义，变化颇大。下面贴出的是1998版（与1996年比似乎没有改），和2014年版内容，请对比。

1998年版：

structure, social structure

A termloosely applied to any recurring pattern of social behaviour; or, morespecifically, to the ordered interrelationships between the different elementsof a social system or society. Thus, for example, the different kinship,religious, economic, political, and other institutions of a society may be saidto comprise its social structure, as might such components as its norms,values, and social roles. However, there is no generally agreed meaning, andattempts at providing a succinct definition have proved singularlyunsuccessful. Thus, for example, Raymond Firth arrives merely at the truismthat social structure is ‘an analytical tool, designed to serve us inunderstanding how men behave in their social life. The essence of this conceptis those social relations which seem to be of critical importance for thebehaviour of members of the society, so that if such relations were not inoperation, the society could not be said to exist in that form’ (Elements ofSocial Organization, 1951). Structure is generally agreed to be elusiveconcepts in the social sciences (see , ‘A Theory of Structure’, AmericanJournal of Sociology, 1992 ).

The termis central to the theories of structural functionalism, structuralism, andpost-structuralism. In all three cases it is employed in both a nominative andexplanatory capacity. Thus, whatever aspects of social life are designated asstructure are also endowed with the capacity for structuring other aspects ofthe social, as when sociologists claim that gender structures employment opportunities,religion structures family life, or modes of production structure socialformations. Not unreasonably, Sewell concludes that structure is not a conceptand cannot therefore be defined precisely, since it functions rather as ametaphor in and of social scientific discourse.

Wherestructure has been placed at the forefront of sociological discussion it has tendedto generate a causal determinism in which the efficacy of human agency is lost.Structures invariably seem to exist separately from, but nevertheless todetermine, motivated social action. This often makes it difficult to explainchange, since structures imply stability of patterns over time, if notpermanency. These problems are widely recognized in the discipline. Forexample, specifically in response to the dualism of ‘agency versus structure’Anthony Giddens has proposed a theory of so-called structuration, which statesthat structures are themselves dual; that is, they are ‘both the medium and theoutcome of the practices which constitute social systems’ (A ContemporaryCritique of Historical Materialism, 1981). In short, structure shapes people'spractices, but these practices constitute and reproduce social systems. Somehave acknowledged this formulation as an imaginative step forward in socialtheory; others dismiss it as merely a redescription of the problem.

Suchissues apart, the major divergence in sociological usages of structure isbetween observable patterned social practices (roles, norms, and such like)that make up social systems or societies, and those for whom structurecomprises the underlying principles (for example relationships to the means ofproduction) that pattern these overt practices. Structural functionalistsexemplify the former; structuralists (such as structural Marxists) are a goodexample of the latter. See also FORMALISM; FUNCTION; SOCIAL ORDER; SOCIOLOGY.

2014年版：

structure (social structure)

A term referring to any recurringpattern of social behaviour; or, more specifically, to the orderedinterrelationships between the different elements of a *socialsystem or *society. Structure is generally agreed to be one of the most importantbut also most elusive concepts in the social sciences (see W. H. Sewell, ‘ATheory of Structure’, American Journal ofSociology, 1992). It is sometimes used ratherloosely to refer to any observable ‘pattern’ in social activities, andempirical researchers, for example, have referred to statistical distributionsof occupations and employment as disclosing the social structure of a society.More typically, however, it is seen as designating the actual arrangement ofindividuals and groups into those larger entities that Durkheim saw as socialfacts.

The term largely originated as anapplication of ideas from biology, where the structure of an organism is theanatomical arrangement of its various organs. Social systems were seen asorganized around an ‘institutional’ arrangement of individuals that definedtheir actual relations to each other. Most clearly expounded in structuralfunctionalism, the institutions of a society are clusters of norms andmeanings, drawn from the *culture, that define the expectations that people hold about each other'sbehaviour. It is through these expectations that specific *roles and reciprocal role relationships aredefined. A social structure does not, however, consist only of suchinstitutional connections. People act upon the institutionalized roleexpectations and so come into definite and recurrent relations with each other.Although there is rarely a perfect correspondence between institutionalizedexpectations and actual social relations, the term social structure designatesthis crucial combination of institutions and relations as constituting the‘anatomy’ of a society. Social structure, then, comprises both ‘institutionalstructure’ and ‘relational structure’.

Unlike the structure of a building oran organism, a social structure is not directly visible. It is evidenced in theobservable movements and actions of individuals, but it cannot be reduced tothese. The core institutional norms and meanings are cultural phenomena thatexist only as shared ideas and representations in the minds of individuals. Forthis reason, *socialization into a culture is central to the maintenance of a socialstructure. Writers on *structuration have emphasized that social structure is carried and has itseffects because it is embodied in individuals through their socialization andprovides them with dispositions and tendencies to act in particular, structuredways. Thus, a recent discussion has emphasized that the concept of socialstructure must be seen as resting upon this ‘embodied structure’ ( José Lòpezand John Scott, Social Structure, 2000).

Some structural theories have emphasized the determining capacity of social structure as against human *agency. Talcott Parsons, for example, hasbeen criticized for overemphasizing socialization in a common cultural systemand, therefore, depicting human actors as lacking in any freedom or autonomy.They are seen as passively acting out the roles into which they have beensocialized. This is not, however, inherent in a structural approach. Marxism,for example, recognizes clashes and contradictions between elements of socialstructures, and active human agency is essential in resolving thesecontradictions. See also FORMALISM ; FUNCTION; SOCIAL ORDER ; STRUCTURALISM .

（Sociological理论大缸第26期）