王 建 光 博士学位论文
指导教师：苏 国 勋 答辩日期2006年6月9日
真实和虚构之外
——有关说谎的社会学研究
内容摘要
说谎是人类社会广泛存在的一种社会现象，是人们日常生活领域的重要组成部分。以往有关说谎的研究多从道德、文化、心理的角度切入，并经常以言语或行为是否符合事实也即真实还是虚构作为判断是否说谎的标准。而在社会学的视野中，说谎作为一种行动者在社会互动情境中根据场景条件、依赖复杂技术和方法而进行的权宜性实践行动，是与时空紧密相连的，既受着社会结构和场景的制约和推动，又表现着社会行动者主观的能动性和创造性。所以，结构性和权宜性是说谎的两个基本特征，它们体现在说谎的实践行动中。从实践的角度来把握说谎是对真实/虚构立场的摆脱，也是与当前社会科学领域关注“普通人的日常生活”、力图超越旧有范式的研究取向一脉相承的。
制度情境中的说谎者通过角色扮演可以获得自我认同与社会认同，从而成功说谎。而说谎得以持续进行又与特定历史情境中的社会记忆方式密切相关，甚至可以说是独特的社会记忆方式形塑了人们的认同，影响着说谎的过程，从而也决定了社会个体的行为选择。由此，我们对社会行动者是否说谎做出判断时，要与一定的社会历史情境联系在一起，选择那些相对合情合理的证据。
在权力-反抗的框架内，说谎可以作为一种“弱者的武器”发挥作用，它是社会行动者在处于受制和被统治状态时所采取的权宜性抗争手段，并具有一定的社会建构的功能。当然，由于权力所具有的流动性、网络性、无主体性，置身权力关系之网的说谎行动，就不仅是“弱者的武器”，它同样可以成为“强者的工具”。
对说谎与认同、说谎与权力之间关系的分析，是在“社会是什么”层面上对说谎意义的揭示。而在“我们如何认识社会”的层面上，说谎作为一种修辞手段又具有重要的认知功能，它就是一种了解事物的方式，我们可以透过说谎表面的言语来获知表达时的策略和手段，进而对这些这些策略和手段进行分析可以找到其背后潜藏的意图。将社会学写作方式视作一种独特的说谎，在这一意义上，区分它所涉及的材料意图、文本意图以及作者意图，能够使我们更加明晰意图所反映的学科内部话语的争锋。
当然，从实践角度对说谎与认同、权力、修辞三者关系的探讨，意在突破真实和虚构的两分。但也并不能回避对真实和虚构关系的直接把握。实证主义和建构主义对真实/虚构所持的态度不同之处在于，实证主义承认客观真实，而建构主义则认为真实涉及的是意义理解问题。呈现是完整全面展示社会事件的一种研究手段，它不同于真实/虚构的意义在于看到了社会事实更多的可能性，而复调叙事正是呈现的技巧之一。这样的一种视角也促使我们对社会调查中的诸种局限进行思考，而它在方法论上的意义主要表现为超越二元对立的努力。
根本而言，本文主要借用互动论和常人方法学等有关理论对说谎所进行的研究，是在后实证主义的思想脉络里展开的，体现出发现常识和破除常识的双重努力，也是对“社会学危机”这一问题的反思。
关键词：说谎 真实 虚构 实践 权宜
Abstract
Lying is a social phenomenon in human society and an important part of everyday life of human. Lying was often studied from angles of morality, culture and psychology in the past. If one’s words and behaviors don’t tally with the facts (or if what one says is fictive, we often say that he is lying. But in the view of sociology, lying is a contingent and practical action which is taken by actors according to setting on the basis of complex techniques and methods, so it is related with time and space. Lying is restricted and impelled by social structure and setting, and also affected by the subjective activity and creativity of social actors. So lying is structural and contingent which we can see in its practical action. The point of view of practice is different from that of reality/fiction in the study of lying. And this view comes down in one continuous line with the study tendency of more attention to “the everyday life of ordinary persons” which intends to change old paradigms.
The liar in the situation of institution may acquire self identification and social identification by role-play, and then accomplish lying. The continuous lying is correlated with social memory in special historical context. We can even say that particular social memory shapes human’s identification, influences the process of lying and decide the selection of individuals. Therefore, when we want to know if a person lies or not, we should select reasonable evidences and consider the social and historical situations.
In the frame of power-resistance, lying may be seen as an effective “weapon of the weak”. Lying is a contingent means of resistance taken by social actors in domination and it has function of social construction. Certainly, lying is not only “weapon of the weak”, but also “instrument of the strong” in the net of power for power of no subject can be fluid.
The analysis of the relation of lying and identification (power) is the explanation of the importance of lying in the sense of “what is the society”. And in the sense of “how we know the society”, lying as a means of rhetoric can be cognitive. Lying is also a means of knowledge by which we can understand the strategies and techniques in expression through speeches of lying. Furthermore, we can find latent intention behind these strategies and techniques by analysis of them. In the degree of writing techniques of sociology seen as a special kind of lying, distinguishing material intention with text intention and author intention it refers to, will help us know clearly competition of different discourses in discipline that the intention reflects.
Of course, the analysis of the relations of lying and identification, power and rhetoric intends to break the dichotomy of reality and fiction. But we should face the difficulty of analysis of reality and fiction directly. Positivism is different from constructivism in their attitudes to reality/fiction, that is to say, positivism admits objective reality, but constructivism insists that the reality refer to understanding of meaning. Presentation is a study means by which social events can be shown completely and all-roundly. What it is different from reality/fiction is that it displays more possibilities of social facts, and narrative polyphony is a technique of presentation. This view makes us rethink the limits of social survey, and its significance to methodology is efforts to surpass dualism opposites.
In essence, the study of lying in this dissertation extracts its theoretical nutrition from interactionism and ethnomethodology. It is in the context of post-positivism. It shows endeavor to find and break common sense, and it is also the reflection to “sociological crisis”.
Key words: lying reality fiction practice contingent
