场域与生态笔记
刘思达、穆斯塔法·艾米尔拜尔著，邹晴译。英文原版为：Liu, Sida, and Mustafa Emirbayer.2016.“Field and Ecology.”Sociological Theory 34(1):62—79。
一、社会的空间视角
场域和生态都是描述社会空间的理论隐喻（theoretical metaphors）。在最抽象的意义上，社会空间是由行为主体（actors）、位置（positions）和联结它们的关系（the relations that associate them）来定义的（Abbott 2005b；Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992）。“行动者”（agent）的行为主体包括个人、团体以及复杂社会实体（行业和国家等），但它们必须在目的性行动（purposive action）中有相当程度的自主性（autonomy），并且拥有某些形式的资本。位置是指社会空间中的坐标地点；行为主体所受到的各种结构性制约取决于它们在社会空间中所占据的位置。行为主体和位置不是天然对应或机械联结的，而是被它们之间的关系所建构和限制的。无论使用场域或生态等何种隐喻，上述三个元素都是任何社会空间存在的必要条件。
这三者使得社会空间区别于社会结构，社会系统，社会网络：actor is what distinguishes space from structure, position is what distinguishes it from system, and the relation between actor and position is what distinguishes it from network.
A social structure (Martin 2009) primarily is concerned with the structural shape of social life, not the autonomyof actors within it. A structural analysis often minimizes the purposive action of individual actors in changing the macrostructure.
A social system (Luhmann [1984] 1995; Parsons 1937, 1951) primarily is concerned with the functions and roles of actors, not their spatial positions.
A social network (Burt 1992, 2005; White 2002, 2008) primarily is concerned with the structural ties between actors, not the spatial relations between actor and position.
社会的空间视角是一种界于结构性约束（structural constraint ）与个体自主性（individual autonomy）之间的分析进路。如Gorski (2013:328) 所归纳的，布迪厄的场域对于个体行为主体来说既是个“引力场”（force field）也是个“游戏场”（“playing field”）。一方面，行为主体被场域中的权力构型（the configuration of forces）所约束，构型取决于投入资本的分布（the distribution of capitals at play ）和游戏规则（the rules of the game），而这些分布和规则是早先的权力斗争（power-weighted contestations）的结构性传承（structural inheritance）；另一方面，行为主体基于自身的惯习（habitus）（惯习反过来说也是它们结构位置和社会轨迹的产物）也能够利用多种形式的资本来取得场域中不同的位置和地位。场域中关系的首要形式是权力斗争（power struggles），而斗争产生了支配和被支配关系（dominance and subordination），或者说是行为主体之间的分层关系（stratified relations ）。每个场域都有其自身的内在律法（nomos），也就是“根本性的规则”，相对于其他场域的规则是“特定的、不可化约的”。总而言之，若干相对独立的场域共同组成了社会的空间世界。
As Martin (2003) suggests，the concept of field has three meanings: namely, a topological area, an organization of forces, and a battlefield of contestation. Bourdieu’s use of this concept contains all those meanings but emphasizes the third one, which views actors as playing a game according to the rules of the field and sometimes even as creating new rules for an emerging field.
但是，场域理论很显然更靠近客观主义和结构主义。
人类生态学（human ecology）被定义为“研究被选择性、分布性和适应性的环境力量所影响的人类关系的时空性”，它是一个关于社会空间的理论，强调行为主体对社会环境的适应和行为主体之间的生态互动。与场域理论相似，它描述了“一种不如机器或有机体统一，但比由古典自由主义中自主性、原子化的个体或者微观经济学中依概率互动的理性经济人更统一的社会结构”。（“a social structure that is less unified than a machine or an organism, but that is considerably more unified than is a social world made up of the autonomous, atomic beings of classical liberalism or the probabilistically interacting rational actors of microeconomics”）（Abbott 2005b:248）
二、场域与生态的相似之处
1. 强调结构同形性（structural isomorphism）。同形性是人类生态学的一条主要原则，它主张随着生态互动的增加，复杂单元的结构多样性与环境的多样性趋于同形。（It maintains that with increasing ecological interaction, the structural diversity of complex units becomes isomorphic to the diversity of their environments.）在布迪厄的理论词汇中，一个与同形性显著相似的概念是同构性（homology）。
2. 时间的概念上（conceptualizing time）
3. 与相似的社会心理（social psychologies）连通。这些社会心理的核心是驱使行动的相对而言非反思性的性情倾向——也就是惯习的倾向；然而这些社会心理也承认，每当处于进退两难或不确定的情境时，习以为常的思考、感知、感受和行动模式（至少理想状态下）会让位于创造性和反思性的问题解决方式。（These center on relatively unreflective dispositions—habitual tendencies—that drive action; these social psychologies also recognize, however, that whenever perplexing or indeterminate situations arise, taken-for-granted modes of thinking, perceiving, feeling, and acting give way (at least ideally) to creative and reflective problem solving）
三、场域与生态的区别
1. 关于权力和不平等（power and inequality）。
Field theory arguably is an effort to explain inequality in social structures—and power is at the heart of it.For Bourdieu (1993:73), the structure of the field is “a state of the power relations among the agents or institutions engaged in the struggle.” Dominance in the field is based on an actor’s capital and structural position, and often it is achieved through power struggles. The dominated, on the other hand, do not always exhibit submission to their subordinate positions, but they can exert a certain force of active resistance or creative action(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Both dominance and subordination are a manifestation of power relations in the social space.
Ecological theory, in contrast, has few concepts for explaining power and inequality. It assumes that relations between social actors are fundamentally competitive and, consequently, that competitions produce spatial settlements and structural equilibriums in the ecology.
2.关于内生性（endogeneity）。
Bourdieu insists that although every field has its own rules, no field ever can be an entirely endogenous space impervious to external influences. No field is entirely autonomous. Field theory also recognizes the intricate interrelations among fields.
In contrast, the various ecological models the Chicago School sociologists have proposed all share a strong assumption of the endogeneity of social space.
在某种意义上，场域与生态理论的这一差别反映出了法国和美国社会的不同经验条件和国家意识形态：法国社会是等级森严的、富于历史遗产的，而美国社会则是动态的、充满可能性的（至少它自己这样认为）。
3.关于社会空间的异质性（heterogeneity）。大部分社会学里的生态理论模型都是高度同质性的，通常只包括一种类型的行为主体。相比之下，场域理论的异质性使来自不同社会学类别的行动者共存于同一个社会空间。
4.发展理论时所使用的截然不同的隐喻（the distinct metaphors they use in developing theory）。布迪厄：物理学（场域）、经济学（资本）、人类学（象征资本）。生态理论（生物学）
5.关于它们各自研究社会生活的理论进路的抽象化（abstraction）之处。
四、场域与生态的对话
生态理论对社会空间的内生性和同质性有很强的假设。布迪厄的场域理论至少提供了三种修改这些强假设的思路——也包括生态理论在权力关系问题上的立场——以及如何把生态系统变成一个更为灵活的概念。
1.关于社会空间之间的关系（relationship between social spaces）
2.关于社会空间内行为主体的异质性（the heterogeneity of actors in a social space）
3.行为主体之间的权力关系
场域理论在外生性、异质性和权力关系方面为生态理论发展提供了一些良好的可能性。难点在于如何既保留生态系统的竞争性和过程性，同时又缓和对环境驱动力、权力关系和结构复杂性的理论化需求。（ The challenge is how to maintain ecology’s competitive and processual nature while accommodating the demands of theorizing environmental forces, power relations, and structural complexities.）试图将芝加哥学派的人类生态学转化为一种关于支配和不平等的理论是不现实的，因为那在根本上是与其理论倾向不兼容的。即便如此，让生态理论成为一个比其现有版本更开放、更灵活的空间理论进路是完全可能的。
场域理论能从生态理论学到的是：
1.生态理论集中关注互动，而场域理论在一定程度上将自己与这些领域隔绝。
2.生态系统的理论进路在评估人类互动的多变模式时更加微妙（the ecological approach is more subtle when it comes to assessing the wide variability of modes of human interaction）。布迪厄主要强调权力斗争，但是其他互动关系也有潜在的重要性。通过重新审视《艺术的法则》，除了为支配地位进行的权力斗争外，行为主体定义其文化身份的定界、行为主体换取资源和结为联盟的交换、一种艺术形式吸收另一种的同化和许多其他互动过程都需要仔细考察。（Besides power struggles over domination, the boundary work by which actors define their cultural identities, the exchange by which actors trade resources and form alliances, the assimilation by which one art form incorporates another, and many other processes of interaction all need to be examined carefully）
五、结论
In the future, theories of social space, if possible, must find a way to balance between structure and process—and between power and competition.
第一项任务是对社会空间的主要构成部分进行界定。在前文中我们提出了三个基本要件：即行为主体、位置和它们之间的关系。此外的另一个定义特征是关于社会空间与其所处环境之间的边界。每个社会空间都有一套聚拢其行为主体、将该空间与其他空间区分开的定序原则——布迪厄在场域理论中将其称为“律法”。在这一定序原则之下，社会空间内外的行为主体参与不同类型的定界，交换不同形式的资本，以此生产出社会空间内部和彼此之间的空间边界。（The first task is to define the main components of a social space. Earlier in the article, we identified three basic components—namely, actors, positions, and the relations between them. An additional set of defining characteristics has to do with the boundaries between a social space and its environments. Every social space has an ordering principle that binds its actors together and that distinguishes the space from other spaces—what Bourdieu ([1997] 2000:96) terms nomos in his field theory. Under this ordering principle, actors inside and outside the social space engage in various forms of boundary work and exchange different forms of capital, thereby producing the spatial boundaries within and between social spaces (Eyal 2013b; Liu 2015).）
社会空间理论化过程中的第二项任务是发展解释社会空间随时间推移而兴起和转化的一般性理论工具。如前所述，这一时间维度对于建构场域和生态系统都至关重要。社会空间的兴起发生在行为主体和位置相互构建、随时空快速改变彼此关系的具有高度流动性的阶段。诸如竞争性合作之类的生态理论的过程性工具在这一阶段中极为适用，因为它们能很好地捕捉到社会结构形成时互动的动态过程。然而，一旦行为主体在各自的位置安顿好、社会空间的结构构造相对制度化了，支配与服从的模式就可以更好地使用布迪厄的关系性概念进行分析，如惯习、资本和符号权力。（The second task in theorizing social space is to develop generic theoretical instruments for explaining the emergence and transformation of social spaces over time. As we dis cussed, this temporal dimension is central to the constitution of both field and ecology. The emergence of a social space occurs during a highly fluid phase in which actors and positions mutually constitute each other and rapidly change their relations over space and time. The processual tools of ecological theory, such as competitive cooperation, are particularly use ful for this phase because they can well capture the dynamics of interaction in the formation of social structures. As soon as actors have settled into their respective positions and the structural configuration of a social space is relatively institutionalized, however, patterns of dominance and subordination are better analyzed using Bourdieu’s relational concepts, such as habitus, capital, and symbolic power.）
第三项任务是对阿伯特所谓的社会空间的“系统属性”进行分析，如连通性、支配性和残差性（residuality）。一些社会空间较其他更连通、分层、被密集占用。一个全面的空间理论进路要能兼容社会生活的内容和形式——包括结构和互动——以更充分地解释社会空间的拓扑结构和其中的权力动态。（A comprehensive spatial approach would incorporate into the analysis both the contents and forms of social life (Simmel 1950)—and both structure and interaction—in order more fully to explain the topology of the social space and the power dynamics within it.）
