重返「本土契合性」論辯：默會之知的實踐智慧

The Indigenous Compatibility Debate and the Role of Tacit Knowledge as Practical Wisdom

10.6254/IPRCS.202106_(55).0001

李宛霖(Wan-Lin Lee)

互為主體性 ； 本土契合性 ； 實踐智慧 ； 默會之知 ； indigenous compatibility ； inter-subjectivity ； practical wisdom ； tacit knowledge

本土心理學研究

55期（2021 / 06 / 01）

3 - 33

繁體中文

楊國樞先生對本土心理學的終極關懷，是避免西方心理學的直接移植，並思考如何讓本土心理學知識的生產能夠鑲嵌在人與社會文化的辯證互動之中。因此，本土契合性是楊先生畢生關注的重要論理。本文透過重新閱讀楊國樞先生於1997年發表於《本土心理學研究》的靶子論文，以及七位學者回應的論辯文章，重新思考在超過二十年後的今天，台灣的心理學者可以如何思考本土契合性的議題，以生產台灣在地的心理學知識。透過爬梳本土契合性的相關文本，筆者認為本土契合性的論理內涵，是研究者善用文化默會之知的實踐技藝，並以同情同理的修養作為，與研究對象達到一種互為主體性的意義共構，將尚未被說出的台灣本土心理經驗現象，用他者的語言恰當地說出。因此，心理學研究活動不僅限於理性的智性思辨，未來本土心理學持續思索的方向，需包含深刻人文涵養與對在地文化的同理關懷。

According to K. S. Yang, the core concern of indigenous psychology is to examine psychological phenomenon in its native context. Only in this way can indigenous knowledge be generated. It cannot be transported or adapted from other regions, such as American psychology. According to Yang, in order to achieve indigenous compatibility (IC) the researcher's theory, concepts, methods, tools, and findings must reflect the local psychological or behavioral phenomenon in its local context. IC was introduced more than 20 years ago. It was a revolutionary idea in the 1990s that promoted the development of indigenous psychology in Taiwan. However, indigenous researchers have criticized IC as an over analyzed concept that is mired in etic-emic issues. In this article, I revisit the concept of IC by reviewing Yang’s initial 1997 article and the 7 related response papers published in an issue of Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies. The 1997 debate focused on the definition of and appropriate methodology for IC; it overlooked the theoretical nature and fundamental aim of IC. I began my analysis by re-examining the theoretical background of IC. Yang integrated cultural ecology and interactionism in his viewpoint. Cultural ecology is an anthropological approach seeking to explain the origin of particular cultural features and patterns by extracting common elements, which are called cultural cores. Interactionism is a psychological approach to explain how the interaction between personality traits and situations influences psychological reactions. Yang integrated these approaches for two reasons: to develop general psychological theories from indigenous studies, and to emphasize the psychological mechanism underlying individual-context interaction. Yang highlighted two factors that greatly support IC. One of them is parallel to Polanyi's (1958) concept of tacit knowledge, which emphasizes the native researcher's use of self-reflection to understand personal psychological and behavioral characteristics and functioning. Tacit knowledge can be manifested through a researcher's own experiences and observations over time with intensive introspection. Researchers who emphasize tacit knowledge can attain better IC because they already have their own understanding of the local context. They have psychological and behavioral characteristics similar to those whom they study. I propose that tacit knowledge is not a technical term but a practical wisdom that indigenous psychologists can enact implicitly at every stage of research. When we immerse ourselves in a research topic, collect data, and propose theoretical arguments, we can constantly reflect on our own embodiment of our culture and in so doing we can improve the IC of our studies. I conclude the article with two research examples, one quantitative and the other qualitative, to illustrate how a successful researcher uses tacit knowledge to achieve IC. In sum, my review highlighted tacit knowledge as the missing piece of the 1997 discussion. It is the core spirit of IC. Focusing on tacit knowledge resolves the methodological debate because it is compatible with both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. I conceptualized tacit knowledge as a practical wisdom rather than as a list of standards to judge the quality of an indigenous study. That is, I took the concept of tacit knowledge from its original context and applied it to IC. This strangification allows the constant practice of IC as a movement toward others and makes it possible to achieve inter-subjectivity with research participants.

1. Yee、 D. H.,Lee, W. L.,Peng, R. B.,Shih, S. M.(2007).An inquiry into the cultus of living and dying of Chinese people.Tzu-Chi University Journal of the Humanities and Social Science,6,1-34.
   連結：
2. 余德慧,余安邦,李維倫(2010)。人文臨床學的探究。哲學與文化，37(1)，63-84。
   連結：
3. 宋文里(2006)。第三路數之必要：從本土主義轉向文化論的心理學。應用心理研究，31，75-92。
   連結：
4. 李維倫(2017)。華人本土心理學的文化主體策略。本土心理學研究，47，3-79。
   連結：
5. 李維倫,林耀盛(2019)。從文化心理學到人文臨床心理學：臨床心理學本土化論述與踐行。本土心理學研究，51，89-167。
   連結：
6. 李維倫,林耀盛,余德慧(2007)。文化的生成性與個人的生成性：一個非實體化的文化心理學論述。應用心理研究，34，145-194。
   連結：
7. 林瑋芳,林以正,黃金蘭(2019)。多元價值的區隔與整合與心理適應之關聯。本土心理學研究，51，231-275。
   連結：
8. 林耀盛,高舒(2019)。寓居於「家」：由關係脈絡探究癌症喪親者的悲悼心思及其流變。中華心理衛生學刊，32(3)，329-354。
   連結：
9. 楊國樞(2004)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究：社會取向與個人取向的觀點。本土心理學研究，22，11-80。
   連結：
10. Ebbinghaus, H.(1973).Psychology: An elementary textbook.New York:Arno Press.
11. Ekehammar, B.(1974).Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective.Psychological Bulletin,81(12),1026-1048.
12. Endler, N. S.,Edwards, J. M.(1986).Interactionism in personality in the twentieth century.Personality and Individual Differences,7(3),379-384.
13. Granovetter, M.(1985).Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology,91,481-510.
14. Heidegger, M.(1967).Sein und Zeit.Tubingen, Germany:Niemeyer.
15. Husserl, E.(1970).The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.
16. Polanyi, M.(1958).Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
17. Rotter, J. B.(1954).Social learning and clinical psychology.New York:Johnson Reprint Corporation.
18. Showers, C. J.(1992).Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62(6),1036-1049.
19. Shute, C.(1973).Aristotle’s interactionism and its transformations by some 20th century writers.The Psychological Record,23(3),283-293.
20. Steward, J. H.(2006).The concept and method of cultural ecology.The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture and Sustainable Living,1(1),5-9.
21. 朱清華(2009).回到原初的生存現象.北京:首都師範大學出版社.
22. 余德慧(1997)。凸顯己意，六經皆為我文註腳。本土心理學研究，8，141-152。
23. 李維倫(1995)。本土心理學必須超越「心理實體論」。本土心理學研究，4，367-379。
24. 沈清松(1997)。復全之道──意義，溝通與生命實踐。哲學與文化，24(8)，725-737。
25. 汪文聖(2014)。從古希臘的「技藝」概念重新對護理倫理的反思。護理雜誌，61(5)，13-18。
26. 林志成（譯）,劉藍玉（譯）,Snow, C. P.(2000).兩種文化.台北:貓頭鷹出版社.
27. 梁覺,吳培冠(1997)。本土心理學的國際化。本土心理學研究，8，173-180。
28. 彭榮邦（2015）：〈歷史作為一種敘事：誰的心理學？為何如此歷史？〉。取自 http://guavanthropology.tw/article/6461。
29. 黃光國(1997)。本土契合性：學術研究的方向或學術研究的判準。本土心理學研究，8，159-171。
30. 黃應貴(1997)。從人類學的立場看心理學本土化與本土契合性。本土心理學研究，8，181-186。
31. 楊中芳(1997)。需要這樣細分嗎？。本土心理學研究，8，153-158。
32. 楊國樞(1993)。我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學？。本土心理學研究，1，6-88。
33. 楊國樞(1997)。心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題。本土心理學研究，8，75-120。
34. 楊國樞(2005)。本土心理學的意義與發展。華人本土心理學，台北:
35. 葉啟政(1997)。「本土契合性」的另類思考。本土心理學研究，8，121-139。
36. 葛魯嘉(1997)。心理學研究本土化的立足點。本土心理學研究，8，187-196。
37. 嚴平（譯）,Palmer, R. E.(1992).詮釋學.台北:桂冠圖書公司.