【作者简介】田林楠，苏州大学社会学院

【文章来源】《社会学评论》2025年第3期

【内容提要】社会学与生物学曾长期隔绝。表观遗传学的兴起推动了社会性要素重新进入生物学解释框架。在此背景下，社会科学家提出构建“基于认知神经科学的社会理论”，情感研究领域则借助认知神经科学实现“情动转向”。然而，主流情感社会学仍固守情感源于反思性评估的传统假定，未能充分整合认知神经科学的最新发现。认知神经科学已然对情感社会学构成双重挑战：其一，神经科学证据表明情感具有非意识的自动性特征，与传统认知主义的核心假设相悖；其二，个体主义与整体主义的分析层次难以解释发生在个体意识层面之下的情感过程，需引入“内在个人主义”视角，进一步挖掘集体欢腾和互动仪式链等概念的理论潜力。情感社会学亟须打破学科边界，整合生物学与神经科学成果，优化情感解释模型；同时跨学科对话应保持批判性反思，避免对神经科学发现的简化挪用。

【关键词】情感社会学 / 认知社会学 / 表观遗传学 / 认知神经科学

【全文链接】http://src.ruc.edu.cn/CN/Y2025/V13/I3/74

Moving Beyond the Durkheimian Injunction:Sociology of Emotions in the Social Turn of Biology

Abstract: Sociology and biology have long lived in isolation. The emergence of epigenetics enables social factors to re-enter biological explanatory frameworks. In response to the social turn in biology, social scientists have proposed to construct “social theory as a cognitive neuroscience”, while emotion studies have experienced an“affective turn”facilitated by neuroscientific insights. Nevertheless, the mainstream sociology of emotions remains predominantly anchored in the traditional assumption that emotions stem from reflective appraisal processes, thus inadequately incorporating recent discoveries from cognitive neuroscience. This paper identifies two significant challenges cognitive neuroscience poses to the sociology of emotions.First, neuroscientific evidence highlights the automatic and non-conscious nature of emotional processes, directly challenging the foundational premises of traditional cognitivism. Second, the conventional analytical frameworks of individualism and holism are insufficient for comprehending affective processes occurring below the level of the individual. This limitation necessitates the adoption of an“infra-in⁃dividualist”perspective, thereby unlocking the theoretical potential of concepts such as collective effervescence and interaction ritual chains. Consequently, the sociology of emotions urgently needs to transcend disciplinary boundaries by systematically integrating insights from biology and neuroscience to enhance its explanatory frameworks. Interdisciplinary dialogue must maintain critical reflexivity to prevent simplistic or reductionist appropriation of neuroscientific findings.