社会理论史研究在社会学研究中长期处于边缘地位，原因之一是缺乏一套较为完善的研究框架，导致理论史梳理基本等同于人物或学派介绍。对此，可以从研究对象、写作范式、演变模式和解释方式四个维度出发构建一个初步的研究框架：第一，社会理论史应当以特定社会理论为研究对象，避免观点的堆砌；第二，社会理论史应当依据内涵而非词语本身来考察特定的概念，并注重研究概念体系的演变；第三，社会理论的历史演变呈现六种可能模式，即预支、继承、复苏、改造、遗忘和终结；第四，社会理论史研究在解释方式上应当着重协调解读与解释、内部主义与外部主义、观念与物质之间的关系，提供综合性解释。历史社会学和知识社会学在此方面提供了丰富的理论灵感和研究手段，是社会理论史可以借鉴的学术资源。

社会理论史, 思想史, 社会学, 研究框架, 演变模式, 解释方式

The perennial marginality of the history of social theory in sociology has much to do with the lack of a coherent analytical framework, which has led to the synonymity of the history of social theory with introductions to key figures or schools. From the aspects of the object of study, the mode of writing, the mode of evolution, and the mode of explanation, this article proposes a preliminary framework for studying the history of social theory. First, the history of social theory should treat a particular social theory as its object of study and avoid piling up views. Second, the history of social theory should examine particular concepts based on their meanings rather than words while focusing on the evolution of conceptual systems. Third, the historical evolution of social theory has six potential modes: pre-elaboration, inheritance, revival, transformation, forgetting, and termination. Fourth, withrespect to the mode of explanation, the history of social theory should balance the tensions between interpretation and explanation, between internalism and externalism, and between ideas and materials by providing a synthetic explanation. Historical sociology and the sociology of knowledge can be helpful academic resources for studying the history of social theory as they provide plentiful theoretical inspirations and research tools.

history of social theory, intellectual history, sociology, research framework, mode of evolution, mode of explanation