本文旨在以Bourdieu的場域理論分析人文社會學門在臺灣學術場域中的關係地位，揭露人文社會學術發展的現實與困境，並試圖指出在這種局勢下，人文社會學者行動力可能的作用所在分析顯示，在全球的學術場域中，臺灣一直處於邊陲或半邊陲的地位，人文社會學門更是處於邊陲或半邊陲場域中的邊陲位置，加上臺灣大學教師長期對美國和西方學術的依賴，人文社會學者往往具有明顯的邊陲性格。更由於臺灣大學教師人數急速增加，文化或社會資本的分散，缺乏累積「科學權力及社會聲望」的條件，使他們只能選擇以累積「學術權力」為目標。如今，大學教師越來越像國家的高級公務員，逐漸養成「等因奉此」的生存心態，對大學場域的權威有著類似公務員，甚至軍人的絕對忠誠。在國家的「計畫性知識」的規劃下，大學教師逐漸變成學術生產線的小包工，成為國家競爭力生產大隊的一員。這對原本具有「抽離」和批判傳統性格的人文社會學者產生嚴重的學術扞格，也陷入生命的弔詭和生存的困境。本文指出為了避免淪為製造論文的機器，使學術生產與學術價值產生分離，人文社會學者唯一的「救贖」是用身體的實踐而非口語文字的論辯。他們必須拋開合法學術制度的委託和權力賦與，努力提升自己的「文化層級」，以知識份子的身份參加生產的行列。首先，人文社會學者應先以解構國內SSCI化、TSSCI化的層級性為目標，讓臺灣學術期刊多元性的發展；其次，必須讓自己的學術生產直接面對自己的讀者－廣大的社會大眾，以專書或網路書寫的方式，重建系統研究的專書價值；最後，本文建議人文社會學者若以學術自主性出發，面對SSCI化的評鑑制度，必須採取身體力行的策略，在任何人文社會學術評等裡，如大學評鑑、教師升等或獎勵，以共識或默契的方式，採取非SSCI化的評審理念，打破量化的迷思，讓真正有品質的學術生產獲得應有的回饋，這才是真正釜底抽薪的辦法。

Adopting Bourdieu's perspective on field and habitus, this paper examines the relational positions of the social sciences and humanities in Taiwanese academic field and tries to put forward some possibilities of their agencies under these circumstances. The relevant evidences show that, in the global academic field, Taiwan has been marginal or on the marginal section of semi-marginal status. In addition, owing to Taiwanese university teachers' long-term dependence on the academic knowledge of American and Western core countries, academic activities among Taiwanese scholars in the social sciences and humanities tend to be marginal. Furthermore, with the rapid growth of the number of Taiwanese university teachers, the scattering of "ultural or social capital" and a lack of the capacity to accumulate the scientific power and social reputation, they can only choose to pile up the "cademic power". Nowadays university teachers in Taiwan are getting more and more like high-rank official, gradually forming the law-abiding habitus and holding the public officials or even the soldiers absolute royalty to the authority of academic field. In the schema of "lanned knowledge" of the country, university teachers are gradually becoming labor contractors of the academic production line, devoting themselves to the creation of national competition. These factors result in severe academic contradictions among scholars in the social sciences and humanities, who used to be characterized by critical thinking, landing them in paradoxes and dilemmas in their lives. This article argues that, to avoid becoming the machines of papers producing, the only way to the "edemption" of scholars in the social sciences and humanities would be to put into practice what they preach by bodies rather than to debate orally. They have to throw out the commission and power bestowed by the legitimate academic institution, take efforts to upgrade their own "ultural hierarchy" and to join the teams of academic production as the roles of intellectuals. First of all, scholars of the social sciences and humanities ought to aim at deconstructing the hegemonic hierarchy of SSCI and TSSCI in Taiwan, making the diverse development of Taiwanese academic journals possible. Secondly, their academic products have to face their readers the extensive audience in societies by publishing books or publishing on the internet. In doing so, the value of books will be re-established. Finally, this paper suggest that if scholars in the social sciences and humanities would like to claim their autonomy, why not just comply the so-called SSCI evaluation system, such as university evaluation, teachers promotion or academic reward, in public but oppose it in private. They could adopt the non-SSCI evolution criteria, either explicitly or implicitly, to break up the myths of putting emphasis only on the number of publications. It would be the fundamental way to let the real high-standard academic productions stand out and get the well deserved feedback.