本文嘗試釐清長久以來有關臺灣社會理論生成的問題與可能性。社會學或社會理論的本土化爭議一直是學術界關注的議題。儘管尚未獲得顯著的成果，但有許多研究者長期思考相關的問題，並且提出可能的看法與分析。「社會學」或「社會理論」已是西方思想與文化發展的產物，如何能生成臺灣觀點的「社會學式」思考至今還是一個未解的爭議。本文的主要觀點是，「本土化」或者是對西方理論應用於東方社會現象之討論，關注的應是主體性能動的建立與養成。一旦該特質運作為自我生產之系統，並且持續透過反身性與自我觀察的運作，那麼對於上述問題的討論或許才能跳脫既有的思維模式，尋求創新與創造的可能性。本文將以葛芬柯的俗民方法學研究與德國社會學家魯曼所開展的社會系統理論觀點作為出發點，對「本土化」進行觀察。然而，「觀察」並非借用，「觀察」意指的不過是一種「選擇」、一種「區別」，以及一種「溝通」的可能性。這樣的觀察將有助於我們對「本土化」、「西方／東方」等概念進行深刻且另種的思考。

This article investigates the emergence of social theory indigenized in Taiwan. Roughly, the argument base itself on two foundations: A micro foundation of social theory presented by ethnomethodology on the one hand and a macro one of social systems theory on the other. It will be argued that philosophical decisions made on the indigenization of social theory to interpret the social phenomena of a specific society will result in different sociological implications. This will be demonstrated by re-examining the notion of reflectivity adopted by Harold Garfinkel and Niklas Luhmann. The analysis of their thoughts will be settled in the context of the long-lasting debates about the emergence of indigenized social theory in Taiwan. Following this, it will suggest that both theoretical approaches develop respectively the concept of reflexivity that renders self-production and self-observation of the indigenization of social theory possible. It will be demonstrated further by the examples adopted from certain classical Chinese literatures for the purpose that it could contribute to our understanding of the genesis of indigenous social theory in Taiwan.