本文討論三種建立本土一般社會理論的嘗試：葉啟政的知識社會學批判與內省修養行動、林文源的漂移實作本體論與位移行動理論，以及謝國雄的「結構力量－呈現樣態－中介行動」大迴路。這些理論化都立足於對結構與行動二元論的批判，並採取偏向行動之自主性或積極中介作用的立場，拋棄靜態僵化的結構概念。結構概念若非遭致取消，就是轉化為多層次、變動、過程與關係，或是受到行動中介的產物等，偏向於建構論或非實體化觀點。本文則從批判實在論立場，主張過度偏袒行動、將結構非實體化，以及消弭結構與行動的二分，可能忽略了結構的慣性、內在變遷或因果力量，造成結構的低度理論化；或者，在強調行動與結構的連續性及難以二分之際，反而將行動納入尚未釐清的結構中。因此，批判實在論的結構與行動雙元實體觀，仍是值得參照的另一條理論化方向。

The author discusses three attempts at establishing a general social theory: Chi-Jeng Yeh's cultivated introspection based on knowledge sociology, Wen-yuan Lin's drift ontology and displacement action, and Gwo-Shyong Shieh's great circuit model. All three are based on critiques of structure-agency dualism. Each researcher has adopted a position prone to agency autonomy and active mediation, while abandoning the ossified structure concept. They describe structure in terms of multi-layered and dynamic processes and relationships. In contrast, I use a critical realist perspective to argue that excessive preference for action and a non-substantive structural concept, as well as the elimination of structure-agency dualism, might result in overlooking inertia and the latent force of a structure, thus leading to structure under-theorization. Accordingly, a dualistic structureagency perspective of critical realism still offers a viable alternative.