“教学过程中教育知识生成的一般组织规则”（伯恩斯坦语）是教育和课程研究中非常重要的理论与实践问题，英国著名教育社会学家巴兹尔·伯恩斯坦的教育社会学理论为认识和分析这一问题提供了极具有启发性的思路。本论文以伯恩斯坦的结构性深层隐喻——“边界”为研究对象，以历史时段为基本划分框架，通过比较伯恩斯坦在不同阶段对待“边界”的方法，尤其关注他与涂尔干理论传统的承袭与发展，说明伯恩斯坦前后期思想的变化和一致之处。同时，本研究紧紧围绕着教育知识生成机制这一核心问题，说明伯恩斯坦如何以涂尔干的知识之“双重社会性假设”为起点，解释教育知识的组织和传递规律。在早年的社会语言符码理论和学校组织研究中，伯恩斯坦借鉴了涂尔干的社会形态学（以《社会分工论》为代表），将象征性边界（如语言、教师角色、学生角色等）类型还原为社会形态类型，研究焦点是决定象征边界的社会关系形式。60年代末，伯恩斯坦逐渐转向了集体表象理论（以《宗教生活的基本形式》为代表），开始关注学校教育中的知识边界，藉由对教育知识边界的性质及其强度的观察，用迂回的方式理解教育活动所包含的社会“集体意识”。80年代，伯恩斯坦借助“再语境化”概念为我们描述了教育知识生成的政治逻辑，即教育知识分类系统中所包含霸权和反霸权关系的互动过程和各个群体互相竞争和对立形式对教育知识边界的作用机制。90年代，伯恩斯坦向我们展示了教育知识生成的认识论逻辑，即教育知识在其集体建构的基础上逐渐建立起来的具有相对客观性的知识生产和再生产的普遍规律，这是教育知识再语境化的前提。 区别于“新”教育社会学、教育再生产理论、抵制理论和批判教育学等，伯恩斯坦没有停留于描述制约教育知识形式的外部社会背景的特征，而聚焦于教育知识本身的结构化原则，从知识内部出发解释教育知识受社会制约的问题。伯恩斯坦试图将教育知识边界所传递的社会权力关系与其内在的教育逻辑区别开来，既承认教育知识在政治生活中展露出来的那种“建构性”，也承认知识脱离于被建构的社会情境的“认识论”属性。伯恩斯坦特别强调，教育知识边界作为自成一类社会现实所具有的相对自主性和创造性，它不只是消极地反映和再制社会边界，还能够反作用于社会边界、重构社会关系。伯恩斯坦的教育知识边界理论为教育研究者和实践者提供了颇具建设性的理论资源，从而探究和设想教育知识生成的不同模式，最终迈向一种理性的课程和教学实践。

This thesis provides a possible solution to the unresolved problem which has been perplexing the sociology of education and curriculum since the early 1970s, that is, the ‘general principles underlying the pedagogizing of knowledge’ (Bernstein, [1996]2000：25). The study sets out to resort to Basil Bernstein, abetted by his Durkheimian tradition, to see how his conceptual tool of the deep structural metaphor of ‘boundary’ explicates the analogical relation between the knowledge boundaries and social boundaries, and thus the structuring process of curricular formations. There are two lines embedded in this thesis. The first one is based upon the temporal frame, by means of comparing Bernstein's treatment of 'boundary' at several different moments. A special focus is given to the relationship between Bernstein and Durkheim's sociological tradition, of which explains the consistence and change of Bernstein's thoughts throughout the career. The other one is closely related to the core question of this thesis -- to clarify how Bernstein's starting point of Durkheimian 'hypothesis of dual sociality' of knowledge contributes to the explanation of the process of pedagogizing knowledge.Bernstein began his sociological research from socio-linguistic code and school organizations, which reduced the symbolic boundaries, such as the speech forms, the roles of teachers and students, to social structure or social context. However, the inadequacy embedded in Durkheim’s morphological sociology (represented in Social Division of Labor) in explaining the specific characteristics of symbolic orders themselves, forced Bernstein to turn his attention to Durkheim’s social theory of collective representatives (represented in the Elementary Forms of Religious Life). It is on this basis that Bernstein, in the late 1960s, shifted his focus to the boundary between knowledge contents as representation of social ‘collective conscience’. In the 1980s, Bernstein studied the political process in the pedagogizing of knowledge, through the concept of 'recontextualization'. It refers to the space whereby interest group compete with and struggle for the control of knowledge transmission, which makes possible the penetration of external power relations into pedagogic practice. In the 1990s, there is a significant shift in Bernstein's account, to the internal properties and structure of knowledge forms themselves. It denotes the 'intrinsic' and objective principles of knowledge pdagogization, which are preconditioned by their collective bases of social construction.Different from the so-called ‘new’ sociology of education, the associated reproduction paradigm, the resistance theories, critical pedagogy theories and social constructivism, the sociological approach developed by Bernstein has its attempt to dissociate the 'inner life' of pedagogizing of knowledge from the external power relations it relays 'relays'. He identifies the extent of power relations shape the relations between types of knowledge and convert them into hierarchies, while not reducing the questions of knowledge to questions of power. Bernstein acknowledges both the social basis of educational knowledge and educational knowledge itself are real, whereby the fact that the educational knowledge is socially constructed does not compromise its epistemological promise. In particular, Bernstein stresses the relative autonomy and transcendence of educational knowledge boundaries as sui generis social facts: the strongly bounded knowledge forms are not only reproducing and representing the social boundaries, but also have their pedagogic potential to challenge the social boundaries. The main message is that the educational researchers and practitioners should take seriously the issue of knowledge boundaries, be it for moral and pedagogic purposes. In sum, Bernstein's theory of educational knowledge boundaries provides a valuable theoretical framework for analyzing current curriculum developments and makes possible the imagination of different modes of knowledge organization in schooling.