本文從下列三項關鍵議題探討如何達成不同層次的學術主體性，以回應黃光國教授在靶子論文中的觀點：(1)長期辯論作為發現學術真理的真正途徑、(2)如何對他人理論觀點達成有效的相互理解、(3)提升華人本土心理學(或本土社會科學)主體性的重要脈絡成因。整體而言，透過不同文化社會背景學者針對特定專業知識主題進行長期辯論，或許是達成雙方建立知識主體性的可行方法之一，但此管道並不是達成互為主體的理解之充分條件。個別學者若在研究過程中，能對自己所使用或所建構之知識時時保持自我省思，關注這些知識的缺點或不足之處，並在這些知識理論觀點的基礎上持續進行改良、創新與整合，則已具備個人層次的學術主體性，且為異文化學者間互為主體的理解提供機會。至於探討某學術社群的主體性議題時，其所牽涉到的面向恐怕要複雜許多，不單單只是透過喚起該社群所屬學者自身的主體性意識即可解決問題，而必須同時從該社群內部的學術審查、評估及獎勵制度等根本問題改革起。

In this commentary, I will discuss how to achieve the Chinese academic subjectivity at both individual and collective levels in following three points. (1) Long-term debate on a specific issue between scholars from different cultures would pave the way for mutual understanding, but still not sufficient for intersubjective understanding. (2) Persistent self-reflection of researchers from any culture on their own knowledge acquisition and production contributes to their intersubjective understanding and sharing of each other’s perspectives and academic achievements. (3) However, when the issue shifts from the cross-cultural subjectivity of individual scholars to their corresponding research communities, the problem would be more complicated. Some structural or institutional reforms within the specific discipline (such as the reforms of national academic evaluation and reward system) might link to the cross-cultural subjectivities of academic communities more directly, rather than only arousing scholars’ personal consciousness of cultural subjectivity.