著者

濱西 栄司

出版者

京都大学

雑誌

京都社会学年報 : KJS

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, pp.59-74, 2006-12

---

This paper aims at developing a methodological framework for ordering the various kinds of social movement studies. First, it outlines the present condition of social movement studies. From the early 1980s, there has been a radical theoretical conflict. To illustrate, the International Sociological Association (ISA) now has two research committees on Social Movements, the definitions and orientations of each corresponding to either of the two poles of this theoretical opposition. Furthermore, this paper also points out the significance of Hiroshi Ohata's methodological examination in explaining and interpreting social movements and the problems concerning the standpoint of Ohata. In Ohata's scientific methodological framework, approaches that do not make a distinction between scientific and non-scientific activities are excluded. Second, I discuss ethnomethodology, constructionism and the analytic-bracketing method, since all these three approaches avoid the rigid distinction between scientific and non-scientific activities without making epistemological "folding-backs". By putting a distinctive emphasis on the production and accountability of phenomena of order, one can distinguish ethnomethodological studies from classic studies. Constructionist approaches to social problems focus on the claim-making activities of individuals or groups about putative conditions. The analytic-bracketing approach addresses the whats (from contructionism) and hows (from ethnomethodology) alternately in order to assemble a more complete picture of social activities. Third, I touch upon the concrete forms of social movement studies following these three approaches above, as well as the relations between them and the conventional social movement studies. Finally, I attempt to build a more comprehensive framework that could unify all these three approaches and scientific methodological approaches.