著者
井口 暁
出版者
京都大学大学院文学研究科社会学研究室
雑誌
京都社会学年報 : KJS = Kyoto journal of sociology
巻号頁・発行日
vol.23, pp.55-74, 2015-12-25

A purpose of this article is to articulate what Niklas Luhmann's political theory attempted by critically reviewing Stefan Lange's Niklas Luhmanns Theorie der Politik: Eine Abklärung der Staatsgesellschaft, 2003. In part 2 of this article, the author examines Lange's evaluation that Luhmann's argument contains normative biases, especially a preference for functional differentiation behind his valuational diagnoses and advice to concrete political practices, and therefore fails his coherent systems theory and "scientific" discussion. The author conversely argues that Luhmann's argument does not deviate from his framework and scientific discussion for the following reasons. First, Luhmann not only evaluates functional differentiation as a form compatible to more massive complexity than others but also he pointed out its negative consequences, such as escalating ecological destruction, alienation of human beings from society, etc. Therefore, he does not normatively prefer functional differentiation. Second, Luhmann's frameworks such as evolutionary theory and that of operational closure are not incompatible to giving valuation and advice but that the latter is embedded in former. On the one hand, his evolutionary theory contains valuational aspects in terms of both the positive function of certain "evolutionary achievement" as problem solving and its negative consequence that may promote further evolutionary processes. On the other hand, the idea of operational closure never excludes giving advice as a form of "structural coupling" between scientific and political systems. Third, Luhmann's valuational diagnoses and advice to political practice does not deviate from Max Weber's argument on "scientific criticism of value judgments." Luhmann analyzes other factual possibilities of political practices and he evaluates the factual function or effectiveness of political practice for such political systems based on an idea of the plurality of "system reference." Furthermore, he examines the question how far certain practice accommodates the given conditions of a political system and is realizable. This "realistic" view in evaluation is compatible to the scientific condition that Weber argued. For these reasons, Luhmann's argument is not deviant from his systems theory and general scientific discussion. The article concludes that Luhmann attempted to construct scientific and practical political theory that can evaluate certain political practices without adopting certain normative evaluation scales.
著者
井口 暁
出版者
社会学研究会
雑誌
ソシオロジ (ISSN:05841380)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.59, no.2, pp.21-38, 2014-10-31 (Released:2019-05-24)
参考文献数
18

A purpose of this paper is to reconstruct an idea of “attribution conflict” in risk sociology implicated by Niklas Luhmann and to clarify its significance in the “Post-Fukushima” era in Japan. First, this paper distinguishes two different aspects of Luhmann’s distinction of danger and risk and clarifies two core perspectives derived from them. On the one hand, “attribution analysis” focuses on under which social conditions attribution of danger becomes valid or is transformed to attribution of risk and vice versa. On the other hand, “analysis of risk evaluation conflict” focuses on how social conflicts over risk evaluation between decision-maker and those affected occur and proceed. Subsequently, it will be pointed out that the idea of attribution conflict as third perspective in Luhmann’s risk sociology remains unclear even in his articles within risk sociology and thus has not been focused in previous studies.Second, this paper attempts to reconstruct the idea by focusing his articles not only in risk sociology but also outside of it. In “Social Systems” (1984), Luhmann discussed more clearly on a situation of attribution conflict derived from attribution error between actor and observer based on social psychological attribution theory. And his general discussion can be transformed into context of risk sociology. As a result of transformation, it will be clarified that attribution conflict over risk and danger can arise from the fact that decision-maker tend to perceive (attribute) its own risk as natural or artificial danger and to impose his responsibility on natural events or others, while those affected sometimes tend to perceive apparently natural danger as its own danger, that is, risk derived from others as decision-maker. Finally, this paper concludes that further development of the theory of attribution conflict becomes more important in the “Post-Fukushima” era. It’s because several actors in Japanese society differently perceive the causes of and responsibilities for Fukushima nuclear disaster (for example, Tsunami, earthquake, human error of electric power company or mistake of Japanese nuclear power policy, etc.), and thus the attribution conflict seems to be caused in Japan in reality.
著者
小和板 仁 平沼 淳史 浅海 祐介 井口 暁洋 高橋 裕司 齊藤 哲也 大久保 圭子
出版者
社団法人 日本理学療法士協会関東甲信越ブロック協議会
雑誌
関東甲信越ブロック理学療法士学会 (ISSN:09169946)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.30, pp.275, 2011

【目的】<BR>片麻痺患者の中には非麻痺側への重心移動に抵抗を示し、立位や歩行、トランスファーが困難な症例を経験することがある。本症例も非麻痺側への重心移動時に抵抗を示した。Pusher現象とは症状が違い、視覚アプローチにより非麻痺側への重心移動に抵抗が軽減した一症例を経験したので報告する。<BR>【方法】<BR>79歳男性。意識レベルE4V5M6/GCS。左視床・頭頂葉など多発脳出血により右片麻痺を呈した。Brunnstrom Stage:V-V-V。表在・深部覚ともに軽度鈍麻。高次脳機能障害として空間認知障害などが見られた。坐位での非麻痺側への重心移動は抵抗がなかったが、立位では抵抗が見られた。本症例は坐位・立位において正中位にても左に傾いていると自覚症状があった。視覚・空間認知の評価に対して指鼻指試験及び閉眼立位保持(以下閉眼)、開眼立位は2つの方法(以下開眼鏡なし、開眼鏡あり)にて各条件において体重計を用い左に荷重してくださいと促した時の左下肢荷重量を測定した。また立位にて恐怖感があることから、上記の各条件下での恐怖感をNumerical Rating Scale(以下NRS)にて10段階で評価した。さらに網本らの使うPusher重症度分類を参考にした。<BR>【結果】<BR>Pusher重症度分類0点。指鼻指試験陰性。体重55kg、静止立位での左下肢荷重量30kg、閉眼での荷重量35kg、開眼鏡なしでの荷重量38kg、開眼鏡ありでの荷重量42kg。NRSにて閉眼7/10、開眼鏡なし6/10、開眼鏡あり5/10であった。<BR>【考察】<BR>本症例は左視床・頭頂葉出血により右片麻痺、高次脳機能障害を呈しADL能力の低下を認めた。視床・頭頂葉は上下肢からの情報や前庭からの情報などを統合して空間的に姿勢を保持するための機能があると言われている。結果より本症例は視覚認知は保たれていると思われる。坐位・立位にて正中位でも左に傾いているとのことから、姿勢空間認知に障害があり、非麻痺側への重心移動で抵抗を示したと思われる。諸家の報告ではPusher現象は同部位の障害で出現することがあると報告があるが、本症例ではPusher現象は見られない。Pusher現象を有する症例のアプローチとして視覚アプローチがあるが、症例の中には視覚により症状を増強させるという報告がある。本症例に鏡を使用したところ、結果から視覚アプローチが有効であったと思われる。これは鏡を使うことで姿勢を視覚的に捉えやすくなり、フィードバック機構が働いたためではないかと考え、本症例には視覚アプローチが有効であったと思われる。