著者

向井 敦子 深谷 澄男

出版者

国際基督教大学

雑誌

国際基督教大学学報. I-A, 教育研究 (ISSN:04523318)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, pp.83-125, 1991-03

---

Figure 1 shows singular and plural forms of English personal pronouns and their corresponding present forms of be verb. An inexperienced student of English said there was something unacceptable in the figure. Please look over the figure to guess his question. His question is why the singular form in the second person is identical with the plural, though the singular form in the first and the third person is distinguished from the plural. Another question is why 'Are' is used after 'You' even in the singular form. Shouldn't 'Are' as a be verb follow the plural form of a subject? These questions given by the innocent student have strongly stimulated the authors. If the singular form of 'You' simultaneously implies plurality, who and who are held in the mind of a speaker? Let's suppose the interpersonal situation, where Jack and Betty are in the discourse. When Jack is conscious of himself as a speaker, 'You' for Jack is naturally Betty. When Jack is aware that Betty expresses herself as a speaker, Jack inevitably stands as 'You' for Betty. This implies that the two persons' discourse begins with the complementary consciousness of 'You', and goes on with the recurrent exchnage of 'You'. The use of 'You' is well correspond to the use of Japanese word 'Jibun'. 'Jibun', as well as 'You', has two aspects. In one aspect, 'Jibun' expresses oneself as an actor. And in the other aspect, 'Jibun' realizes oneself as a mediator that makes it possible for the other person to express oneself. When 'Jibun' becomes conscious of expressing oneself as the second person, 'Jibun' gets aware of realizing oneself as the first person. Therefore, 'Jibun' or 'You' can be recognized as a complementary and recurrent unity, which is ready to express oneself in one context, and which is ready to realize oneself in the other context. The singular form of 'You' may reflect the unity of recurrence, and the sense of plurality of 'You' may reflect the complementarity of the two possible aspects. Next, let's take a view of the interpersonal situation, where Betty, Jack, and Tom are in the discourse. Here, the singular form of the second person will be symbolized as 'You', and the plural form as 'You'. When Betty calls herself as 'I', Jack or Tom is 'You', or Jack and Tom are 'YOU'. In the three persons' discourse, 'You' for Betty remains uncertain till Betty decisively points out either Jack or Tom. When Betty chooses Jack as 'You' or 'WE', Tom is inevitably signified as 'not You' or 'THEY' in her mind. From this, 'YOU' can be recognized as a possible state which may divide into 'WE' or 'THEY'. In this sense, 'I' is the first person or a subject, and 'YOU' is the third person or an object. Because 'YOU' judged as 'WE' is subordinate to the subjectiveness of 'I', and 'YOU' judged as 'THEY' is opposed to the subjectiveness. Both subordinates and opponents are not 'You' after all. Then, we can define 'Self' as 'i' who recurrently and complementarily generates from 'You', and 'Ego' as 'I' who subjectively and decisively classifies 'YOU' as subordinates or opponents. In other words, the consciousness of 'You' is a process of self-expression, and the signification of 'YOU' is a processing of ego-realization. These two aspects are also complementarily integrated into 'Jibun'. Hypothesis 1 takes the point of view of a baby in the interaction with its mother, and gives some assumptions on how to realize its 'demanding-ego'. Reversely, hypothesis 2 takes a point of view of a mother in the interaction with her baby, and gives some assumptions on how to express her 'contacting-self'. The demanding-ego illusionary develops its internal subjectiveness in the support of 'You', so that 'I' can dependently occupy the center of its phenomenal world. On the other hand, the contacting-self realistically acquires its external objectiveness for the support of 'You', so that 'i' can dependently share its ecological world. 'I' demands and expects how the world should go on, and so 'I' must be very conscious what might be assimilated by 'YOU' in the reflection. This process is called as feedback' in the figure 4. 'i' contacts and foresees how the world can go on, and so 'i' must investigate what can be accommodated by 'You' in the trial. This process is called as 'feedforward' in the figure 4. 'YOU' demonstrates standards to be accommodated for regulating the demanding-ego. And 'You' illustrates clues to be assimilated for planning the contacting-self. These recurrently on-going processes are integrated and illustrated into a kind of cybernetic system in the figure 4.

著者

深谷 澄男 田宮 葉子

出版者

The Japanese Group Dynamics Association

雑誌

実験社会心理学研究 (ISSN:03877973)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, no.1, pp.25-34, 1971-11-15 (Released:2010-11-26)

参考文献数

23

---

The purpese of the present study is to investigate personality perception in dyadic peer relations from the view point of cognitive consistency theory, the basic principle of which is that there is a tendency toward consistency maintenance within the P-O-X system.According to this theory, Hypotheses 1-a through 1-c were constructed on the basis of relationships between P-O and Assumed similarity, Perceived similarity, Real similarity, and Accuracy, all of which were constructed from the discrepancy scores that existed between and pair among self-image, other-image, and self-image through other. Hypothesis 2 was constructed on the basis of relationships between P-O and the scores of self-image and other-image.The research on the questionnaire was conducted on October 27 and on November 5, 1969. At the first session, each of 96 girls of the first grade of Yokohama Kyoritsu Gakuen Junior High School was required to answer the sociometric test for the purpose of constructing a set of P-O relationships. At the second session, the girls were required to take Self-Differential scale test, developed by Nagashima and his associates (1967), in terms of the following three criteria: 1) the subject's own self-image, 2) the other-image of a friend appointed for her by the experimenter, and 3) an evaluation of the subject's own self-image as rated by the appointed friend.The conclusions derived from the results were as follows:1) When there existed positive interpersonal feelings in a dyadic peer relation, the person perceived the other-image more similar to her own self-image than when there existed negative interpersonal feelings.2) At the same time, when there existed positive interpersonal feelings in the dyadic peer relation, the person gauged her own self-image as perceived by the other, to be more similar to her own self-image than when there existed negative interpersonal feelings.3) The one who had more positive personal feelings in the dyadic peer relation perceived the other-image more similar to her own than in the case of one who had more negative personal feelings.4) A person who had more Positive personal feelings perceived the other-image more similar to the other's own perception than occurred with the case one who had more negative personal feelings.5) Either of the dyads estimated her own self-image as perceived by the other differently from the other's perception when they had mutually divergent personal feelings.6) Self-image does not depend on the interpersonal relations, while the other-image, at least in part, does depend on the personal feelings toward other. This is to say that if personal feelings toward other is negative, the other-image tends to be more negatively perceived than the other's own self-image.

著者

深谷 澄男 向井 敦子 フカヤ スミオ ムカイ アツコ Sumio FUKAYA Atsuko MUKAI

雑誌

国際基督教大学学報. I-A, 教育研究 = Educational Studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.27, pp.129-154, 1985-03-31

---

Suppose here we have a chair, a stool, a bench, and a sofa. When you are very tired, you would take a sofa for making yourself comfortable. A bench would be preferable when you enjoy talking together with your love. These are all made as a seat, but they can also be used for other purposes. For example, a stool is available as a footstool, and a bench, a sofa as well, good for building a barricade, because the weight keeps it from removal. When you want to take a rest after a long walk, you could seat yourself on a stone, a log, or else rolling around there. Neither a stone nor a log is, of course, not a seat in itself, but it serves as a seat when you are seated on it. An English word "Thing" could be translated into Japanese in two ways; either Mono and Koto. Let's take a typical example. "Thing" in the sentence "I haven't had a thing to eat all day" would be Mono in Japanese. On the other hand, "Thing" in the sentence "It is a good thing to give up smoking" would be Koto. Mono is a thing, grammatically speaking, an indication of the subject or the object in a statement. Koto is a thing, an expression of the predicate. A chair, a log as well, is Mono, a material which can materialize itself as a seat only through one's action of taking a seat. This action is Koto. Therefore, the action of taking a seat functionally transforms a chair or a log as a material into a thing which can materialize itself as a seat. In other words, Koto of one's taking a seat acts as a possibility of actualizing oneself, which we define as koto. Under some appropriate requirements, koto has a possibility of being transformed into KOTO as an action to the object. If you are such an infant that you can't be seated by yourself, Koto of taking a seat must remain as a latent, probable action. A stool can be defined as mono, a thing which can be probably transformed into a seat, a footstool, or whatever through some action. When you are seated on a stool, it is defined that the stool is now materializing itself as MONO of a seat. When the stool seems fragile, it must remain as a latent, probable material, because it may not bear the weight of you in spite of the appearance as a seat, which will keep you away from seating yourself. Mediated by Koto, mono can be transformed into MONO, and koto can also be transformed into KOTO by Mono. In this way, there could be theoretically supposed an interactional process between Mono and Koto. If we take a view-point of the subject of self-organizing activity, we could hypothetically analyze out four directions of the interactive actualization. Firstly, when I am doing an action to a thing, mono is being actualized into MONO mediated by Koto. SURU is a Japanese word corresponding to the DOING an action. See Figure 1. Secondly, when my action is becoming in effect, koto is now being actualized into KOTO mediated by Mono. NARU is a Japanese expression of the BECOMING. Thirdly, when I choose a thing to do something with, I am recognizing it as being there. The recognition that a thing, mono, is there is an action of mine, KOTO. BEING of a thing is ARU in Japanese. Fourthly, when I am going to do some action, I am conscious that I am having myself as a subject who is going to act upon a thing. Activity, koto, concentrated on some action leads to the consciousness, MONO, of myself as a behavioral subject. HAVING myself in act upon a thing can be expressed as IRU in Japanese. When I am having myself as a subject, I will be able to do a thing in effect. At the same time, the effectiveness will be fed back to the becoming of my action. The becoming will direct me to recognize a thing as being there. And the recognition of an object will guide me to the subjective consciousness of myself in action. Psychological self-organizing activity could be assumed to actualize itself continuously by way of this feed-backing route, as illustrated in Figure 1. In this paper, some episodes are psychologically examined in order to demonstrate this feed-backing process between Mono and Koto. Through the reconsiderations, first of all, we can also get to the conclusion, as B. Kimura (1982) suggested, that Koto must be superior to Mono so that self-organizing activity could maintain its subjectivity in one's phenomenal world. The second is that the reversal of Koto's superiority to Mono would cause behavioral retardation and subjective reduction or collapse. Needless to say, this conclusion can naturally be led from the first. Thirdly, autonomously waving rythm predominantly generated in one's looping process of feed-back would synchronize others' looping into the self-organizing activity.

著者

向井 敦子 深谷 澄男 ムカイ アツコ フカヤ スミオ Atsuko Mukai Sumio Fukaya

雑誌

国際基督教大学学報. I-A, 教育研究 = Educational Studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.31, pp.127-171, 1989-02-18

---

A sentence consists of Noun Phrase as subject and Verb Phrase as predicate. "Basic English" created by C.K. Ogden has only 16 verbs; be, seem, go, come, have, do, give, get, put, take, keep, let, make, say, see, and send. "Basic English" composed by 850 words restricts itself so rigidly, but it shows its fruitful ability to transform a lot of derivative verbs into these basic verbs. The 16 basic verbs could be classified into four categories as follows: "BE" expresses the presence of subject. "GO" shows the course of subjective events. "DO" is the expression of subjective working toward its object, and "HAVE" contingently relates the object with its subject. This suggests that a statement should be constructed as follows: the work of subject effects the development of events, the course forces the subject to cognize the existence of his object, the opposite introduces the contingent relationships between him and his opponent, and finally he recognizes himself as an agent. This circulating structure of a statement construction led the authors to understand functional recursiveness, which reveals itself whenever we come to know ourselves and others. In this paper, the authors carefully examined some psychological paradigms, so that they could consciously refine their terms one by one not as an entity but as a relational function, and they could circulatingly accumulate their hypotheses about our psychology. Their enthusiastic effort converged upon the figure 1, which schematized the compound and hierarchical system of the recursive function. The authors presented some definitions in order to analyze functionally circulating recursiveness in our psycho-logic structure. First of all, "Mono" was defined as something which is possible to set its position as a subject in a sentence, and "Koto" was defined as some prescription which is possible to complete the sentence as a predicate. When a predicate has some contingency upon a subject, the subject carries some message, and the predicate determines its context. "Mono-ka" was defined as a subjective direction ready to carry some message, and "Koto-ka" was defined as a predicative orientation ready to realize its own context. So that, the first quadrant in the figure 1 was recursively structurized as an on-going process, which transforms possibility into probability. "Mono × Mono-ka" was characterized as "Sure", which means "DO" as stated above. "Koto × Koto-ka" was featurized as "Naru", which corresponds to "GO". "Mono × Koto-ka" was called as "Aru", which shows "BE". And "Koto × Mono-ka" was named as "Iru", which expresses "HAVE". Then, the authors arrived at their theoretical base-line in order to build the compound and hierarchical system of our psychology, which circulatingly proves itself as recursive function of "Suru (DO) × Naru (GO) × Aru (BE) × Iru (HAVE)". Secondly, the authors presented the five definitions on "Psycho-Generative A/B Pattern", which was originally derived from O.S. Wauchope, and was re-examined by H. Yasunaga. Definition 1 of "Complementary A/B Pattern" was charactrized as a producing function of living vitality, which is essential to our psychological life. Definition 2 of "Interactional A × B Pattern" was featurized as a generating function of living field, where we lead our living activities. Definition 3 of "Compound a/b Pattern" was perceived as a confronting function of living task to avoid complexity in our life. Definition 4 of "Hierarchical A/b Pattern" was cognized as an absorbing function of living dilemma by means of showing our self-dominance over the opponents. Definition 5 of "Reverse B/a Pattern" was acknowledged as an intriguing function of double bound reversibility by means of pretending our self-indulgence toward the opponents. The first quadrant in the figure 1, which defines the first recursive context in the circulating course of our living activities, was constructed as the combination of the complementary pattern and the interactional pattern. The second quadrant, which significates our behavioral consciousness oriented toward objects as a metacontext of the first context, was given as the combination of the interactional pattern and the compound pattern. The third quadrant, which differentiates our objective, cognitive propositions as a metacontext of the second context, was presented as the combination of the compound pattern and the hierarchical pattern. The fourth quadrant, which comprehends our subjective, emotional assumptions as a metacontext of the third context, was appreciated as the combination of the hierarchical pattern and the reverse pattern. For the authors, a theory should be a recursive, deductive system of practical hypotheses, and could encourage us to keep ourselves in our own position for guiding "Mutual Assistance". Some reconsiderations based upon the figure 1 have told us that "Mutual Obstruction" will be generated when we can not tolerate our own "Double Bind". We inclind to insist on our subjective dominance over the opponents too strongly only to indulge ourselves emotionally so that we might escape from the psychological dilemma. That's because we, first of all, have to have a lot of sense and courage to fix our eyes on our own psychology, and we have to know with presence of mind what, how, which, and when to occur in ourselves. This will certainly guide us from "Mutual Obstruction" to "Mutual Innovation" through "Mutual Assistance".