著者

西山 美瑳子

出版者

The Japan Sociological Society

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.3, pp.2-23,140, 1956-02-29 (Released:2009-11-11)

---

Sociometry, being a scientific branch of relatively recent development, employs an experimental method quite original in itself and which has never been seen in the field of social sciences. And I am confident that the method will give in the future a benificient influence and suggestion to other methodological maneuvor of social sciences in general. In sociometry, an experiment is understood as a method par excellence and not as a mere technique. It should be noticed that sociometry aims at modelling a novel type of experimental method, considering it as a modus vivendi of methodology in social sciences rather than as a simple remodelling from experimental operations of natural science, and thus at opening a new experimental possibility for amelioration of human group. There remains, however, a problem on sociometric results. Although sociometry, by its practicability and productivity, is confident and optimistic enough to be able to create a better community, the group therapy and the adjustment of human relations actually operated by sociometry are, after all considerations, frankly to de criticized as superficial and ineffective. Such deplorable circumstance comes from the fact that sociometry arbitrarily treats its sociometric interpersonal and intergroup relations derived through individual observation as the basis of all social phenomena, so that it can not deal with the relation of global society versus individual, and also from the fact that operations of sociometry is restricted by its own narrowness of purpose. From this point of view, there are inevitably some limits in utilizing the results of sociometry. Thus the sphere where the sociometry's therapy can most effectively be practised are only those groups with homogenized social background. Nevertheless, such limitation of the product of sociometry does not obscure to the importance and value of the essential experimental method of sociometry. Its positive intention and practicability to operate and adjust human relations as well as its scientific attitude in the capacity of a science concerning human action to establish a method of experiment in substatial and unified conbination between the subject and the object will surely furnish a new problem and hope to the methodology of social sciences in general. And the science that strives to operate and control social human relations based upon such methodological consciousness can not fail to accumulate a lasting merit in its method and technique inspite of its historical restriction of the age.

著者

西山 美瑳子

出版者

The Japan Sociological Society

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.4, pp.33-49,119, 1968-03-01 (Released:2009-11-11)

---

Many group techniques are used in attitude change, conversion, and thought reform. In attitude change, group discussion, organizational change, sensibility training group, role playing, psychodrama, sociodrama, and group psychotherapy used. As for conversion, we will take up as example the case of Sokagakkai, a sect of Buddism in Japan. The ardent believers combine in small groups on the first front line in the conversing campaign of the religious organization. In thought reform or “Culture Revolution” of the Red China, various forms of group techniques are found : such as learning movement, thought reform, rectification movement, etc. We can point out that these methods have affinities and differentials with each other. As for affinities on each side, small group method is used to bring up an attitude and behavior change. The mechanism of attitude change in group, which works on these fields, tends to enlarge ego-involvement of group members. Consequently, group members become to comformity to the norm, of the membership group, or the change of the norm of membership group accompany with the attitude and behavior change of group members. As for differentials, we will try to compare between the group techniques of the behavior sciences and those used in the Red China. The differentials may be summarised as follows : (1) The former aims at a partial change of an attitude or behavior, or one's modus operandi so to speak, whereas the latter is marked with the reform of ideology, or modus vivendi of one's whole existence. (2) Although both of them have orientation to the support of their social system, the former's direct interest is almost purely limited to the practice of democracy on group dimension, while the latter's ideal is the realization of democracy in the group for the revolution of the nation wide social dimension. (3) Accordingly, the former aims at “the making spontaneity and creativity” in the culture as a common donominator. In the latter, the cause of mistakes, (wrong deeds), done in the past should be abolished and people should be awakend by class consciousness, the people's real “independence making up.”(4) In the latter, the people takes a part of the propelling power and the source of energy of the revolution comes from the people of pre-lower socio-economic status, e.g., the poorer and lower middle class peasants, and proletarian workers. They expect the security of mind and the rise of their social status by the reform of the social consciousness and group organization. But in the former, the security of mind is only hoped for, and not immediately aimed at. (5) From the standpoint of the typology of groups, the groups in the former are generally temporary or functional ones. In the latter, the groups are the basic and primary units of the whole society, and are characterized by the production and daily life.